.... do you not comprehend the wild swing that a 4c global temp increase would cause in global climate, or that CO2 levels will CONTINUE to rise during that time, unless we alter our behavior, and will continue to rise afterwards?
It won't "stop at 4c". It will go PASSED 4C, and get hotter each decade.
In 200 years, the earth will be a fucking sauna. But what do you care? You'll be dead by then!
While I haven't been saving for retirement like I should, I have no problems with the mortgage. I have been unable to save for retirement, because every creditor and insurance company on the planet has been hiking rates for my demographic like I am made out of 100$ bills. (No seriously. I make about 30k a year, and live fairly comfortably, and cyclically manage to save up around 2 to 3k each year, only to have it vaccumed up by homeowners insurace (1.5k), and property taxes(500$).)
I MIGHT be able to finally start saving for my retirement after I have paid off the mortgage, which should be sometime next year.
I have no problems seeing where the future is headed, and would eagerly prepare for it if the shortsighted people around me beholden to their precious quarterly reports would wake up and smell the ashes already.
When the mortgage is paid, I will look for a less brutal insurer, and use the monthy difference to improve my retirement prospects, and reduce my environmental impact. That's the plan anyway. Assuming Uncy Sam doesn't decide that he needs to raise my taxes.
Waste is nothing more than an untapped resource stream. The light fractions burned off at refineries for instance. Instead of burning it off at the stack, pipe it under low pressure to a power plant made to run on methane and natural gas.
Municipal waste is a veritable gold mine for rare earths in reasonably pure form, as well as other heavy yet valuable metals. (Like mercury.) Not to mention as a source of refinable plastic.
Sewerage is a few stones throws away from being usable like brown coal or peat in power plants.
Granted, pretty much all of those release carbon. No contest. The deal is though, that those are potentially new industries that could provide the needed waste management services for a cleaner environment overall. (Babysteps)
Seriously looking into alternatives to combustion for power generation, or at the least, adopting carbon neutral economies, would go a very long way as well.
The issue you seem to have, is that you appear to be butthurt that "purpetual growth" would be laughed at, and your idea of prosperity requires infinite resources from the environment to attain, and such restrictions would put the kabosh on that hard.
If the choice is between having an iDevice and cheap transportation, and having a world outside that I don't need an environment suit to survive in, I will take the latter one.
"Look at all the skeptical scientists (that we retained as hied shills)! CLEARLY our side of the debate has won! (Nevermind that the basis of the global climate change scenario is firmly rooted in uncontested scientific principles and repeatedly documented characteristics of carbon dioxide, water vapor, and methane gasses. We assert that because humans are magical, that humans can release all of those gasses that they want, and NEVER release enough into the atmosphere to upset anything at all! Sure, we are releasing it faster than nature can re-sequester it, and the effects are sustained and cumulative, but damnit, a volcanic eruption spews out more "greenhouse gasses" in a few hours than mankind does in a year! Nevermind that volcanic eruptions are not a constant and growing emission source like human activities; and therefor our comparison is lopsided and specious-- don't think too much about that, it's our story, and we're sticking to it! No, those aren't the icebergs you are looking for! Move along!)
Admittedly, that *is* a rather shameless strawman I just thrashed, but the likeness of that scarecrow to the real thing was alarming.
Seriously, is this woman simply delusional, or does shw think she can bribe the weather when shit comes apart at the seams?
Good luck with that, when pork rind dust is literally wafting on the breeze, and gets in your nose and mouth. You would have to wear a heavy duty particle mask to avoid eating any.
I mean, I can't imagine how they would structure a slots "game" around the main plot.... the one ring is not a good thing, afterall. What would you use as a bonus token, and how would you structure the reel scoring?
'Mines of moria" would make more sense for a slot, if more obscure.
No. No "fucking money." They haven't authorized any lord of the rings cockrings yet, though the slogan "one ring to rule them all" would be delightfully appropos.
Wher I say it was wrong to fight back? That is 180 degrees off course from my prior postings.
My position was that initiating war, and escallating aggression are vile acts. Defending yourself with a defensive army, and defensive ordinance is simply prudent.
Saddam: surrender kuait! I have testosterone fueled ambitions of rebuilding the persian empire, and that means I need your lands. Give up, or I will destroy you. Kuait: go fuck yourself with a cactus. Saddam: an unwise decision, friend. Kuait (addressing world):a little he'll here? USA: would you like some extra muscle on your border? Kuait: Yes please!
Guess what? We were ASKED to go there. We went to kuait. I don't have a problem with that. It was a defensive deployment.
What we did in afghanistan was NOT a defensive deployment. What we did in Iraq a decade after desert storm was not a defensive deployment.
The soldier suffers psychological harm from following those orders, and sometimes even refuses to follow them, if they inhuman enough.
So, if we disobey unlawful orders then we are inhuman? Hey Francis, calm down and think.
No, wiseass. "They" in that sentence referred to the orders, not the soldiers. Calm down and think? Sure. Let's do that. When reading that sentence, there are two ways to interpret it. As a nonsensical statement that does not follow in context with my previous message, (implies the soldiers are inhuman for not following orders), or that the way I just addressed. (The soldiers disobey they orders, because the orders are inhuman.) If you had followed your own advice, you would have applied some rational thought to your reply, and not jumped the shark so. But no. That isn't what you did. Instead, you spun a strawman that better fit your opinion of me, and presumed that I intended the internally conflicted and assinine interpretation of that sentence, because I am cleary too stupid to see how it is self contradictory with my previous position.
You did that because it was easier for you to attack WITHOUT thinking.
Defensive armies. Not offensive ones. Defensive technologies. Not offensive ones.
You are right, pacifisim only works when everyone is passive. Existing without defenses makes it very very profitable to be an invader.
I don't suggest disbanding the military. I suggest not deploying it all over the world, and subjugating every 3rd world country with coal, oil, natural gas, and rare earth metals we can station a military base in, then shooting everything that moves with an autonomous drone from behind a desk.
We have a problem with war, because we have a problem with believing we can (and should!) Force other people to do what we want them to do against their will.
It is the same crime as with rape, and with slavery. I have the biggest gun, do what I say!
The ONLY time to take up arms is when an aggressor comes to visit YOU. You should NEVER take up arms against another to conquor. Your failing economy is not justification. Your need for cheap energy is not justification. Your fucking god is not justification. Proving your dick is bigger is not justification.
There should only be defensive armies. Drones are not a defensive tool. They should not exist.
There shouldn't be anyone making that decision. At all.
Making that decision easier, by having a machine do it, to alleviate the guilt of a human operator, and his chain of command, is the WRONG direction.
Want to know where it ends?the creation of things like "perfect" WMDs. Kills all the people, spares everything else. Push the button, war is over. A whole society dies, and the one pushing the button loses nothing. What possible reason would that society have to NOT simply push that button whenever it didn't get what it wanted, or to theaten to push it when it didt get its way?
THAT is the danger of abstracted warfare. It makes the decision to go to war easier. It makes ware a more desirable option.
I support 'war isn't a real option, it's an outcome of aggression. It should never BE CHOSEN.'
So, no. I don't support drones, and I don't support soldiers.
Indeed. Humans NEVER accept that the answer is so simple.
Don't resort to war. If your cause requires forcing somebody else at gunpoint to comply, it isn't just, it isn't honorable, and it cannot be justified. So, just don't do it.
But no. Human kind is OBCESSED it making other people OBEY, even if it kills everyone else.
War is to be avoided, because nothing about it is good, just, nor honorable. War scars the minds of those who engage in it, live through it, or even witness it first hand. The damage and price of war is more than just soldiers killed and buildings blown up. It is the destruction of people's lives, in every imaginable sense. Surviving a war might be less humane than dieing in it.
The point was that by removing the consequences of war, (soldiers becoming bloodthirsty psychos that rape, kill, torture, and lose respect for the lives of others, all others-- in addition to simply having people die, and having economic and environmental catatrophes on your hands), you make war look more and more desirable as an option.
What I was trying to get you to see, is that war is always a bad thing, and trying to mae it seem like less of a bad thing is the WRONG way to go about it.
. First off, it's not the soldiers who are deciding to conduct the war. Civilian governments are the ones who decide to go to war, and they don't suffer from the innate guilt of killing people.
Exactly. The soldier is to government, what the drone is to the soldier. A layer of abstraction, that makes the burden of killing another person easier to bare.
The government points soldiers, and says "Kill!". They don't see the faces of those they killed, not have to face the families of the slain. The numbers killed are just nameless, nonhuman statistics. The enemy isn't a person anymore, and killing doesn't induce guilt.
The soldier suffers psychological harm from following those orders, and sometimes even refuses to follow them, if they inhuman enough. To government, the abstraction then fails.
They solved it by abstracting the killing away from the soldier too.
Who will protest an order to comit a warcrime, when nobody with control over the automated weapons cares?
What you have said just now is not license to use drones, because of an existing evil. It is proof of the argument I tendered.
We make war too easily already. We DON'T need to make it even easier.
Is it a person who wishes to do you harm? A person who wants to take something you have? A person with whom you disagree? Or just someone in the way of what you want to do?
In a war, do not both sides, regardless of the motives of either side, satisfy all of those? Is it no wonder that both sides refer to the other as the enemy?
In this case, what do the "terrorists" represent, that they merit being exterminated, without conscience nor remorse?
"Thy killed a shitton of people when they bombed the trade center!" You say?
Why? Why did they blow up the trade center?
It couldn't be because our countr(y/ies) was(were) meddling in their affairs, causing them harm, taking things from them, and fundementally in disagreement with their way of life?
Certainly not! They should be HAPPY that we want to destroy their culture, because we view certain aspects of it as being backwards and primitive! Our way is simply BETTER!
Now, let's do a thought experiment here. Powerful aliens come down from wherever out in space they are from, find our culture to be backward and primitive, and start strongarming us to cease being who we are, and become like them. They say it's a better way. Maybe it is. That isn't the point. The point is that they don't give us the choice. They do this because it makes it easier for them to establish trade with them, or to work within their stellar economy, or whatever. They profit, by eliminating our culture.
Would we not go to war with them, fighting their influence in every possible way, and even resort to guerilla and "terrorist" acts when faced by such a superior foe?
After thinking about that, can you really say you are any different than the "terrorists" we condemn with military machines daily?
We kill them, because they don't submit. They don't submit, because we are destroying and marginalizing their culture, because we feel it isn't worth retaining/is backward.
They don't want our help. They don't want our culture. They dnt want our values. They don't want us. We insist on meddling on all of thoe things.
Abstracting away the reality that you are killing people, by making a machine do the actual deed after deployment removes the innate guilt of killing those people.
It makesit fantastically easier to justify and ignore wholesale slaughter.
A glitch on the program makes the drone think that anyone carrying a cylinder 2ft long and 1 inch diameter a combatant? (Looks like a gun barrel!) Well, all those poor fuckers carrying brooms and sweeping their patios had it coming! Nevermind those uppity pool boys with dipnets! Can't make an omlette without breaking some eggs, right?!
When you can simply push a button and walk away without having to witness the attrocities you cause, you abstract away a fair bit of your conscience.
The military probably thinks that's a GREAT thing! Kids with guns won't cause mental trainwrecks to drones when they get mowed down, and the operator doesn't have to see it!
The reality is that deploying terminators is the same as turning a blind eye to consequences, and the innately terrible thing that war is, and why it should always be avoided whenever and however possible.
Specifically, Microsoft strongly enforces a "planned obsolesence" business model, where they strongarm people to "trade up" every 3 to 5 years to the tune of 150-200$ a pop. (90ish for OEM copies.)
A better strategy would be for microsoft to switch to a maintenance/LTS model, where they release a major revision every 10 years, with a long term monthly support fee. (Say, something small, like 5$ a month or so.)
This would solve a great deal of microsoft's problems with piracy, as well as their "oh noez! The users aren't buying our turd in a wrapper this relase cycle! The stock price! The stock price! Wargharble!" Problem.
The Windows Update client wouldn't rely on client side "activation" nonsense to determine validity for support. Instead, it would rely on a locally crypted purchase information store, and a server side validation. Much like online shopping, but with better security. When windows update looks for updates, it sends the crypt block to microsoft, they decrypt it, validate that it is a valid card number or account and that it is subscribed, then either allows or rejects the download of the update.
Being a subscription service for updates and bugfixes, microsoft would have garanteed income between releases, and more importantly, after a "bombed" release, by the support service subscription for the "obsolete" product.
The financial impetus for "we gotta get them to switch!" Would go away.
The balance between "major releases" and "long term support" would be that just after a major relase is sufficently polished (through support services) that it becomes worthwhile for customers to cancel their support payment, the new major release would come out. Major releases should contain gamechanging features, and not be mere incremental upgrades, a-la apple. Microsoft can continue to leverage its partnerships with hardware OEMs to make that a reality.
Microsoft would have substantially more time to seriously put out something amazing every release cycle that way, and would be insulated against a shitty release with poor sales.
it is way better for them than what they re doing now.
But I doubt they would switch, or if they did, they would be fucking insane greedy about it, and charge 20$/month or try to teir their service like with live, with attempts at double dipping. (If they want to charge a support fee, they should make it a "service fee" instead, so that a single monthly bill pays for Live, and windows update services, and all other microsoft services, and ditch the iea of tiered service alltogether.)
Slashdot Mirror
.... do you not comprehend the wild swing that a 4c global temp increase would cause in global climate, or that CO2 levels will CONTINUE to rise during that time, unless we alter our behavior, and will continue to rise afterwards?
It won't "stop at 4c". It will go PASSED 4C, and get hotter each decade.
In 200 years, the earth will be a fucking sauna. But what do you care? You'll be dead by then!
While I haven't been saving for retirement like I should, I have no problems with the mortgage. I have been unable to save for retirement, because every creditor and insurance company on the planet has been hiking rates for my demographic like I am made out of 100$ bills. (No seriously. I make about 30k a year, and live fairly comfortably, and cyclically manage to save up around 2 to 3k each year, only to have it vaccumed up by homeowners insurace (1.5k), and property taxes(500$).)
I MIGHT be able to finally start saving for my retirement after I have paid off the mortgage, which should be sometime next year.
I have no problems seeing where the future is headed, and would eagerly prepare for it if the shortsighted people around me beholden to their precious quarterly reports would wake up and smell the ashes already.
When the mortgage is paid, I will look for a less brutal insurer, and use the monthy difference to improve my retirement prospects, and reduce my environmental impact. That's the plan anyway. Assuming Uncy Sam doesn't decide that he needs to raise my taxes.
Waste is nothing more than an untapped resource stream. The light fractions burned off at refineries for instance. Instead of burning it off at the stack, pipe it under low pressure to a power plant made to run on methane and natural gas.
Municipal waste is a veritable gold mine for rare earths in reasonably pure form, as well as other heavy yet valuable metals. (Like mercury.) Not to mention as a source of refinable plastic.
Sewerage is a few stones throws away from being usable like brown coal or peat in power plants.
Granted, pretty much all of those release carbon. No contest. The deal is though, that those are potentially new industries that could provide the needed waste management services for a cleaner environment overall. (Babysteps)
Seriously looking into alternatives to combustion for power generation, or at the least, adopting carbon neutral economies, would go a very long way as well.
The issue you seem to have, is that you appear to be butthurt that "purpetual growth" would be laughed at, and your idea of prosperity requires infinite resources from the environment to attain, and such restrictions would put the kabosh on that hard.
If the choice is between having an iDevice and cheap transportation, and having a world outside that I don't need an environment suit to survive in, I will take the latter one.
Agreed.
"Look at all the skeptical scientists (that we retained as hied shills)! CLEARLY our side of the debate has won! (Nevermind that the basis of the global climate change scenario is firmly rooted in uncontested scientific principles and repeatedly documented characteristics of carbon dioxide, water vapor, and methane gasses. We assert that because humans are magical, that humans can release all of those gasses that they want, and NEVER release enough into the atmosphere to upset anything at all! Sure, we are releasing it faster than nature can re-sequester it, and the effects are sustained and cumulative, but damnit, a volcanic eruption spews out more "greenhouse gasses" in a few hours than mankind does in a year! Nevermind that volcanic eruptions are not a constant and growing emission source like human activities; and therefor our comparison is lopsided and specious-- don't think too much about that, it's our story, and we're sticking to it! No, those aren't the icebergs you are looking for! Move along!)
Admittedly, that *is* a rather shameless strawman I just thrashed, but the likeness of that scarecrow to the real thing was alarming.
Seriously, is this woman simply delusional, or does shw think she can bribe the weather when shit comes apart at the seams?
Good luck with that, when pork rind dust is literally wafting on the breeze, and gets in your nose and mouth. You would have to wear a heavy duty particle mask to avoid eating any.
No silly! Without it your "dark lord" cannot attain his "full power!"
(Best when used with a Nazgul(tm) textured black rubber condom.)
I'm just curious how they would make that work...
I mean, I can't imagine how they would structure a slots "game" around the main plot.... the one ring is not a good thing, afterall. What would you use as a bonus token, and how would you structure the reel scoring?
'Mines of moria" would make more sense for a slot, if more obscure.
But I heard it was erupting!
you mean they DIDN'T throw it in!?
No. No "fucking money." They haven't authorized any lord of the rings cockrings yet, though the slogan "one ring to rule them all" would be delightfully appropos.
Wher I say it was wrong to fight back? That is 180 degrees off course from my prior postings.
My position was that initiating war, and escallating aggression are vile acts. Defending yourself with a defensive army, and defensive ordinance is simply prudent.
Nice strawman.
Try this instead.
Guess what? We were ASKED to go there. We went to kuait.
I don't have a problem with that. It was a defensive deployment.
What we did in afghanistan was NOT a defensive deployment.
What we did in Iraq a decade after desert storm was not a defensive deployment.
No, wiseass. "They" in that sentence referred to the orders, not the soldiers. Calm down and think? Sure. Let's do that. When reading that sentence, there are two ways to interpret it. As a nonsensical statement that does not follow in context with my previous message, (implies the soldiers are inhuman for not following orders), or that the way I just addressed. (The soldiers disobey they orders, because the orders are inhuman.) If you had followed your own advice, you would have applied some rational thought to your reply, and not jumped the shark so. But no. That isn't what you did. Instead, you spun a strawman that better fit your opinion of me, and presumed that I intended the internally conflicted and assinine interpretation of that sentence, because I am cleary too stupid to see how it is self contradictory with my previous position.
You did that because it was easier for you to attack WITHOUT thinking.
Nice try jackass.
The use of you as an impersonal pronoun is well supported in informal writing, such as a slashdot post.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_you#section_1
If I were writing a how-to book, or a formal address to some political body, I would use "one", but since I am not, I did not.
Frankly, I find your grammar-nazi antics to be offensive.
So, I suppose we are even.
That is an innate problem of PEOPLE.
Pandering to the problem won't solve it.
Defensive armies. Not offensive ones. Defensive technologies. Not offensive ones.
You are right, pacifisim only works when everyone is passive. Existing without defenses makes it very very profitable to be an invader.
I don't suggest disbanding the military. I suggest not deploying it all over the world, and subjugating every 3rd world country with coal, oil, natural gas, and rare earth metals we can station a military base in, then shooting everything that moves with an autonomous drone from behind a desk.
Ask anyone who has been in a war, if they think it is a correct choice of action.
Newsflash. Unless they have gone of the deep end, and hunger for killing, they will say it isn't.
Go on. Go ask some vets about their opinions on war.
The problem with making war "clean and precise" is that you remove all the disincentives to engage in war to begin with.
At the press of a button, the insurgents/terrorists/rebels/invaders/$targetedPeople all die, cleanly, humanely.
That is the ultimate evolution of the direction you advocate.
Who decides who is the target and who isn't? What happens if there is a miscalculation?
Now do you see why this is bad?
Not exactly... snipers still feel remorse for their first kill at the very least. Becoming numb to losing your humanity comes later.
A robot never suffers that. It doesn't lose any humanity, because it never had it to lose.
That does not solve the problem.
We have a problem with war, because we have a problem with believing we can (and should!) Force other people to do what we want them to do against their will.
It is the same crime as with rape, and with slavery. I have the biggest gun, do what I say!
The ONLY time to take up arms is when an aggressor comes to visit YOU. You should NEVER take up arms against another to conquor. Your failing economy is not justification. Your need for cheap energy is not justification. Your fucking god is not justification. Proving your dick is bigger is not justification.
There should only be defensive armies. Drones are not a defensive tool. They should not exist.
No. You fail to comprehend my position at all.
There shouldn't be anyone making that decision. At all.
Making that decision easier, by having a machine do it, to alleviate the guilt of a human operator, and his chain of command, is the WRONG direction.
Want to know where it ends?the creation of things like "perfect" WMDs. Kills all the people, spares everything else. Push the button, war is over. A whole society dies, and the one pushing the button loses nothing. What possible reason would that society have to NOT simply push that button whenever it didn't get what it wanted, or to theaten to push it when it didt get its way?
THAT is the danger of abstracted warfare. It makes the decision to go to war easier. It makes ware a more desirable option.
I support 'war isn't a real option, it's an outcome of aggression. It should never BE CHOSEN.'
So, no. I don't support drones, and I don't support soldiers.
Indeed. Humans NEVER accept that the answer is so simple.
Don't resort to war. If your cause requires forcing somebody else at gunpoint to comply, it isn't just, it isn't honorable, and it cannot be justified. So, just don't do it.
But no. Human kind is OBCESSED it making other people OBEY, even if it kills everyone else.
You are not comprehending what I am telling you.
War is to be avoided, because nothing about it is good, just, nor honorable. War scars the minds of those who engage in it, live through it, or even witness it first hand. The damage and price of war is more than just soldiers killed and buildings blown up. It is the destruction of people's lives, in every imaginable sense. Surviving a war might be less humane than dieing in it.
The point was that by removing the consequences of war, (soldiers becoming bloodthirsty psychos that rape, kill, torture, and lose respect for the lives of others, all others-- in addition to simply having people die, and having economic and environmental catatrophes on your hands), you make war look more and more desirable as an option.
What I was trying to get you to see, is that war is always a bad thing, and trying to mae it seem like less of a bad thing is the WRONG way to go about it.
Exactly. The soldier is to government, what the drone is to the soldier. A layer of abstraction, that makes the burden of killing another person easier to bare.
The government points soldiers, and says "Kill!". They don't see the faces of those they killed, not have to face the families of the slain. The numbers killed are just nameless, nonhuman statistics. The enemy isn't a person anymore, and killing doesn't induce guilt.
The soldier suffers psychological harm from following those orders, and sometimes even refuses to follow them, if they inhuman enough. To government, the abstraction then fails.
They solved it by abstracting the killing away from the soldier too.
Who will protest an order to comit a warcrime, when nobody with control over the automated weapons cares?
What you have said just now is not license to use drones, because of an existing evil. It is proof of the argument I tendered.
We make war too easily already. We DON'T need to make it even easier.
What is an enemy?
Is it a person who wishes to do you harm?
A person who wants to take something you have?
A person with whom you disagree?
Or just someone in the way of what you want to do?
In a war, do not both sides, regardless of the motives of either side, satisfy all of those? Is it no wonder that both sides refer to the other as the enemy?
In this case, what do the "terrorists" represent, that they merit being exterminated, without conscience nor remorse?
"Thy killed a shitton of people when they bombed the trade center!" You say?
Why? Why did they blow up the trade center?
It couldn't be because our countr(y/ies) was(were) meddling in their affairs, causing them harm, taking things from them, and fundementally in disagreement with their way of life?
Certainly not! They should be HAPPY that we want to destroy their culture, because we view certain aspects of it as being backwards and primitive! Our way is simply BETTER!
Now, let's do a thought experiment here. Powerful aliens come down from wherever out in space they are from, find our culture to be backward and primitive, and start strongarming us to cease being who we are, and become like them. They say it's a better way. Maybe it is. That isn't the point. The point is that they don't give us the choice. They do this because it makes it easier for them to establish trade with them, or to work within their stellar economy, or whatever. They profit, by eliminating our culture.
Would we not go to war with them, fighting their influence in every possible way, and even resort to guerilla and "terrorist" acts when faced by such a superior foe?
After thinking about that, can you really say you are any different than the "terrorists" we condemn with military machines daily?
We kill them, because they don't submit. They don't submit, because we are destroying and marginalizing their culture, because we feel it isn't worth retaining/is backward.
They don't want our help. They don't want our culture. They dnt want our values. They don't want us. We insist on meddling on all of thoe things.
We started the war.
While cliche, take a look at "wargames".
Abstracting away the reality that you are killing people, by making a machine do the actual deed after deployment removes the innate guilt of killing those people.
It makesit fantastically easier to justify and ignore wholesale slaughter.
A glitch on the program makes the drone think that anyone carrying a cylinder 2ft long and 1 inch diameter a combatant? (Looks like a gun barrel!) Well, all those poor fuckers carrying brooms and sweeping their patios had it coming! Nevermind those uppity pool boys with dipnets! Can't make an omlette without breaking some eggs, right?!
When you can simply push a button and walk away without having to witness the attrocities you cause, you abstract away a fair bit of your conscience.
The military probably thinks that's a GREAT thing! Kids with guns won't cause mental trainwrecks to drones when they get mowed down, and the operator doesn't have to see it!
The reality is that deploying terminators is the same as turning a blind eye to consequences, and the innately terrible thing that war is, and why it should always be avoided whenever and however possible.
Microsoft's main problem:
They don't give the users what they want.
Specifically, Microsoft strongly enforces a "planned obsolesence" business model, where they strongarm people to "trade up" every 3 to 5 years to the tune of 150-200$ a pop. (90ish for OEM copies.)
A better strategy would be for microsoft to switch to a maintenance/LTS model, where they release a major revision every 10 years, with a long term monthly support fee. (Say, something small, like 5$ a month or so.)
This would solve a great deal of microsoft's problems with piracy, as well as their "oh noez! The users aren't buying our turd in a wrapper this relase cycle! The stock price! The stock price! Wargharble!" Problem.
The Windows Update client wouldn't rely on client side "activation" nonsense to determine validity for support. Instead, it would rely on a locally crypted purchase information store, and a server side validation. Much like online shopping, but with better security. When windows update looks for updates, it sends the crypt block to microsoft, they decrypt it, validate that it is a valid card number or account and that it is subscribed, then either allows or rejects the download of the update.
Being a subscription service for updates and bugfixes, microsoft would have garanteed income between releases, and more importantly, after a "bombed" release, by the support service subscription for the "obsolete" product.
The financial impetus for "we gotta get them to switch!" Would go away.
The balance between "major releases" and "long term support" would be that just after a major relase is sufficently polished (through support services) that it becomes worthwhile for customers to cancel their support payment, the new major release would come out. Major releases should contain gamechanging features, and not be mere incremental upgrades, a-la apple. Microsoft can continue to leverage its partnerships with hardware OEMs to make that a reality.
Microsoft would have substantially more time to seriously put out something amazing every release cycle that way, and would be insulated against a shitty release with poor sales.
it is way better for them than what they re doing now.
But I doubt they would switch, or if they did, they would be fucking insane greedy about it, and charge 20$/month or try to teir their service like with live, with attempts at double dipping.
(If they want to charge a support fee, they should make it a "service fee" instead, so that a single monthly bill pays for Live, and windows update services, and all other microsoft services, and ditch the iea of tiered service alltogether.)