FLOSS changes the costs. You spend more in training, but save on material. If your organization already has significant training procedures to accommodate big processes (like, say, a government would have), you'll probably come out ahead on the deal. If you have an office of 50 people who were all hired already knowing Microsoft's products, you can expect significant retraining costs that might exceed what you'll save on licensing.
From what I've seen, small businesses won't have training infrastructure in place. Software needs to be able to be configured and used by people with little or inadequate training on the software or related technology. Large businesses do have dedicated training, but this is industry-specific. For example, insurance companies will have extensive training on policies and procedures so adding software/IT training is straight-forward. This is because the business lends itself to having a lot of people doing the same job, at the same location. But it won't work as well for, say, a retail chain. That's because while they have a lot of people doing the same job, there's only a few at each location.
What I've found to be by far the biggest cost in IT is support though, not training. I worked a contract out of a hospital that was switching over to a new electronic records system. Despite each employee receiving close to 60 hours of training each, on-site resources at each hospital given an additional 40 hours of training on top of that for more in-depth training, the whole thing detonated on the launch pad. The reason for the failure was that, although plenty of training had been given on the user interface and what-not, hospitals are highly specialized in how they process things; every department had its own unique process. And it resulted in a support nightmare that caused their entire organization's IT to seize like an engine without oil. Everybody, at every level of IT, was manning the phones for close to a month. There were no patches. There were no deployments. There was no new equipment being installed or upgraded. Everyone basically got kicked to tech support and pulled long, long hours, with queue depths that would summon images of the Krakken when viewing them.
While this was a proprietary solution sold with the promise of higher automation, lower operating costs, and compliance with all applicable laws... when the tires met the pavement, those savings were dwarfed by the support costs, which continued to be high for the next six months post-launch. They anticipate replacing it in 7-10 years. But in those six months, all the potential savings for the rest of its expected service live, vaporized under the heat of support costs.
This is not an atypical situation; most IT projects fail in this fashion. Open source doesn't change this. Zero cost software would still only reduce the total cost of ownership by perhaps 7-10% in a best-case scenario. If you want to save costs in IT, worry less about the software and more about the strength of your project managers. Ultimately, your organizations ability to rapidly respond to changing user needs and have a broad IT skillset across your department's labor force, will do more to help your bottom line than any technology or software you will ever purchase.
I would much rather live in a world we we can stop pretending our genitals do not exist.
And I would rather that you'd get the same amount of respect regardless of which genitals you happen to be sporting. And just because you're bi doesn't mean you're not a sexist asshole, buddy. Don't you dare come out and wave the rainbow flag like that entitles you to something.
Technically, we were never at war with any of the countries those people being detained are from. unless you think declaring war on abstract ideas counts.
Oh, get off your high horse. If Wozniak looked like some movie star and a woman said "Wow, looks and brains AND money!" would you excoriate her like that?
No offense there buddy, but that's what movie stars are going for, not small business owners. And yes, I would have words with her if she did that to someone during a serious conversation such as the design methodology behind the original Apple PC.
Honestly, parts such as what you describe are not usually covered by copyright. They are covered by patent which expire in ~20 usually.
You misunderstand. A collection, such as a database, is copyrightable. Otherwise anyone could just make a copy of Google and become Google. In this case, most of the parts and blueprints are copyrighted, which in turn makes collecting them into a searchable database more difficult. It's the same problem faced by researchers -- a giant paywall beyond which research lies, and you can't know ahead of time which article is the one you need, versus the other 45 that are similarly named and themed, but aren't.
I just had to post this. Limor Fried is a cute, smart, hardware hacking, gadgeteering, successful entrepreneur chick. Pretty much most geeks dream girl. You go girl!
Speaking as a woman in IT, and a tinkerer myself, I can tell you what would be better appreciated than a "You go girl". Not making references to her being a "dream girl" and taking her as seriously as you would a man. She's a businesswoman now, running a multi-million dollar business with a lot of potential for expansion. You wouldn't tell a man in that position "... successful entrepreneur hunk. You're most geeks dream man! You go man!" You may not have intended to, but you just degraded her under the guise of a compliment; You have said her accomplishments only add value if she's attractive to the opposite sex.
If you want to compliment her for real; Why don't you express respect for her accomplishment, and leave her sexual attractiveness off the table?
And more importantly, who bears the liability for death and dismemberment and anguish caused by these things. Who can I sue? Where's the money at, friend?
This may come as a shock, but being an inventor requires assumption of the risks of invention. If you blow your own foot off in the lab, you got nobody to blame but yourself. I know, personal responsibility is a four letter word in this society, but if you're willing to accept it, besides getting a pass to the magical world of the emotionally mature, you get to do some amazing things and make a real contribution, have a sense of accomplishment, etc. Or... or you can stay in the sandbox under the watchful eyes of your Uncle Sam who's happy to babysit you.
This is the collective public saying they think you're a moron and have no interest in listening to the drivel coming out of you.
No, it isn't. This is a specialty website catering to a small fraction of the population, and whether you want to admit it or not, it catrs to a very specific political orientation within that fraction of the population.
I am challenging that worldview, and I knew doing that would catch hell, but it needs done. People occasionally need to be shaken up and forced to answer uncomfortable questions. The question of what to do with Snowden is an uncomfortable one -- because something does need to be done. He broke the law, and that demands a response. Maybe the response is to abolish the law. Maybe it's to draft a new law. Maybe it's to hold a trial. All I asked was for people to engage in a discussion of the available options. Now the government has been pretty consistent with which one it chooses in these kinds of situations -- that inconsistency here is noteworthy.
And this is what people don't want to listen to: They don't want to hear the call of personal responsibility. But that's what democracy demands, if it is to have any value. The downmods represent a strong bias against taking responsibility as a citizen to participate in the government. They only want the pre-formed and pre-digested opinions handed to them by popular media. And nobody likes having a mirror held up to them. That's why the downmods happened. It has nothing to do with the "collective public" thinking I'm a moron.
Nine times out of ten, when someone calls another person stupid, it's not because they are, it's because they disagree but are unable to form a cohesive argument against what is said. Plato remarked on this aspect of human reasoning when he talked about his cave. How you can learn more than your peers, and yet seem stupider than before... because intelligence is commonly held as synonymous with agreement when the two couldn't be more different.
Well. I don't think you are a troll. I think you are just way off. So I will respond.
Okay, first, thanks for responding. But, I didn't take a position as you're implying. I just asked a question, to start a dialog. I personally agree with most of what you're saying; But the only way to get a better handle on why these policy decisions are being made, and to give the public a voice in them. Because somewhere, someone in our government had this conversation. It was then tabled. We need to know why, and since we can be reasonably sure the government isn't going to reveal this, the best we can do is lay the facts on the table and try to draw conclusions as best we can. Which is what you did, and which I thank you for.
I only wish more people were willing and able to do so.
Every community has tinkerers, I think you'd agree. We all have that friend with a garage full of tools and a workbench, and whenever something breaks and needs fixing, we go to him/her. I do believe you, along with other entrepreneurs, have given people unprecidented access to robotics and automation tools at a very low cost, and this opens many doors for these jack of all trades types to build replacement parts. Combined with 3D printers, I can imagine these people building all kinds of things to fix broken equipment, or fill a niche need, in their communities.
But there is one hold-up to these technologies having a happy and fruitful marriage: Copyright. Specificially, that once we have all this equipment, we're going to need a catalog, a google of sorts, to get blueprints and construction materials from. We had thick ACME Electronics parts catalogues in the 90s, but today there doesn't really seem to be that kind of centralized one-stop access to large numbers of blueprints for these tools you've created.
With that background stated, what, if any plans, do you have to start addressing this need within your emerging market?
Anyone with $1,000 and an internet connection can get a gun made of good 'ol steel, which would perform massively better. In fact, you don't even need the $1,000. $500 would get you a very nice handgun in a private party sale.
$500? Try about $200 for an older six-shot revolver. And as far as 'untraceable' goes... this senator clearly is a total retard when it comes to understanding forensics. First, ballistics analysis becomes significantly more inaccurate with each shot; So unless you fire the gun during a crime, and then don't fire it again until they recover it, ballistics won't be of much help in a prosecution. They'll be able to throw up a lot of circumstantial evidence, but a good lawyer can put a pin in that easily enough. Secondly, most guns sold today do have serial numbers, and that's probably what he was referring to. Unfortunately, not all manufacturers put that serial number on in a way that is forensically recoverable after it is filed off or removed. If it is stamped; that is, imprinted, then it likely is. But if the serial number is raised/embossed, then forget it. Many are stamped, but not all are. Especially not older guns. As well, it's typically only the receiver that is stamped with a serial number, as this is what the law considers the actual 'firearm' part of the gun. However, depending again on make and model, a receiver is not difficult to construct from equipment available at your hardware store -- and yes, for less than $1000 too.
His argument doesn't hold water. The problem with 3D printers is that it would put a lot of businesses, well, out of business. And the biggest potential buyers of 3D printers is actually your local hardware and auto stores that right now have to pay a small fortune (which then you get to as well) ordering specialty parts out of a catalog. The entire after-market auto parts empire would deflate to maybe half its size if people could just bring in the broken part, and the store scans it in, or finds a match in a database, and then fires up the printer. 1 hour later, viola -- you have yourself a new plastic part for your car. And it doesn't cost you $60, but maybe $15 instead.
This, right here, is why this senator is pushing it. Lending credence to this theory -- look at some of his other proposals: backup cams in all cars, a bill to ban rental cars, extensive markings and ID on parts, and the list goes on. A quick look at his campaign contributors is all the more proof you need.. he's a paid shill for the auto industry.
Oh yes, firearms bad. 3d printers, terrorism, blah blah. The truth: It would put a big dent in the profits of the people writing his paycheck -- auto parts manufacturers.
You guys just don't get it. You're the very thing you claim to despise: The government comes and squishes free speech because it's unpopular... but then here you are, doing the same damn thing. The government isn't suppressing us: WE are suppressing us. We're plugging our ears and singing "Glory Glory Hallelujah."
And then you people wonder why we get shit like behavioral profiling, full body scanners, and police claiming they can do whatever they want. Well, look in the mirrors guys. You're staring at the reason: It's your steadfast refusal to get involved in the democratic process.
You think I'm wrong? You think this discussion hasn't been had in the oval office? By all means, come out and say so. Or you can sit on the sidelines and watch everything go to shit because you were too cowardly to even offer an opinion.
Killing him won't destroy his documents. It's certain he's got multiple backups with multiple people.
We took a stand; we don't negotiate with terrorists. That's the policy. We got a guy out there who has made demands, and when his demands weren't met, started leaking classified documents. That's what terrorism is: He tried to goad the government into a specific course of action by inspiring fear.
Whether he has backups or not is immaterial. Osama Bin Laden had backups -- how many of his number two guys did we ice before we finally got to him? A lot. But we did. We sent a message.
Why would the US government risk egg on their faces and a further highlight the degradation of American Ideals for nothing?
American ideals? Please, elaborate. Tell me, specifically, which ones you think matter here. Because right now all you're doing is making a vague handwave towards flags and patriotism, and isn't that what we've been accusing the government of doing? Isn't that what we're campaigning to stop? To get some honest to god transparency?
Here's the thing guys. This isn't a troll. It's a politically unpopular thing to say, but we're all thinking it. This is America. Good, bad, this is how democracy works. We ask the hard questions. The uncomfortable ones. You people ask and beg and bitch and plead with and about our government regarding surveillance, and how your free speech is being oppressed... but when someone pops the question everyone wants to talk about, you're gonna shut them down. I posted this knowing it would go straight to the depths of this website.
And the real kicker is; no government man in a black helicopter made any of you push the downmod button. You did that. So pro or anti snowden alike... you all got one thing in common: You're afraid to stand up and ask the hard questions. You'd rather let the government take care of things for you, and then bitch about the result. Well, you don't get that privilege if you can't sit down and reason out an argument for why, or why not, to do a hard thing. You don't get to complain about government officials riding roughshod over our rights, because if you're not gonna excercise them to begin with, then why do you even care?
We need to ask this question. This is how we've done business for a very long time. If the policy has changed, shouldn't we, the public, the people, be asking why it was done without our input? Whichever side of the issue you're on, or even no side at all, it should bother you just a bit that nobody anymore can ask the hard questions without being thought of as a "troll" or that it's "flamebait". Because it's neither. And to Godwin this whole thing, yeah, I'm gonna drop a Nazi reference now -- how do you think all those Jews got exterminated? They voted for Hitler. And then they stopped talking. They let the government do whatever it wanted, and as long as they got economic security and comfort, they didn't ask publicly what the cost was. But they knew. Yeah, they knew something was wrong. But they weren't gonna be the ones to talk.
Talking, people, is what democracy is about. If you don't talk, you don't have a democracy, except on paper. So talk people. Snowden lives. Snowden dies. Some other option. Step up to the microphone and say something. Or... or you can sit there and sneer, just like the german people did. But think about where it got them. Decisions need to be made. If you believe in democracy, you should make your opinion known -- because otherwise, the decision will be made without any of our input, and I promise you.. it'll be even worse than what I've put on the table.
Why, with the biggest arsenal in the world, with terrorists shitting bricks in Guantanamo, with several dictators sabre rattling and then sitting down and suddenly behaving when three aircraft carriers and a full entourage show up off their coast, can we not manage to deal with this one, simple, irritation? Just give him what he wants -- he wants to be a martyr. He leaks, and he leaks, and at this point he's probably inventing new documents to leak. Snowden might as well be a brand name; it's got household recognition. So please tell me... what's the hold up on pulling the trigger?
This is an honest question; I simply do not understand why we're holding out on this one guy, when we've sent in Seal Team Six to give people who have done less in economic damage severe and sudden lead poisoning and then dumped their body uncermoniously in the ocean where it'll never be found. I'm not asking for arguments for/against Snowden or what he's doing. I honestly don't care at this point. Maybe he's telling the truth. Maybe he's lying through his teeth. Maybe he's right and maybe he's wrong... but American policy since pre-WWI has been pretty straightforward regarding spies and espionage: We execute them, as a matter of public policy. So why the change now?
And again, no pro or anti-snowden here. The facts are the facts; he's a threat to national security, right or wrong. And we've dealt with those types of threats pretty consistently from a policy standpoint. Until now. What about making him a martyr is so unappealing that we're reversing on nearly 100 years of public policy on this issue? Really, truly, I'd like to know what the reasoning is here; And yet again -- this isn't a moral judgement on whether he's right or wrong. It is, in the final analysis, immaterial. When a hungry bear takes a run at you, you don't ask whether or not he was treated well, or if he was previously in captivity, or whether he's defending his cubs or not. It's you, or the bear. End of story.
I honestly cannot fathom why they don't just end Snowden. We do worse to people who peddle drugs in this country; he's done more damage economically than they have. Soooo... where's the hailstorm of bullets I've come to expect from America? Right or wrong, it's what we're known for. So, why aren't we doing our signature move on this guy?
Well, whatever the subject, you have just demonstrated that you are incapable of rational discourse. And blind to things that are glaringly obvious. Pathetic.
And with your original post on this claiming indocrination and all your tin foil hat non-sense, you demonstrated you're incapable of even rational thought. And blind to your own mental illness. Pathetic.
I am not going to comment on the OP's asinine ramblings but will ask you a few different questions...
Thank you for that small courtesy.
Why is it that the same procedure in the same town at different hospitals have costs that vary widely as much as thousands of dollars?
Long story short: The same reason Coca-cola is rolling out machines that change the price depending on how hot it is. It's not just about how much it costs, or what the profit margin is... it's also about how much you're willing to pay. And when it's pay up or die, unsurprisingly, they charge infinity.
Ah, those with a simple model of the world... And those that think screaming and swearing makes them right...
It's not a simple model. It's you're an asshole. I've worked in hospitals. I have several friends who are doctors. They are some of the most compassionate and caring people you'll find, albeit with morbid senses of humor. You, on the other hand, have a stick up your ass thinking you can come in and shit on people who's jobs it is to save lives because you think you can make a political statement out of it. And yes, I will swear, and this is one of the few times when swearing is called for: It's when someone goes above and beyond to shit on good people.
And you sir, you did that. You didn't just pick on one person, you decided to unzip and drop a log on an entire industry filled with mostly good people, doing good things. And then you come and insult me? For calling you what you are - an asshole? Let me say this again: Fuck you. I have no respect for people like you... you're so wrapped up in your own ego you wouldn't know the truth if it burned your nose.
You misunderstand the system. These high costs of becoming a doctor serve as indoctrination,
What the fuck man? Seriously... you're signing up to pull parts of cars out of people. You're gonna tell someone they have cancer and 3 months to live. You're gonna be explaining to someone the surgery didn't go well and they're going to be leaking shit out of their ass for the rest of their life. Or that you have to amputate their leg. Or that they have AIDS. You think people sign up for that so they can be indoctrinated? And you think I don't understand? Fuck you man. Fuck you and the horse you rode in on! These people bust their asses for long hours for years, dealing with blood, guts, shit, and gore, out of a genuine conviction that life is sacred. And you come here and you shit on that to serve your own political needs? FUCK. YOU.
The high costs are because they need to be highly trained, there is no margin for error, because unlike your job, when they fuck up, they have to bury their mistakes. So don't you dare twist around a profession that sooner or later, you're gonna need because that's what they do. They don't judge. They heal drug dealers and terrorists, and saints and grade school teachers. That's their job. That's what they do. No politics. No bullshit. Just the job. The job of saving lives.
First, this hasn't been verified. You're citing a single (deleted) post on an internet forum. It would be like me claiming Microsoft CEO Ballmer visits my cube during late nights coding and molests me. Credibility = Zero.
Second, quality control is handled externally to FoxConn -- or at least it damn well should have been. I don't think this is a worker revolt. We would have seen more than one post. If you ask me, it's one of two things -- the most likely is a bad batch of capacitors or other commodity parts. It's happened before -- just ask Monkey Man (who isn't molesting me, btw) about the XBox 360's RROD (Red Ring Of Death) -- which was traced to substandard parts and compounded by poor design regarding air circulation within the unit. The other possibility, an outlier, but considering this is Sony... is that their DRM has malfunctioned in a spectacular fashion. There are literally dozens of layers of DRM in this device, and it could be that a conflict has emerged at the hardware level due to authentication, etc. But like I said, it's an outlier; My money is on shit components.
P.S. I can already hear the heads bubbling over of certain people because I mentioned regulation as being a problem, yet am suggesting institutionalizing health care. This is not the paradox you think it is: Much of our regulation is due to private interests demanding it. Just ask Tesla Motor Co. Canada, Spain, the UK, they've all done quite well at providing decent health care in an institutional capacity... though the UK system is showing signs of needing some attention due to neglect of late.
And yes, I know you can probably demonstrate any one of fifty different angles and case studies on how those systems are sub-optimal compared to ours. I answer with two statistics: Infant mortality in the United States, and current life expectancy. In those countries, they're going down, and up, respectively. In ours, the reverse is currently true. It's generally true that if you have money here and get sick, this is the best place to be. But in those countries, you don't get sick as often, because there's a focus on preventative care, not treatment. Here, specialists outnumber general practitioners about 3 to 1. There, the reverse is true.
If we look at it from a macro-perspective; At the societal level, their system is beating ours on both costs, and quality of life. And if the overall health of the general public, while maintaining reasonable costs, are your priorities, you cannot support our current privatized system.
The study of medicine has only one goal. Improve the life expectancy of human beings.
I believe the flaw in your argument is in this statement.
You're both wrong. That's not why our health care system went to hell. It's insurance companies. They're turning a profit on human misery. But ignoring that side of the equation, there's also excessive regulation. This article talks about how low-cost it is to actually make the equipment. And they're right. Meeting the standards is pretty easy. But that's not where the costs are. As I'm sure the designers know, or will soon discover, it's getting certification for their equipment. Certification is the reason why a table-side bed in a hospital costs $500, but you can pick up the exact same item, for home use, off Amazon for about $35 plus S&H.
If you want to fix the health care system, you're going to have to do something you don't want to do: You're going to have to give up on capitalism. Private-run insurance, private-run health care, private-run... kill it. Burn it all to the ground. Europeans figured out a long time ago that capitalism is good with non-essential commodities, but it's absolute shit with natural resources or essential goods and services that have a non-trivial cost. Electricity. Telecommunications. Gas. Internet. Health care. Transportation. These are not things that capitalism has done well with; The owners of these key resources make a fuckton of money, but the rest of us are enslaved to poverty to do so. Capitalism only works when there's a natural tendancy towards competition, and there isn't any in those areas. The invisible hand can kiss my invisible ass, because it doesn't work the way people have been led to believe. It works well much of the time. It works very well when the cost of entry into the market is low and there's no natural monopoly (like land, to use the quintessential example). But to say it always works, or to try and shoehorn it into markets and situations that it has a poor history with, is stupid. Nothing always works. Ever. Capitalism is no different -- put it to good use where it is efficient and effective, but it's not a "spray on all surfaces" sort of ideology. In fact, no such ideology has ever been created.
Slashdot Mirror
FLOSS changes the costs. You spend more in training, but save on material. If your organization already has significant training procedures to accommodate big processes (like, say, a government would have), you'll probably come out ahead on the deal. If you have an office of 50 people who were all hired already knowing Microsoft's products, you can expect significant retraining costs that might exceed what you'll save on licensing.
From what I've seen, small businesses won't have training infrastructure in place. Software needs to be able to be configured and used by people with little or inadequate training on the software or related technology. Large businesses do have dedicated training, but this is industry-specific. For example, insurance companies will have extensive training on policies and procedures so adding software/IT training is straight-forward. This is because the business lends itself to having a lot of people doing the same job, at the same location. But it won't work as well for, say, a retail chain. That's because while they have a lot of people doing the same job, there's only a few at each location.
What I've found to be by far the biggest cost in IT is support though, not training. I worked a contract out of a hospital that was switching over to a new electronic records system. Despite each employee receiving close to 60 hours of training each, on-site resources at each hospital given an additional 40 hours of training on top of that for more in-depth training, the whole thing detonated on the launch pad. The reason for the failure was that, although plenty of training had been given on the user interface and what-not, hospitals are highly specialized in how they process things; every department had its own unique process. And it resulted in a support nightmare that caused their entire organization's IT to seize like an engine without oil. Everybody, at every level of IT, was manning the phones for close to a month. There were no patches. There were no deployments. There was no new equipment being installed or upgraded. Everyone basically got kicked to tech support and pulled long, long hours, with queue depths that would summon images of the Krakken when viewing them.
While this was a proprietary solution sold with the promise of higher automation, lower operating costs, and compliance with all applicable laws... when the tires met the pavement, those savings were dwarfed by the support costs, which continued to be high for the next six months post-launch. They anticipate replacing it in 7-10 years. But in those six months, all the potential savings for the rest of its expected service live, vaporized under the heat of support costs.
This is not an atypical situation; most IT projects fail in this fashion. Open source doesn't change this. Zero cost software would still only reduce the total cost of ownership by perhaps 7-10% in a best-case scenario. If you want to save costs in IT, worry less about the software and more about the strength of your project managers. Ultimately, your organizations ability to rapidly respond to changing user needs and have a broad IT skillset across your department's labor force, will do more to help your bottom line than any technology or software you will ever purchase.
I would much rather live in a world we we can stop pretending our genitals do not exist.
And I would rather that you'd get the same amount of respect regardless of which genitals you happen to be sporting. And just because you're bi doesn't mean you're not a sexist asshole, buddy. Don't you dare come out and wave the rainbow flag like that entitles you to something.
That is not a declaration of war. That is technically referred to as a police action. So no, sorry, but thanks for playing.
Except we have not declared war.
Technically, we were never at war with any of the countries those people being detained are from. unless you think declaring war on abstract ideas counts.
The Supreme Court really doesn't like to step on the toes of the other two parts of the government if it doesn't have to.
Well, that's historically the reasoning. The current sitting justices, however, love meddling.
Oh, get off your high horse. If Wozniak looked like some movie star and a woman said "Wow, looks and brains AND money!" would you excoriate her like that?
No offense there buddy, but that's what movie stars are going for, not small business owners. And yes, I would have words with her if she did that to someone during a serious conversation such as the design methodology behind the original Apple PC.
Honestly, parts such as what you describe are not usually covered by copyright. They are covered by patent which expire in ~20 usually.
You misunderstand. A collection, such as a database, is copyrightable. Otherwise anyone could just make a copy of Google and become Google. In this case, most of the parts and blueprints are copyrighted, which in turn makes collecting them into a searchable database more difficult. It's the same problem faced by researchers -- a giant paywall beyond which research lies, and you can't know ahead of time which article is the one you need, versus the other 45 that are similarly named and themed, but aren't.
Seriously, would we do this for a male engineer?
Two words: Black turtleneck. ... And he wasn't even an engineer.
I just had to post this. Limor Fried is a cute, smart, hardware hacking, gadgeteering, successful entrepreneur chick. Pretty much most geeks dream girl. You go girl!
Speaking as a woman in IT, and a tinkerer myself, I can tell you what would be better appreciated than a "You go girl". Not making references to her being a "dream girl" and taking her as seriously as you would a man. She's a businesswoman now, running a multi-million dollar business with a lot of potential for expansion. You wouldn't tell a man in that position "... successful entrepreneur hunk. You're most geeks dream man! You go man!" You may not have intended to, but you just degraded her under the guise of a compliment; You have said her accomplishments only add value if she's attractive to the opposite sex.
If you want to compliment her for real; Why don't you express respect for her accomplishment, and leave her sexual attractiveness off the table?
And more importantly, who bears the liability for death and dismemberment and anguish caused by these things. Who can I sue? Where's the money at, friend?
This may come as a shock, but being an inventor requires assumption of the risks of invention. If you blow your own foot off in the lab, you got nobody to blame but yourself. I know, personal responsibility is a four letter word in this society, but if you're willing to accept it, besides getting a pass to the magical world of the emotionally mature, you get to do some amazing things and make a real contribution, have a sense of accomplishment, etc. Or... or you can stay in the sandbox under the watchful eyes of your Uncle Sam who's happy to babysit you.
This is the collective public saying they think you're a moron and have no interest in listening to the drivel coming out of you.
No, it isn't. This is a specialty website catering to a small fraction of the population, and whether you want to admit it or not, it catrs to a very specific political orientation within that fraction of the population.
I am challenging that worldview, and I knew doing that would catch hell, but it needs done. People occasionally need to be shaken up and forced to answer uncomfortable questions. The question of what to do with Snowden is an uncomfortable one -- because something does need to be done. He broke the law, and that demands a response. Maybe the response is to abolish the law. Maybe it's to draft a new law. Maybe it's to hold a trial. All I asked was for people to engage in a discussion of the available options. Now the government has been pretty consistent with which one it chooses in these kinds of situations -- that inconsistency here is noteworthy.
And this is what people don't want to listen to: They don't want to hear the call of personal responsibility. But that's what democracy demands, if it is to have any value. The downmods represent a strong bias against taking responsibility as a citizen to participate in the government. They only want the pre-formed and pre-digested opinions handed to them by popular media. And nobody likes having a mirror held up to them. That's why the downmods happened. It has nothing to do with the "collective public" thinking I'm a moron.
Nine times out of ten, when someone calls another person stupid, it's not because they are, it's because they disagree but are unable to form a cohesive argument against what is said. Plato remarked on this aspect of human reasoning when he talked about his cave. How you can learn more than your peers, and yet seem stupider than before... because intelligence is commonly held as synonymous with agreement when the two couldn't be more different.
Well. I don't think you are a troll. I think you are just way off. So I will respond.
Okay, first, thanks for responding. But, I didn't take a position as you're implying. I just asked a question, to start a dialog. I personally agree with most of what you're saying; But the only way to get a better handle on why these policy decisions are being made, and to give the public a voice in them. Because somewhere, someone in our government had this conversation. It was then tabled. We need to know why, and since we can be reasonably sure the government isn't going to reveal this, the best we can do is lay the facts on the table and try to draw conclusions as best we can. Which is what you did, and which I thank you for.
I only wish more people were willing and able to do so.
Every community has tinkerers, I think you'd agree. We all have that friend with a garage full of tools and a workbench, and whenever something breaks and needs fixing, we go to him/her. I do believe you, along with other entrepreneurs, have given people unprecidented access to robotics and automation tools at a very low cost, and this opens many doors for these jack of all trades types to build replacement parts. Combined with 3D printers, I can imagine these people building all kinds of things to fix broken equipment, or fill a niche need, in their communities.
But there is one hold-up to these technologies having a happy and fruitful marriage: Copyright. Specificially, that once we have all this equipment, we're going to need a catalog, a google of sorts, to get blueprints and construction materials from. We had thick ACME Electronics parts catalogues in the 90s, but today there doesn't really seem to be that kind of centralized one-stop access to large numbers of blueprints for these tools you've created.
With that background stated, what, if any plans, do you have to start addressing this need within your emerging market?
Anyone with $1,000 and an internet connection can get a gun made of good 'ol steel, which would perform massively better. In fact, you don't even need the $1,000. $500 would get you a very nice handgun in a private party sale.
$500? Try about $200 for an older six-shot revolver. And as far as 'untraceable' goes... this senator clearly is a total retard when it comes to understanding forensics. First, ballistics analysis becomes significantly more inaccurate with each shot; So unless you fire the gun during a crime, and then don't fire it again until they recover it, ballistics won't be of much help in a prosecution. They'll be able to throw up a lot of circumstantial evidence, but a good lawyer can put a pin in that easily enough. Secondly, most guns sold today do have serial numbers, and that's probably what he was referring to. Unfortunately, not all manufacturers put that serial number on in a way that is forensically recoverable after it is filed off or removed. If it is stamped; that is, imprinted, then it likely is. But if the serial number is raised/embossed, then forget it. Many are stamped, but not all are. Especially not older guns. As well, it's typically only the receiver that is stamped with a serial number, as this is what the law considers the actual 'firearm' part of the gun. However, depending again on make and model, a receiver is not difficult to construct from equipment available at your hardware store -- and yes, for less than $1000 too.
His argument doesn't hold water. The problem with 3D printers is that it would put a lot of businesses, well, out of business. And the biggest potential buyers of 3D printers is actually your local hardware and auto stores that right now have to pay a small fortune (which then you get to as well) ordering specialty parts out of a catalog. The entire after-market auto parts empire would deflate to maybe half its size if people could just bring in the broken part, and the store scans it in, or finds a match in a database, and then fires up the printer. 1 hour later, viola -- you have yourself a new plastic part for your car. And it doesn't cost you $60, but maybe $15 instead.
This, right here, is why this senator is pushing it. Lending credence to this theory -- look at some of his other proposals: backup cams in all cars, a bill to ban rental cars, extensive markings and ID on parts, and the list goes on. A quick look at his campaign contributors is all the more proof you need .. he's a paid shill for the auto industry.
Oh yes, firearms bad. 3d printers, terrorism, blah blah. The truth: It would put a big dent in the profits of the people writing his paycheck -- auto parts manufacturers.
You guys just don't get it. You're the very thing you claim to despise: The government comes and squishes free speech because it's unpopular... but then here you are, doing the same damn thing. The government isn't suppressing us: WE are suppressing us. We're plugging our ears and singing "Glory Glory Hallelujah."
And then you people wonder why we get shit like behavioral profiling, full body scanners, and police claiming they can do whatever they want. Well, look in the mirrors guys. You're staring at the reason: It's your steadfast refusal to get involved in the democratic process.
You think I'm wrong? You think this discussion hasn't been had in the oval office? By all means, come out and say so. Or you can sit on the sidelines and watch everything go to shit because you were too cowardly to even offer an opinion.
Killing him won't destroy his documents. It's certain he's got multiple backups with multiple people.
We took a stand; we don't negotiate with terrorists. That's the policy. We got a guy out there who has made demands, and when his demands weren't met, started leaking classified documents. That's what terrorism is: He tried to goad the government into a specific course of action by inspiring fear.
Whether he has backups or not is immaterial. Osama Bin Laden had backups -- how many of his number two guys did we ice before we finally got to him? A lot. But we did. We sent a message.
Why would the US government risk egg on their faces and a further highlight the degradation of American Ideals for nothing?
American ideals? Please, elaborate. Tell me, specifically, which ones you think matter here. Because right now all you're doing is making a vague handwave towards flags and patriotism, and isn't that what we've been accusing the government of doing? Isn't that what we're campaigning to stop? To get some honest to god transparency?
So please, be specific. I insist.
Here's the thing guys. This isn't a troll. It's a politically unpopular thing to say, but we're all thinking it. This is America. Good, bad, this is how democracy works. We ask the hard questions. The uncomfortable ones. You people ask and beg and bitch and plead with and about our government regarding surveillance, and how your free speech is being oppressed... but when someone pops the question everyone wants to talk about, you're gonna shut them down. I posted this knowing it would go straight to the depths of this website.
And the real kicker is; no government man in a black helicopter made any of you push the downmod button. You did that. So pro or anti snowden alike... you all got one thing in common: You're afraid to stand up and ask the hard questions. You'd rather let the government take care of things for you, and then bitch about the result. Well, you don't get that privilege if you can't sit down and reason out an argument for why, or why not, to do a hard thing. You don't get to complain about government officials riding roughshod over our rights, because if you're not gonna excercise them to begin with, then why do you even care?
We need to ask this question. This is how we've done business for a very long time. If the policy has changed, shouldn't we, the public, the people, be asking why it was done without our input? Whichever side of the issue you're on, or even no side at all, it should bother you just a bit that nobody anymore can ask the hard questions without being thought of as a "troll" or that it's "flamebait". Because it's neither. And to Godwin this whole thing, yeah, I'm gonna drop a Nazi reference now -- how do you think all those Jews got exterminated? They voted for Hitler. And then they stopped talking. They let the government do whatever it wanted, and as long as they got economic security and comfort, they didn't ask publicly what the cost was. But they knew. Yeah, they knew something was wrong. But they weren't gonna be the ones to talk.
Talking, people, is what democracy is about. If you don't talk, you don't have a democracy, except on paper. So talk people. Snowden lives. Snowden dies. Some other option. Step up to the microphone and say something. Or... or you can sit there and sneer, just like the german people did. But think about where it got them. Decisions need to be made. If you believe in democracy, you should make your opinion known -- because otherwise, the decision will be made without any of our input, and I promise you.. it'll be even worse than what I've put on the table.
Dear America,
Why, with the biggest arsenal in the world, with terrorists shitting bricks in Guantanamo, with several dictators sabre rattling and then sitting down and suddenly behaving when three aircraft carriers and a full entourage show up off their coast, can we not manage to deal with this one, simple, irritation? Just give him what he wants -- he wants to be a martyr. He leaks, and he leaks, and at this point he's probably inventing new documents to leak. Snowden might as well be a brand name; it's got household recognition. So please tell me... what's the hold up on pulling the trigger?
This is an honest question; I simply do not understand why we're holding out on this one guy, when we've sent in Seal Team Six to give people who have done less in economic damage severe and sudden lead poisoning and then dumped their body uncermoniously in the ocean where it'll never be found. I'm not asking for arguments for/against Snowden or what he's doing. I honestly don't care at this point. Maybe he's telling the truth. Maybe he's lying through his teeth. Maybe he's right and maybe he's wrong... but American policy since pre-WWI has been pretty straightforward regarding spies and espionage: We execute them, as a matter of public policy. So why the change now?
And again, no pro or anti-snowden here. The facts are the facts; he's a threat to national security, right or wrong. And we've dealt with those types of threats pretty consistently from a policy standpoint. Until now. What about making him a martyr is so unappealing that we're reversing on nearly 100 years of public policy on this issue? Really, truly, I'd like to know what the reasoning is here; And yet again -- this isn't a moral judgement on whether he's right or wrong. It is, in the final analysis, immaterial. When a hungry bear takes a run at you, you don't ask whether or not he was treated well, or if he was previously in captivity, or whether he's defending his cubs or not. It's you, or the bear. End of story.
I honestly cannot fathom why they don't just end Snowden. We do worse to people who peddle drugs in this country; he's done more damage economically than they have. Soooo... where's the hailstorm of bullets I've come to expect from America? Right or wrong, it's what we're known for. So, why aren't we doing our signature move on this guy?
Well, whatever the subject, you have just demonstrated that you are incapable of rational discourse. And blind to things that are glaringly obvious. Pathetic.
And with your original post on this claiming indocrination and all your tin foil hat non-sense, you demonstrated you're incapable of even rational thought. And blind to your own mental illness. Pathetic.
I am not going to comment on the OP's asinine ramblings but will ask you a few different questions...
Thank you for that small courtesy.
Why is it that the same procedure in the same town at different hospitals have costs that vary widely as much as thousands of dollars?
Long story short: The same reason Coca-cola is rolling out machines that change the price depending on how hot it is. It's not just about how much it costs, or what the profit margin is... it's also about how much you're willing to pay. And when it's pay up or die, unsurprisingly, they charge infinity.
Ah, those with a simple model of the world... And those that think screaming and swearing makes them right...
It's not a simple model. It's you're an asshole. I've worked in hospitals. I have several friends who are doctors. They are some of the most compassionate and caring people you'll find, albeit with morbid senses of humor. You, on the other hand, have a stick up your ass thinking you can come in and shit on people who's jobs it is to save lives because you think you can make a political statement out of it. And yes, I will swear, and this is one of the few times when swearing is called for: It's when someone goes above and beyond to shit on good people.
And you sir, you did that. You didn't just pick on one person, you decided to unzip and drop a log on an entire industry filled with mostly good people, doing good things. And then you come and insult me? For calling you what you are - an asshole? Let me say this again: Fuck you. I have no respect for people like you... you're so wrapped up in your own ego you wouldn't know the truth if it burned your nose.
You misunderstand the system. These high costs of becoming a doctor serve as indoctrination,
What the fuck man? Seriously... you're signing up to pull parts of cars out of people. You're gonna tell someone they have cancer and 3 months to live. You're gonna be explaining to someone the surgery didn't go well and they're going to be leaking shit out of their ass for the rest of their life. Or that you have to amputate their leg. Or that they have AIDS. You think people sign up for that so they can be indoctrinated? And you think I don't understand? Fuck you man. Fuck you and the horse you rode in on! These people bust their asses for long hours for years, dealing with blood, guts, shit, and gore, out of a genuine conviction that life is sacred. And you come here and you shit on that to serve your own political needs? FUCK. YOU.
The high costs are because they need to be highly trained, there is no margin for error, because unlike your job, when they fuck up, they have to bury their mistakes. So don't you dare twist around a profession that sooner or later, you're gonna need because that's what they do. They don't judge. They heal drug dealers and terrorists, and saints and grade school teachers. That's their job. That's what they do. No politics. No bullshit. Just the job. The job of saving lives.
First, this hasn't been verified. You're citing a single (deleted) post on an internet forum. It would be like me claiming Microsoft CEO Ballmer visits my cube during late nights coding and molests me. Credibility = Zero.
Second, quality control is handled externally to FoxConn -- or at least it damn well should have been. I don't think this is a worker revolt. We would have seen more than one post. If you ask me, it's one of two things -- the most likely is a bad batch of capacitors or other commodity parts. It's happened before -- just ask Monkey Man (who isn't molesting me, btw) about the XBox 360's RROD (Red Ring Of Death) -- which was traced to substandard parts and compounded by poor design regarding air circulation within the unit. The other possibility, an outlier, but considering this is Sony... is that their DRM has malfunctioned in a spectacular fashion. There are literally dozens of layers of DRM in this device, and it could be that a conflict has emerged at the hardware level due to authentication, etc. But like I said, it's an outlier; My money is on shit components.
P.S. I can already hear the heads bubbling over of certain people because I mentioned regulation as being a problem, yet am suggesting institutionalizing health care. This is not the paradox you think it is: Much of our regulation is due to private interests demanding it. Just ask Tesla Motor Co. Canada, Spain, the UK, they've all done quite well at providing decent health care in an institutional capacity... though the UK system is showing signs of needing some attention due to neglect of late.
And yes, I know you can probably demonstrate any one of fifty different angles and case studies on how those systems are sub-optimal compared to ours. I answer with two statistics: Infant mortality in the United States, and current life expectancy. In those countries, they're going down, and up, respectively. In ours, the reverse is currently true. It's generally true that if you have money here and get sick, this is the best place to be. But in those countries, you don't get sick as often, because there's a focus on preventative care, not treatment. Here, specialists outnumber general practitioners about 3 to 1. There, the reverse is true.
If we look at it from a macro-perspective; At the societal level, their system is beating ours on both costs, and quality of life. And if the overall health of the general public, while maintaining reasonable costs, are your priorities, you cannot support our current privatized system.
The study of medicine has only one goal. Improve the life expectancy of human beings.
I believe the flaw in your argument is in this statement.
You're both wrong. That's not why our health care system went to hell. It's insurance companies. They're turning a profit on human misery. But ignoring that side of the equation, there's also excessive regulation. This article talks about how low-cost it is to actually make the equipment. And they're right. Meeting the standards is pretty easy. But that's not where the costs are. As I'm sure the designers know, or will soon discover, it's getting certification for their equipment. Certification is the reason why a table-side bed in a hospital costs $500, but you can pick up the exact same item, for home use, off Amazon for about $35 plus S&H.
If you want to fix the health care system, you're going to have to do something you don't want to do: You're going to have to give up on capitalism. Private-run insurance, private-run health care, private-run... kill it. Burn it all to the ground. Europeans figured out a long time ago that capitalism is good with non-essential commodities, but it's absolute shit with natural resources or essential goods and services that have a non-trivial cost. Electricity. Telecommunications. Gas. Internet. Health care. Transportation. These are not things that capitalism has done well with; The owners of these key resources make a fuckton of money, but the rest of us are enslaved to poverty to do so. Capitalism only works when there's a natural tendancy towards competition, and there isn't any in those areas. The invisible hand can kiss my invisible ass, because it doesn't work the way people have been led to believe. It works well much of the time. It works very well when the cost of entry into the market is low and there's no natural monopoly (like land, to use the quintessential example). But to say it always works, or to try and shoehorn it into markets and situations that it has a poor history with, is stupid. Nothing always works. Ever. Capitalism is no different -- put it to good use where it is efficient and effective, but it's not a "spray on all surfaces" sort of ideology. In fact, no such ideology has ever been created.