How about reading the salon.com article? If you did, you would see that it provides attributed quotes. If you don't believe the story, you can go and ask the person quoted. That is what decent journalism is all about. There are facts and you can check their veracity yourself.
The polls show that most of Gore's support comes from people aged 12 to 24, do they?
They're not very good polls then, are they? Out in the world of people with more than one brain cell, we poll those who can actually vote. Which doesn't include 12 year olds. (Nor, frequently, convicted criminals. Who are often black. And who might vote Democrat...)
The killer app may be desktop video. That's certainly what Apple are hoping. Huge CPU and diskspace requirements. Obviously desirable for consumers. Will drive bandwidth requirements for the Web too as people host/mail/download videos. IMO PC development will be static once you can view fullscreen 21" or more video in realtime. But that's probably an underestimate--people will go on to want flatscreen panels covering half a wall that can display videos/games as well. It's really not difficult to imagine everyday apps that don't yet exist that are *way* beyond the capabilities of current processors.
Whereas of course the US healthcare is a paragon of excellence and doesn't do anything the rest of the civilised world considers insane such as exclude about 40m people from cover or anything...
And it's not as though healthcare costs 15% of GNP and rising in the US as compared with 6-12% in the EU.
Stick to your knitting and your Cato Institute, sonny boy, and leave microeconomics to people who know the relevant theory.
"It seems rather luddite, almost a head-in-the-sand approach to require people to ignore data that helps determine their future. And no, we shouldn't all be forced to be 'equal' by government fiat. People who will have higher medical expenses should pay more for their insurance."
Why bother with insurance at all then? The only point of insurance is to pool risks--between individuals and over time. The smaller the pool, the less efficient the insurance--but in your twisted view, *any* insurance is doubtless Socialistic [sic] and therefore A Great Evil.
So what? If you made over $100k in 1998, you could *afford* to pay more tax than someone in the, eg, $25-50k bracket. In both relative and absolute terms you are still much much more wealthy.
I've got a shocking idea for you: if you want to cut your *expenditure*, try a different healthcare system. In the US you pay 15% of GDP for all healthcare--in the EU, you pay c10%. Think of all the SUVs you could buy for that!
Umm, I'm a bit confused here. If a government pays a company money to build a factory, then the taxpayer is subsidising the business expenses of the company: hence the term corporate welfare. There is a net flow of money from individuals' pockets to the company. The company gets to cut the costs of running its business, sometimes very substantially. Why should taxpayers subsidise the costs of the business--which isn't optional? Why not the market--made of consumers, who have the option? Don't you believe in the power of the market?
Whoops! Tiny mistake here: corporations don't have a choice between [a] sell X million options to employees at below market value and [b] sell X million options to the market at market value. They sell options to their employees that *would not otherwise be released onto the market*. They do this quietly to reduce the likelihood of it impacting on the value of all the previously issued shares. And guess what? They get away with it. That means that the benefit for their employees has cost them nothing. By contrast, their employees have paid *them* some money and their employees hope to be paid more money by investors.
IANAE but this seems to me to be parallel to inflation devaluing a currency. Unexercised stock options represent a risk of share price devaluation to investors. The more options exercised at any one time, the greater the risk of devaluation, and the larger the devaluation is likely to be.
It might be an expense, but how much money does it cost the company? All the company does is to issue you with an options certificate, and then, *if you give it* money, issue you a share certificate. The only flow of cash so far has been from you to the company. It had X million shares previously, each worth $Y, it now has X + n million shares, each *still* worth $Y because share prices do *not* tend to move in response to issuing or exercising of share options (so much for the rational market). The company has paid nothing and will pay nothing if you exercise your options -- instead, another investor will foot the bill, because you sell your shares on the open market.
The danger is that the bubble will burst -- if too many people choose to exercise their options all at once, then the supply of shares in a company will increase dramatically, other shareholders will see what is happening, and the value of the shares will fall.
What you've got is lotsa people hoping to make it big time rich one day in the future -- and paying an opportunity cost now in terms of lower salaries. They'll also have to pay upfront (ie take a gamble with their post-tax income) to buy any share options. Faith in the potency of the stock market is what drives it all.
Heinlein's argument is terribly seductive and all, but is dismayingly populist. Hypothecation has many virtues, not the least of which is ensuring that programs have a predictable income, which makes spending far more efficient.
Of course, now that their tax costs have decreased dramatically, the prices that they charge the consumer have decreased dramat...oh bollocks, I knew there was a flaw in the argument somewhere. [sigh]
I think your questions: "Perhaps the more unfundemental issue is defining what the average user is "actually doing?" What does the average user really need to know?" are spot on.
When we hit the brakes to slow the car down, what we're doing is slowing the car down. The particular mechanism is irrelevant to us so long as it is reliable. If it doesn't work, then we want it working. That's more important than learning why it's not working. This all comes down to that fundamental issue of "what is the computer for?" If it's an end in itself, we'll want to learn as much as possible about it. If it's a means to an end, we'll be more interested in having it hide itself away.
Isaac Asimov once wrote that there were two styles of writing prose: the stained glass window approach, full of flourishes and curlicues; and the plate glass window approach, where the important action lies beyond the window.
Where CLI advocates often seem to delude themselves is that they think their approach is the latter. They think this because they see their approach as more transparent--nothing's obscured, right? However, it's not, it's the former. It concentrates on the window (the computer) and not the action beyond it (the job at hand).
Mainstream users will generally be task-oriented, and the tasks will be something that relates to the World Outside The Computer. You know, sending a message to a friend, listening to music, making money, having a wank, that sort of thing. That's why they want the complexities of the system hidden away from them--so they concentrate on the matter at hand (ahem).
That's just complete bollocks, I'm afraid. While there may be certain (numerous) problems with your car that you *can* fix, most modern cars are complicated enough that you will not be able to fix many of the significant problems that could occur. If you're really into fixing your car's ABS system, please, let everyone else know where you drive so we can steer clear.
"After all, what other useful thing do you know that the U.N. has spent money on?"
This merits a reply. Start with the World Food Program, which provides subsistence meals to people who would otherwise starve to death. You can donate meals for free (corporate sponsor pays) at http://www.thehungersite.com
Next time you ask a question like that, you might first ask yourself when you last saved someone from starving to death.
Go visit a national park now. They could do with your help in putting the flames out. The flames of the fires that are all-too-frequently caused by daytrippers. Which is why reducing the number of daytrippers would be A Good Thing. The phrase "dippy twat" springs quickly to hand...
"...CNN's reach throughout the world is greater than the CIA in terms of reporting foreign events...And as far as figuring out the psychological profile of world leaders, which is more useful: second-hand guessing from people who may have never met a world leader, or an on-camera interview from a reporter from ABC News where they flat out ask the guy what he's thinking?"
This is absolutely priceless. The gentleman suggests that a political interview provides substantive and useful information on the basis of which the US can conduct its foreign policy.
ABC News: "Mr Mugabe, are you a democrat?" Mr Mugabe: "Yes". CIA file: 'Mugabe will relinquish power in Zimbabwe. He is a democrat. We know this because he told it to ABC News in an interview. We do not know the meaning of the words "ulterior motives", "naive twats" or "duplicitous".'
The American news media, of course, is widely respected for its very global perspective on events. This is particular true of US broadcast media which is renowned for its indepth analysis of events that provide a comprehensive, neutral and percipient view of our changing world.
By God, I hope that the CIA doesn't rely on US media. If they *must* use media at least let it be the BBC World Service [not that they should be relying on others anyway].
I will happily explain what I'm talking about. I'm talking about secure and safe design. Text messages are irrelevant if a user can launch a virus by clicking twice or pressing return twice. Providing a warning is useless in a system that is predicated on not having to think too carefully about what you're doing--which precisely describes what Outlook attempts to do. The power source in a PC has a label on it warning of the dangers of opening it up. However, the manufacturers wisely decided that that wasn't enough. So, they made sure it's not too easy to get into the box physically as well. Secure design is hardly some sort of obscure part of industrial design, you know...and Outlook isn't secure. Saying "it's just too bad for the user" is not just pointless, it's wrong--commercial organisations are supposed to listen and respond to their customers' experiences. Microsoft used to trumpet the fact that it did this on a bigger scale than any other software company on the planet. Doesn't boast about that much at the moment.
"I'm also very, VERY afraid of government involvement in the day-to-day actions of any business, no matter how bad." I couldn't agree more. Who wants the government setting pesky quality standards for the drugs that pharmaceutical companies produce? Or insisting that electricity is distributed (relatively) safely? Or that banks aren't run by convicted fraudsters? After all, corporations have a tremendous record in preserving the environment, respecting employees and customers, and responding quickly and effectively to societal concerns. Also, Bhopal and thalidomide are just figments of everyone's imaginations...
"The ILOVEYOU trojan wasn't autorun by Outlook. The user had to run the script manually. It's the same as if the email had said, "Save this file on your hard drive and run it!" It didn't exploit any security hole. Now, you earlier stated that they didn't release anything for it, but they actually did release a patch for Outlook to help discourage people from running any executable content that they receive via email. I and many others aren't bothering to install it because we already know not to execute unknown programs."
As a talented sophist, you can presumably supply a good reason why MS ignored basic principles of security, such as "construct a realistic threat model and design accordingly"--could you please share it with the rest of us? I, for one, would like to see the Outlook design team take a trip in a car designed along the same principles. "Whaddya mean you thought turning the steering wheel clockwise would turn the car right? Don't you know better than to do something like that without checking first?"
El Al, widely regarded as having the tightest security of any carrier provides some insight here. Bags are checked by machine for every passenger and by hand for many. In addition, some unsmiling individuals will ask you a series of questions about your luggage. And yes, they are adequately trained for this...don't even think about lying. It's scary and it's effective. Doubtless there are other technological measures in place behind these scenes--rucksacks are tamper-sealed once checked, for a start. But it's the quality of the questioning that's key to security.
When I was 11, I went with my family to Israel. The security guy asked my father if we'd ever been before. I piped up "no", not remembering that we'd been as a toddler. Not only did I get a look that stopped me from saying anything else till we were ground-side in Israel, but we were also delayed for 20 minutes while they checked things out more thoroughly.
The human factor is the key factor. There are rumours that background checks are carried out on every passenger on an El Al plane (including the ultra-Orthodox guys with the beards and black hats) before you fly and that there are security agents on every El Al plane (in plane clothes) and all over the airports. It's certainly true that they have no qualms about letting you miss your plane in order to question you more thoroughly.
Is it painful? Yes. Does it cost El Al a fortune? You bet. Do you feel secure flying with them? Yes indeed.
[Side note: I flew with BA to Israel not so long ago. The same unfriendly faces were asking the same questions -- so it's likely that at least half the security measures are required / implemented by the government and not El Al.]
Two reasons: 1) People talk more loudly on the phone than face-to-face. This is partly an unconscious reaction to the lack of non-verbal commmunication, and partly due to the fact that it's difficult to hear what's being said for both parties to the conversation. 2) There's nothing more frustrating than hearing half a conversation.
What *is* this problem that so many US citizens seem to have with paying taxes? Especially income taxes? You'd have to pay for things like roads and waste disposal and education anyway--and it would be more expensive and less equitable if you paid for it privately. Case in point: the UK's NHS supplies >99% of the population with healthcare at a cost of 6% of GDP. The US's health system costs 15% of GDP and there are 40m people without insurance cover. Take away the 1m rich ones who don't need the cover and that's a whole lot of people without access to healthcare.
Kosova and Kosovo are variant spellings that approximate the prononunciation of a word that is written in different alphabets to English. Albanians and Serbians pronounce it differently as well--but I can't remember which way round it is.
Interestingly, Israeli officers were at one time renowned for their battle-cry: "Aharai". It means "After me" and describes how they would lead a charge. I don't know if it's still applicable. Also interesting--Israel has had many military leaders who have become political leaders, such as Ehud Barak and Yitzhak Rabin--and these people will frequently have been in danger of dying in combat themselves. Doubtless there are other countries where this happens as well. I don't know that you get a perceptible benefit out of it (though I prefer the Baraks and Rabins of this world to the Netanyahus)
Slashdot Mirror
How about reading the salon.com article? If you did, you would see that it provides attributed quotes. If you don't believe the story, you can go and ask the person quoted. That is what decent journalism is all about. There are facts and you can check their veracity yourself.
The polls show that most of Gore's support comes from people aged 12 to 24, do they?
They're not very good polls then, are they? Out in the world of people with more than one brain cell, we poll those who can actually vote. Which doesn't include 12 year olds. (Nor, frequently, convicted criminals. Who are often black. And who might vote Democrat...)
The killer app may be desktop video. That's certainly what Apple are hoping. Huge CPU and diskspace requirements. Obviously desirable for consumers. Will drive bandwidth requirements for the Web too as people host/mail/download videos. IMO PC development will be static once you can view fullscreen 21" or more video in realtime. But that's probably an underestimate--people will go on to want flatscreen panels covering half a wall that can display videos/games as well. It's really not difficult to imagine everyday apps that don't yet exist that are *way* beyond the capabilities of current processors.
Whereas of course the US healthcare is a paragon of excellence and doesn't do anything the rest of the civilised world considers insane such as exclude about 40m people from cover or anything...
And it's not as though healthcare costs 15% of GNP and rising in the US as compared with 6-12% in the EU.
Stick to your knitting and your Cato Institute, sonny boy, and leave microeconomics to people who know the relevant theory.
"It seems rather luddite, almost a head-in-the-sand approach to require people to ignore data that helps determine their future. And no, we shouldn't all be forced to be 'equal' by government fiat. People who will have higher medical expenses should pay more for their insurance."
Why bother with insurance at all then? The only point of insurance is to pool risks--between individuals and over time. The smaller the pool, the less efficient the insurance--but in your twisted view, *any* insurance is doubtless Socialistic [sic] and therefore A Great Evil.
In re: your other words.
So what? If you made over $100k in 1998, you could *afford* to pay more tax than someone in the, eg, $25-50k bracket. In both relative and absolute terms you are still much much more wealthy.
I've got a shocking idea for you: if you want to cut your *expenditure*, try a different healthcare system. In the US you pay 15% of GDP for all healthcare--in the EU, you pay c10%. Think of all the SUVs you could buy for that!
Umm, I'm a bit confused here. If a government pays a company money to build a factory, then the taxpayer is subsidising the business expenses of the company: hence the term corporate welfare. There is a net flow of money from individuals' pockets to the company. The company gets to cut the costs of running its business, sometimes very substantially. Why should taxpayers subsidise the costs of the business--which isn't optional? Why not the market--made of consumers, who have the option? Don't you believe in the power of the market?
Whoops! Tiny mistake here: corporations don't have a choice between [a] sell X million options to employees at below market value and [b] sell X million options to the market at market value. They sell options to their employees that *would not otherwise be released onto the market*. They do this quietly to reduce the likelihood of it impacting on the value of all the previously issued shares. And guess what? They get away with it. That means that the benefit for their employees has cost them nothing. By contrast, their employees have paid *them* some money and their employees hope to be paid more money by investors.
IANAE but this seems to me to be parallel to inflation devaluing a currency. Unexercised stock options represent a risk of share price devaluation to investors. The more options exercised at any one time, the greater the risk of devaluation, and the larger the devaluation is likely to be.
It might be an expense, but how much money does it cost the company? All the company does is to issue you with an options certificate, and then, *if you give it* money, issue you a share certificate. The only flow of cash so far has been from you to the company. It had X million shares previously, each worth $Y, it now has X + n million shares, each *still* worth $Y because share prices do *not* tend to move in response to issuing or exercising of share options (so much for the rational market). The company has paid nothing and will pay nothing if you exercise your options -- instead, another investor will foot the bill, because you sell your shares on the open market.
The danger is that the bubble will burst -- if too many people choose to exercise their options all at once, then the supply of shares in a company will increase dramatically, other shareholders will see what is happening, and the value of the shares will fall.
What you've got is lotsa people hoping to make it big time rich one day in the future -- and paying an opportunity cost now in terms of lower salaries. They'll also have to pay upfront (ie take a gamble with their post-tax income) to buy any share options. Faith in the potency of the stock market is what drives it all.
Heinlein's argument is terribly seductive and all, but is dismayingly populist. Hypothecation has many virtues, not the least of which is ensuring that programs have a predictable income, which makes spending far more efficient.
Of course, now that their tax costs have decreased dramatically, the prices that they charge the consumer have decreased dramat...oh bollocks, I knew there was a flaw in the argument somewhere. [sigh]
I think your questions: "Perhaps the more unfundemental issue is defining what the average user is "actually doing?" What does the average user really need to know?" are spot on.
When we hit the brakes to slow the car down, what we're doing is slowing the car down. The particular mechanism is irrelevant to us so long as it is reliable. If it doesn't work, then we want it working. That's more important than learning why it's not working. This all comes down to that fundamental issue of "what is the computer for?" If it's an end in itself, we'll want to learn as much as possible about it. If it's a means to an end, we'll be more interested in having it hide itself away.
Isaac Asimov once wrote that there were two styles of writing prose: the stained glass window approach, full of flourishes and curlicues; and the plate glass window approach, where the important action lies beyond the window.
Where CLI advocates often seem to delude themselves is that they think their approach is the latter. They think this because they see their approach as more transparent--nothing's obscured, right? However, it's not, it's the former. It concentrates on the window (the computer) and not the action beyond it (the job at hand).
Mainstream users will generally be task-oriented, and the tasks will be something that relates to the World Outside The Computer. You know, sending a message to a friend, listening to music, making money, having a wank, that sort of thing. That's why they want the complexities of the system hidden away from them--so they concentrate on the matter at hand (ahem).
That's just complete bollocks, I'm afraid. While there may be certain (numerous) problems with your car that you *can* fix, most modern cars are complicated enough that you will not be able to fix many of the significant problems that could occur. If you're really into fixing your car's ABS system, please, let everyone else know where you drive so we can steer clear.
"After all, what other useful thing do you know that the U.N. has spent money on?"
This merits a reply. Start with the World Food Program, which provides subsistence meals to people who would otherwise starve to death. You can donate meals for free (corporate sponsor pays) at http://www.thehungersite.com
Next time you ask a question like that, you might first ask yourself when you last saved someone from starving to death.
Go visit a national park now. They could do with your help in putting the flames out. The flames of the fires that are all-too-frequently caused by daytrippers. Which is why reducing the number of daytrippers would be A Good Thing. The phrase "dippy twat" springs quickly to hand...
When will it ever end? The word you were groping for in your second sentence was "egregious".
Quis custodiet etc etc...
"...CNN's reach throughout the world is greater than the CIA in terms of reporting foreign events...And as far as figuring out the psychological profile of world leaders, which is more useful: second-hand guessing from people who may have never met a world leader, or an on-camera interview from a reporter from ABC News where they flat out ask the guy what he's thinking?"
This is absolutely priceless. The gentleman suggests that a political interview provides substantive and useful information on the basis of which the US can conduct its foreign policy.
ABC News: "Mr Mugabe, are you a democrat?"
Mr Mugabe: "Yes".
CIA file: 'Mugabe will relinquish power in Zimbabwe. He is a democrat. We know this because he told it to ABC News in an interview. We do not know the meaning of the words "ulterior motives", "naive twats" or "duplicitous".'
The American news media, of course, is widely respected for its very global perspective on events. This is particular true of US broadcast media which is renowned for its indepth analysis of events that provide a comprehensive, neutral and percipient view of our changing world.
By God, I hope that the CIA doesn't rely on US media. If they *must* use media at least let it be the BBC World Service [not that they should be relying on others anyway].
I will happily explain what I'm talking about. I'm talking about secure and safe design. Text messages are irrelevant if a user can launch a virus by clicking twice or pressing return twice. Providing a warning is useless in a system that is predicated on not having to think too carefully about what you're doing--which precisely describes what Outlook attempts to do. The power source in a PC has a label on it warning of the dangers of opening it up. However, the manufacturers wisely decided that that wasn't enough. So, they made sure it's not too easy to get into the box physically as well. Secure design is hardly some sort of obscure part of industrial design, you know...and Outlook isn't secure. Saying "it's just too bad for the user" is not just pointless, it's wrong--commercial organisations are supposed to listen and respond to their customers' experiences. Microsoft used to trumpet the fact that it did this on a bigger scale than any other software company on the planet. Doesn't boast about that much at the moment.
Steve
"I'm also very, VERY afraid of government involvement in the day-to-day actions of any business, no matter how bad."
I couldn't agree more. Who wants the government setting pesky quality standards for the drugs that pharmaceutical companies produce? Or insisting that electricity is distributed (relatively) safely? Or that banks aren't run by convicted fraudsters? After all, corporations have a tremendous record in preserving the environment, respecting employees and customers, and responding quickly and effectively to societal concerns. Also, Bhopal and thalidomide are just figments of everyone's imaginations...
"The ILOVEYOU trojan wasn't autorun by Outlook. The user had to run the script manually. It's the same as if the email had said, "Save this file on your hard drive and run it!" It didn't exploit any security hole. Now, you earlier stated that they didn't release anything for it, but they actually did release a patch for Outlook to help discourage people from running any executable content that they receive via email. I and many others aren't bothering to install it because we already know not to execute unknown programs."
As a talented sophist, you can presumably supply a good reason why MS ignored basic principles of security, such as "construct a realistic threat model and design accordingly"--could you please share it with the rest of us? I, for one, would like to see the Outlook design team take a trip in a car designed along the same principles. "Whaddya mean you thought turning the steering wheel clockwise would turn the car right? Don't you know better than to do something like that without checking first?"
El Al, widely regarded as having the tightest security of any carrier provides some insight here. Bags are checked by machine for every passenger and by hand for many. In addition, some unsmiling individuals will ask you a series of questions about your luggage. And yes, they are adequately trained for this...don't even think about lying. It's scary and it's effective. Doubtless there are other technological measures in place behind these scenes--rucksacks are tamper-sealed once checked, for a start. But it's the quality of the questioning that's key to security.
When I was 11, I went with my family to Israel. The security guy asked my father if we'd ever been before. I piped up "no", not remembering that we'd been as a toddler. Not only did I get a look that stopped me from saying anything else till we were ground-side in Israel, but we were also delayed for 20 minutes while they checked things out more thoroughly.
The human factor is the key factor. There are rumours that background checks are carried out on every passenger on an El Al plane (including the ultra-Orthodox guys with the beards and black hats) before you fly and that there are security agents on every El Al plane (in plane clothes) and all over the airports. It's certainly true that they have no qualms about letting you miss your plane in order to question you more thoroughly.
Is it painful? Yes. Does it cost El Al a fortune? You bet. Do you feel secure flying with them? Yes indeed.
[Side note: I flew with BA to Israel not so long ago. The same unfriendly faces were asking the same questions -- so it's likely that at least half the security measures are required / implemented by the government and not El Al.]
Two reasons:
1) People talk more loudly on the phone than face-to-face. This is partly an unconscious reaction to the lack of non-verbal commmunication, and partly due to the fact that it's difficult to hear what's being said for both parties to the conversation.
2) There's nothing more frustrating than hearing half a conversation.
What *is* this problem that so many US citizens seem to have with paying taxes? Especially income taxes? You'd have to pay for things like roads and waste disposal and education anyway--and it would be more expensive and less equitable if you paid for it privately. Case in point: the UK's NHS supplies >99% of the population with healthcare at a cost of 6% of GDP. The US's health system costs 15% of GDP and there are 40m people without insurance cover. Take away the 1m rich ones who don't need the cover and that's a whole lot of people without access to healthcare.
Kosova and Kosovo are variant spellings that approximate the prononunciation of a word that is written in different alphabets to English. Albanians and Serbians pronounce it differently as well--but I can't remember which way round it is.
Interestingly, Israeli officers were at one time renowned for their battle-cry: "Aharai". It means "After me" and describes how they would lead a charge. I don't know if it's still applicable. Also interesting--Israel has had many military leaders who have become political leaders, such as Ehud Barak and Yitzhak Rabin--and these people will frequently have been in danger of dying in combat themselves. Doubtless there are other countries where this happens as well. I don't know that you get a perceptible benefit out of it (though I prefer the Baraks and Rabins of this world to the Netanyahus)