Well sure, carbon credits are far from perfect, but it provides a financial incentive for a company to reduce emissions (so they can sell their spare credits). And it is important that the total number of credits is reduced over time (otherwise total emissions aren't reduced at all). I don't think any sensible person thinks that carbon credits alone will solve the problem.
I thought conservatives were all about personal responsibility? Funny how that only lasts up until the point where they are asked to take personal responsibility.
To entertain your strawman for a moment, so for you, global communism is worse that the destruction of the globe? You'd rather see the state of Florida under water before, god forbid, we share even a little bit of the wealth of the industrialized world? Better dead than red I guess?
There is an uncomfortable line between getting people to spend money that they were going to spend anyway on your product rather than somebody else's and getting people to spend money they don't have. Unfortunately, I don't think most businesses care about that distinction. In fact, it seems like most consumers don't care either.
People will game any system if there is a way to do it. The question is what percentage of the data is junk? If it's a couple of percent, it's probably not a problem. If it's 50%, then it's probably useless.
I think this is a very relevant point. Any statistician will tell you that you can't cherry pick your samples of a population if you hope to learn anything about that population. Even if it's your samples themselves that are doing the picking. Much like how online polls are a waste of time.
But Starbucks could collect that data easily with some kind of electronic counter on the door. And it would be more accurate because it doesn't rely on the small fraction of people who use foursquare that may or may not reflect the greater population.
But for your information, my number is based off 3 times the known, immediate costs, which figures to be 531 Million, or over half a billion. Why three times? It seemed reasonable long term cost associated.
I can't imagine it being anything less than half a billion in related losses.
Really? Please show your work.
I don't disagree that this seems low and probably doesn't include the intangible costs of damage to their reputation, lost opportunity and the like, but I'm not going to pull a number out of thin air.
Baseless speculation. Unless you know something we don't there is no direct evidence that the hack was related to the removal of the other OS feature and not just a criminal act with the sole intention of stealing cash.
I'd also say they might be hoping that a few people will decide to continue their PSN+ subscription after they get a free month, so actually Sony might come out ahead on that one. Same goes for the credit monitoring, they probably got a cut rate deal with the credit monitoring company in exchange for Sony basically giving that company your personal information (so they can spam you or else sell on your info) and with the expectation that some people will continue to want monitoring after the first year (at their own cost).
Not everybody lives in your ivory tower above such petty base past times as playing games. I'm sure what you do for entertainment is so much more worthwhile and enriching.
But yes, I think having your credit card number stolen counts as suffering regardless of what your opinion of gaming is. So on that, I guess we agree. That greater suffering certainly exists is neither here nor there. It's not a competition.
I had the pleasure of eating lunch in the cafeteria at the corporate HQ of a large fast food company. Interestingly only a small fraction of what they serve in their restaurants was available in their cafeteria with the rest being standard corporate cafeteria type fare. The person I was meeting with even assured me that it wasn't all their restaurant food.
Maybe. I admittedly haven't seen that many real-life gunshot victims; Hollywood ain't known for realism in this regard either, so it's not a good comparison either. In general it's probably true that games go lighter on the blood because a) it's computational expensive to keep track of every pool of blood (hence the fading blood pools - and disappearing corpses - that we're all used to) and b) the misconception that gaming is for kids and blood will harm their delicate little psyche - so while violence is fine, we must shield them from the bloody consequences.
Slashdot Mirror
Well sure, carbon credits are far from perfect, but it provides a financial incentive for a company to reduce emissions (so they can sell their spare credits). And it is important that the total number of credits is reduced over time (otherwise total emissions aren't reduced at all). I don't think any sensible person thinks that carbon credits alone will solve the problem.
I thought conservatives were all about personal responsibility? Funny how that only lasts up until the point where they are asked to take personal responsibility.
No, but doing nothing won't solve everything either. Even the longest journey starts with a single step.
So you're at step 2. Thanks for playing.
To entertain your strawman for a moment, so for you, global communism is worse that the destruction of the globe? You'd rather see the state of Florida under water before, god forbid, we share even a little bit of the wealth of the industrialized world? Better dead than red I guess?
I believe the climate change deniers logic goes something like this:
But rising by 3.9C is almost as bad. It's not 50% chance temps rise 4C or 50% chance it doesn't rise at all.
As I've told people, it's all disinformation, and usually located near cities that would drive the tinfoil hat crowd nuts.
Really? You think anybody actually cares where you are? You need to get over yourself.
Agreed. That annoys me too when people down rate a product because of some problem unrelated to the quality (or lack thereof) of the product itself.
There is an uncomfortable line between getting people to spend money that they were going to spend anyway on your product rather than somebody else's and getting people to spend money they don't have. Unfortunately, I don't think most businesses care about that distinction. In fact, it seems like most consumers don't care either.
Some of us cheat it anyways.
People will game any system if there is a way to do it. The question is what percentage of the data is junk? If it's a couple of percent, it's probably not a problem. If it's 50%, then it's probably useless.
I think this is a very relevant point. Any statistician will tell you that you can't cherry pick your samples of a population if you hope to learn anything about that population. Even if it's your samples themselves that are doing the picking. Much like how online polls are a waste of time.
Ah, but if you don't check in at home, how do the burglars know that it's time to make a quick exit out the back window?
Most of the time you check in AFTER you have ordered so you see the special you now cant use.
Is that kinda your fault? Not disagreeing with you, I've never used Foursquare myself and it might well be true that the novelty has worn off.
But Starbucks could collect that data easily with some kind of electronic counter on the door. And it would be more accurate because it doesn't rely on the small fraction of people who use foursquare that may or may not reflect the greater population.
And apparently I know something you don't. I know that Anonymous "officially" (as much as that means anything with Anonymous) said they did not do it.
But for your information, my number is based off 3 times the known, immediate costs, which figures to be 531 Million, or over half a billion. Why three times? It seemed reasonable long term cost associated.
So you pulled it out your ass then? Got it.
I can't imagine it being anything less than half a billion in related losses.
Really? Please show your work.
I don't disagree that this seems low and probably doesn't include the intangible costs of damage to their reputation, lost opportunity and the like, but I'm not going to pull a number out of thin air.
Baseless speculation. Unless you know something we don't there is no direct evidence that the hack was related to the removal of the other OS feature and not just a criminal act with the sole intention of stealing cash.
I'd also say they might be hoping that a few people will decide to continue their PSN+ subscription after they get a free month, so actually Sony might come out ahead on that one. Same goes for the credit monitoring, they probably got a cut rate deal with the credit monitoring company in exchange for Sony basically giving that company your personal information (so they can spam you or else sell on your info) and with the expectation that some people will continue to want monitoring after the first year (at their own cost).
Not everybody lives in your ivory tower above such petty base past times as playing games. I'm sure what you do for entertainment is so much more worthwhile and enriching.
But yes, I think having your credit card number stolen counts as suffering regardless of what your opinion of gaming is. So on that, I guess we agree. That greater suffering certainly exists is neither here nor there. It's not a competition.
I had the pleasure of eating lunch in the cafeteria at the corporate HQ of a large fast food company. Interestingly only a small fraction of what they serve in their restaurants was available in their cafeteria with the rest being standard corporate cafeteria type fare. The person I was meeting with even assured me that it wasn't all their restaurant food.
No comment.
Maybe. I admittedly haven't seen that many real-life gunshot victims; Hollywood ain't known for realism in this regard either, so it's not a good comparison either. In general it's probably true that games go lighter on the blood because a) it's computational expensive to keep track of every pool of blood (hence the fading blood pools - and disappearing corpses - that we're all used to) and b) the misconception that gaming is for kids and blood will harm their delicate little psyche - so while violence is fine, we must shield them from the bloody consequences.
Yeah this is hardly ground breaking: 5 Creepy Ways Video Games Are Trying to Get You Addicted