Besides there really isn't anybody repeating it. At least, I don't know if I've ever heard anyone seriously using it. Most of the times I've heard it mentioned was people making fun of others for using the term. Maybe I just don't move in corporate enough of circles.
Yeah, but that doesn't change the fact that there is no law, and perhaps couldn't be, that could say I couldn't sell any other possession. I can sell my bicycle, or my computer, so why couldn't I sell my CDs?
Of course, with other things, there is still some precautions that must be taken, when transferring expensive items, but to say that I couldn't exchange it for cash seems kind of ridiculous. Especially since CDs don't seem like the absolute most theftworthy things.
As many people have mentioned, phishing works because people don't pay attention to the URL, and making a specific URL just for banks won't change that.
But what I would add to that is that Phishing was successful because most people didn't know what it was. And it seems that for most people, their naivety might have decreased. I have gotten far fewer phishing e-Mails in the past year or so, and according to this chart:
Phishing seemed to have gone up quickly but then leveled off: after all, after the 20th e-Mail from a bank you don't belong to, telling you that your account needs to be updated, even the worst AOLer must have realized it was a scam.
However, this is just what I've noticed. There may be people with contrasting experience.
The stated issue behind the restrictions on reselling CDs seems to be that they are a likely good to be stolen and resold. I suppose that this does make sense, and that CDs should have the same restrictions put on them that any other good sold in a pawnshop should.
But there seems to be hints that this is just a way for the recording industry to stop the reselling of CDs.
But there would have to be a closer studying of the legislation and the people backing it to find out which one is the real reason this is being pushed.
On the face of it, though, I find it a little unlikely that this is an anti-theft measure. Especially the part about "only to be used for store credit". It seems unfair to target CDs like this, when there are plenty of other things: cars, guns, jewelry, musical instruments, home electronics, sporting equipment, that are also likely targets of theft (I would think all of those named would be better targets for theft than CDs), but (AFAIK), there isn't any specific laws that say you can't sell your skis or guitar for cash.
I know that in some countries, the presidency is almost entirely ceremonial. In most countries, it is more ceremonial than it seems. People often get worked up about who the president is, but its usually not as big of a factor as it seems. In the United States, the past eight years have seen a powerful executive, but only because the legislative branch was along for the ride, and the public was either cowed or supportive.
I think one of the biggest paradigm shifts that people are going to have to adjust to is the idea that information, like many other things, is now often causing a problems with too much, and not with too little. Having constant access to information does not mean you are educated. Becoming educated is more than just having access to information. You can give a student a laptop, with built-in or internet access to a database of information on anything in the world, and that doesn't make them educated. A fully 3D, interactive CD-Rom showing the human anatomy isn't what is needed for someone to become a doctor. Its the understanding of the basic concepts, and the discipline to understands how information fits into the big picture that allows people to really be educated. Without out, information is just a distraction.
You are doing a good job of arguing my point back at me.
They would fold in two months because consumers wouldn't buy a more expensive magazine. Meaning consumers are choosing to pay less up front, but more in the long run through bad purchases. Which means, as I said, consumers are responsible as well.
I would suggest that if a great magazine can help you save hundreds and thousands of dollars in bad equipment purchases later, than yes, yes you should. Of course, I think the people who actually make the big decisions about buying hundreds of workstations and the like don't do it by skimming advertisements in grocery-aisle computing magazines. But if these magazines had better editorial standards, those people might actually take them seriously.
My point is that the money COULD be coming from the consumer, but is not. Consumers choose to buy seemingly cheaper magazines, but they end up spending more money later because they make ill-informed decisions.
I guess I should point out to be fair that I don't really ever buy any magazines. When I do, its because I have a long bus trip and need something totally light and meaningless to keep me occupied. Magazines to me are mostly for light light entertainment, and looking at statistics about big beige boxes isn't it.
(skipping the obvious toilet paper jokes) Yes, I have seen them there, and also in offices and the like, which is usually where I read them. That is, if I can't find any issues of "Highlights" to read.
Actually, this article brought up a question for me: Who reads computer magazines, anyway? Although I am not the most 31337 person in the world, I am pretty much surrounded by the world of computers, but I have never, in my life, put down money for a computer magazine. And no one I know, including many programmers, hardware people, or network administrators, seems to be a follower either. But yet I see racks of these things at grocery stores. Who is buying these things? Middle management who want to keep up to date with the computer world?
As much as it is bad that corporations control (or at least influence) the media through advertising, it wouldn't go on if consumers wouldn't allow it to happen. If consumers would be willing to spend a little extra money on a magazine, or in general be just a little more critical of their purchases, companies wouldn't have so much power to misinform.
All the money that would be spent up front in buying magazines that are consumer, and not advertiser supported, would be saved when they bought equipment that was the best value for their money, instead of being overly hyped junk.
Slashdot Mirror
The real disappointment is that since we are still using Web 2.0, we will have to wait a long time until we can get our Games 3.0 over the internet.
I can't do that because the ohmage variance in my titanium overlace capacitors is incompatible with my dynamic memory modules.
Besides there really isn't anybody repeating it.
At least, I don't know if I've ever heard anyone seriously using it. Most of the times I've heard it mentioned was people making fun of others for using the term.
Maybe I just don't move in corporate enough of circles.
As long as it doesn't involve CowboyNeal slash...
It could be, or that could refer to slash fiction
http://www.xkcd.com/c256.html
Slashdot wasn't even on this map!
http://www.strangehorizons.com/2004/20040405/badge r.shtml
Yeah, but that doesn't change the fact that there is no law, and perhaps couldn't be, that could say I couldn't sell any other possession. I can sell my bicycle, or my computer, so why couldn't I sell my CDs?
Of course, with other things, there is still some precautions that must be taken, when transferring expensive items, but to say that I couldn't exchange it for cash seems kind of ridiculous. Especially since CDs don't seem like the absolute most theftworthy things.
As many people have mentioned, phishing works because people don't pay attention to the URL, and making a specific URL just for banks won't change that.
. png
But what I would add to that is that Phishing was successful because most people didn't know what it was. And it seems that for most people, their naivety might have decreased. I have gotten far fewer phishing e-Mails in the past year or so, and according to this chart:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Phishing_chart
Phishing seemed to have gone up quickly but then leveled off: after all, after the 20th e-Mail from a bank you don't belong to, telling you that your account needs to be updated, even the worst AOLer must have realized it was a scam.
However, this is just what I've noticed. There may be people with contrasting experience.
The stated issue behind the restrictions on reselling CDs seems to be that they are a likely good to be stolen and resold. I suppose that this does make sense, and that CDs should have the same restrictions put on them that any other good sold in a pawnshop should.
But there seems to be hints that this is just a way for the recording industry to stop the reselling of CDs.
But there would have to be a closer studying of the legislation and the people backing it to find out which one is the real reason this is being pushed.
On the face of it, though, I find it a little unlikely that this is an anti-theft measure. Especially the part about "only to be used for store credit". It seems unfair to target CDs like this, when there are plenty of other things: cars, guns, jewelry, musical instruments, home electronics, sporting equipment, that are also likely targets of theft (I would think all of those named would be better targets for theft than CDs), but (AFAIK), there isn't any specific laws that say you can't sell your skis or guitar for cash.
Who says that laying off all your employees is impossible?
http://www.satirewire.com/news/att.shtml
At first, I remembered this as being an onion article, but actually it wasn't. Although the onion did have:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28984
So there you go!
I need Ted Stevens to provide me with a simple explanation of how this works!
And will this actually make much of a difference?
I know that in some countries, the presidency is almost entirely ceremonial. In most countries, it is more ceremonial than it seems. People often get worked up about who the president is, but its usually not as big of a factor as it seems. In the United States, the past eight years have seen a powerful executive, but only because the legislative branch was along for the ride, and the public was either cowed or supportive.
I won't believe the Navy has really discovered anything until they commission The Village People to write a song about it.
Am I the only one who wants to role play Bahamut Lagoon online?
I think one of the biggest paradigm shifts that people are going to have to adjust to is the idea that information, like many other things, is now often causing a problems with too much, and not with too little.
Having constant access to information does not mean you are educated. Becoming educated is more than just having access to information. You can give a student a laptop, with built-in or internet access to a database of information on anything in the world, and that doesn't make them educated. A fully 3D, interactive CD-Rom showing the human anatomy isn't what is needed for someone to become a doctor. Its the understanding of the basic concepts, and the discipline to understands how information fits into the big picture that allows people to really be educated. Without out, information is just a distraction.
Why would have anyone have thought that laptops would have helped schools in the first place?
Was there any studies done to show that it would augment learning, or was it just a matter of technology=cool?
And, if there were any studies done, were there any studies done not funded by industry groups wanting school districts to spend lots of money?
You are doing a good job of arguing my point back at me.
They would fold in two months because consumers wouldn't buy a more expensive magazine. Meaning consumers are choosing to pay less up front, but more in the long run through bad purchases. Which means, as I said, consumers are responsible as well.
I would suggest that if a great magazine can help you save hundreds and thousands of dollars in bad equipment purchases later, than yes, yes you should.
Of course, I think the people who actually make the big decisions about buying hundreds of workstations and the like don't do it by skimming advertisements in grocery-aisle computing magazines. But if these magazines had better editorial standards, those people might actually take them seriously.
My point is that the money COULD be coming from the consumer, but is not.
Consumers choose to buy seemingly cheaper magazines, but they end up spending more money later because they make ill-informed decisions.
I guess I should point out to be fair that I don't really ever buy any magazines. When I do, its because I have a long bus trip and need something totally light and meaningless to keep me occupied. Magazines to me are mostly for light light entertainment, and looking at statistics about big beige boxes isn't it.
(skipping the obvious toilet paper jokes)
Yes, I have seen them there, and also in offices and the like, which is usually where I read them. That is, if I can't find any issues of "Highlights" to read.
Actually, this article brought up a question for me:
Who reads computer magazines, anyway?
Although I am not the most 31337 person in the world, I am pretty much surrounded by the world of computers, but I have never, in my life, put down money for a computer magazine. And no one I know, including many programmers, hardware people, or network administrators, seems to be a follower either.
But yet I see racks of these things at grocery stores. Who is buying these things? Middle management who want to keep up to date with the computer world?
As much as it is bad that corporations control (or at least influence) the media through advertising, it wouldn't go on if consumers wouldn't allow it to happen. If consumers would be willing to spend a little extra money on a magazine, or in general be just a little more critical of their purchases, companies wouldn't have so much power to misinform.
All the money that would be spent up front in buying magazines that are consumer, and not advertiser supported, would be saved when they bought equipment that was the best value for their money, instead of being overly hyped junk.
What are cigarettes, after all?
They are tubes, a series of tubes...