Really now - because when I saw the price drop to $299 I thought to myself The processor and GPU alone could probably go for that cost and now they're adding on a couple of controllers and a bunch of plastic.
So I always thought of it more like "It cost me 400 to make my console, I sell it for 300, but if they buy 10 games and I get 10 dollars each I break even. They buy more I make money"
I thought it was always THAT simple and you don't need to think about anything longer term than that - because anything after those 10 games is pure profit.
Or maybe Bruce is thinking ahead at what the Internet might be like a few years down the road.
If the governments had as much control over the internet as they wanted to, these treaties might be made under the assumption that each country keeps its house in order. Much like if a bunch of Canadians took up arms and started marching on American the Canadian Government would be in hot water trying to explain that one.
Same thing here - if you can't keep your own hackers and crackers in line than you pay the consequences. It would be entirely possible to expect that kind of control over their own segregrated parts of the internet. They keep bringing up this idea of an "Internet Killswitch" in the states. That could be used to stop both incomming and outgoing attacks.
At the time of the PS3's release, it was very affordable for the Cell Architecture and performance it provided, and you could put your own operating system on it.
You know how Sony lost money on every PS3 sold... but then made the costs back with like 10 dollars from every game?
And you notice how the government bought 1,760 thousand of these things (or more) for a non-gaming purpose?
Did you hear the firmware updates and new PS3s remove the "Other OS" option?
Or did you think that those 3 incidents were entirely unrelated?
No it's not. it used to be that nuclear weapons were out of reach for a private entity.
That posed an interesting Google search for me, probably put me at the top of the US Watchlist. "Is it illegal to Own Nuclear Weapons?"
Which hasn't given me anything like what I'm looking for. Its more like everyone asking if Iran has nuclear weapons, new policies set forth by treaties and such... Nothing about a regular joe citizen owning a nuclear warhead, something I'm now curious about.
So I go next down the list, its gotta be like other weapons of the same classification. I google "Is it illegal to own a bomb?"
Oddly enough the fourth result is the Wikipedia entry for 4chan.
So - does anyone know the policy on that? I mean, it looks like it varies on state to state what kind of weaponry you're allowed to be packing. There are laws against illicit manufacturing of firearms and explosives, but like, there must be a legal way to manufacture guns, someone does it for the US army - so maybe there's a legal way to manufacture bombs. In that case would you be restricted to who you could sell it to? Is there some kind of registration program?
Too many questions. Point is, in America, you can own a gun. Most laws involving guns include ammunition and explosives. So, in theory, you should be able to own explosives as well, and by that logic, you should be able to own nuclear warheads.
I don't see why you act as if everything is so mutually exclusive.
If I have a "Soul" - it can easily be tied to how my brain functions, as my brain is obviously the central point where all my consciousness is based. If you copy my brain, you've copied my soul.
If you cloned a billion of me, perfect exact replicas of me, what would really make them any less human? What would mean they aren't life? Doesn't all life have souls?
So - with that in mind, no, when you copy me, I don't get a psychic link, but its still ME in that other body, its still MY soul, its just not the one inside this body. Much like how I copy a CD, they're both mine, sure one is the original but they are still one in the same.
So yes - much like a photograph won't live forever, you can it in, copy it, now it does live forever.
Would I want to be immortal in that case? Sure why not. Each soul will have its own death, but a copy of that soul will remain forever. It's the blessing of living forever minus the curse of actually living forever.
When you stop thinking about everything as a unique item that is unduplicatable - which cloning and bionics seems to push more towards every day, that doesn't mean you have to disconnect spirituality from it.
I mean, look at it this way. If you woke up one day and you were in a bed beside what appeared to an exact replica of you, and you were told that you were a clone copy, would you automatically write yourself off as having no soul (if you believed in that)? Because thats likely what the experience would feel like for the clone. (This is assuming memories transfer over and you're built to that age and stuff like that, lets not get into the super technical details)
Anyone who understand budgets enough would understand that buying good stuff first, inspecting it, and getting your launch on time ends up with cost savings much higher than if you buy bad stuff, inspect it, repair it, inspect it again, and postpone the launch.
Not only do you lose the cost savings on the component by having to implement repairs, but thats all extra time you need to have your various contractors on site.
Stop for a moment and imagine what it would be like if the National Defense and the Space Program's budgets were accidentally switched for a year. Do you think we'd see cancellation after cancellation, faulty equipment problems, or postponed launches, or any of that stuff nearly as much as we do now?
At work, we've got a massive volume license on Symantec - we have our own Synametc AV server that downloads the updates from their server and then our computers connect to our server to get the updates, at a time of our choosing, as opposed to hundreds of computers all requesting updates from the Symantec www server and bogging down the internet - we basically put all that traffic on our Gigabit intranet, much quicker and less slowdown.
Now - it does occaisonally happen that someone somewhere gets a virus on their PC. How this happens, we don't know. It's not unsurprisingly the departments that have relaxed management. You know, the ones where the manager is trying to be your friend more than he is trying to make sure work gets done. (Maybe I'm just jealous, haha).
So what we've got is an antivirus that runs weekly across the company and doesn't bog down our network. Bogging down a PC is an entirely different thing. Its usually not too bad if you schedule your PC's to do updates and scans after hours and make sure people leave their PC's on when that happens. Of course sometimes they forget, the scan ends up going as soon as they boot on the PC, and they wonder why this ccApp.exe is eating up all their memory, so everything takes really long to load.
So I understand what we're paying for; regular scanning, less network traffic. The real kicker is that Symantec has only ever caught about 5% of the infections that we have to fix, and when it does detect something, its often not equipped well enough to remove it.
So yeah, I know the CEO and IT manager will insist that SOME antivirus is on the computers and this seems as good a solution as any - but really, for home use? I would never pay for it.
Honestly, I don't know what you get out of paying for these that you don't get out of free solutions.
Has anyone ever had a controlled experiment where having the full paid for version of Symantec or AVG actually provided more security than their free counterparts?
Did you read the last line of my comment? Is it possible for me to copyright my work, distribute it freely, not inform you of the copyright, then sue you when you distribute it?
This smear campaign seems to be working. In the strangest ways
My Parents have a TV and hooked up to that TV is a computer. They use that computer to stream in movies. Not from Netflix or anything. Just those websites. I knew it would happen sooner or later, they got a nasty virus, I had to go and clean it up. Since I had the drive mounted to another computer in the back room while doing the scan, they had the news on. Of course a little blurb about Wikileaks comes on.
My mom says something along the lines of "oooh, you shouldn't visit that site!" To my father. What spurred this comment I couldn't quite tell. So I poke myself out of the back room, the scan was started and it would be a while before it was finished anyways. So I pondered. Then I queried "Why would you say that?". She paused, and looked at me. I couldn't quite tell if she had answer ready, so in order to give her time and keep us from an awkward silence I say "Well, I am actually quite informed of the whole situation, but I don't watch the news with any regularity, so I'm just curious what the public opinion is on the situation. Don't worry I'm not going to lecture you or anything."
To which she slowly spilled, "Well, I don't know anything about the site really. But I know that whenever a site makes it in the news like that, its a target for virus writers to try and put their code on the site and infect a lot of users."
Which is kind of something I told her earlier, about how people will try and inject malicious code onto an actually innocent website, but I could tell my laymen explanation of it wasn't quite technical enough for her to actually grasp how it works.
I wanted to respond to her silly logic, because she still visits Facebook, CNN.com, Yahoo, MSN - whatever, and there's no more assurance those sites will be safer than Wikileaks, but I just let my mom believe whatever it is she wants to believe.
It could have been full well that she doesn't like what Wikileaks is doing, or Julian Assange, or something else, but didn't want to get into a debate with me.
In any event, my anecdotal evidence is that the negative light the media shows on wikileaks is working on the average joes of North America.
Any good Man in the Middle is able to send the data to its original destination with at least trying to make it appear like it hasn't been tampered with, probably by some self signed Cert.
So, I mean, things like Chocolate bars, or Apple juice, you could probably get away with.
But it doesn't give you the right to then distribute it to everyone else. Another explicit licence would be needed for that.
But you aren't being shown the copyright agreement in that case, right?
I mean when you buy the CD you have the copyright agreement on the CD, on the case it comes in, and when you try ripping from the CD in something like Windows Media Player usually gives you a warning your first time.
If you simply download the music off Rapidshare - if no Copyright agreement is shown, can you assume the file you hold isn't under copyright? Or at least in that case - they can't take money from you, only cease and desist orders for distributing?
Seems odd if I could put a copyright on something, not tell you, and then sue you for thousands of dollars.
Slashdot Mirror
What are you talking about?
Canadians have nothing to do with this.
Really now - because when I saw the price drop to $299 I thought to myself The processor and GPU alone could probably go for that cost and now they're adding on a couple of controllers and a bunch of plastic.
So I always thought of it more like "It cost me 400 to make my console, I sell it for 300, but if they buy 10 games and I get 10 dollars each I break even. They buy more I make money"
I thought it was always THAT simple and you don't need to think about anything longer term than that - because anything after those 10 games is pure profit.
I didn't even know such technology existed!
I thought they just posted it on /b/ asking "reel or phake?"
And they just tallied the number of "Photoshoped" responses versus the total responses.
Which is entirely uncapitalistic I must say!
Or maybe Bruce is thinking ahead at what the Internet might be like a few years down the road.
If the governments had as much control over the internet as they wanted to, these treaties might be made under the assumption that each country keeps its house in order. Much like if a bunch of Canadians took up arms and started marching on American the Canadian Government would be in hot water trying to explain that one.
Same thing here - if you can't keep your own hackers and crackers in line than you pay the consequences. It would be entirely possible to expect that kind of control over their own segregrated parts of the internet. They keep bringing up this idea of an "Internet Killswitch" in the states. That could be used to stop both incomming and outgoing attacks.
Who in the private sector has 1,760 PS3s hooked up together running the non-Sony OS?
At the time of the PS3's release, it was very affordable for the Cell Architecture and performance it provided, and you could put your own operating system on it.
You know how Sony lost money on every PS3 sold... but then made the costs back with like 10 dollars from every game?
And you notice how the government bought 1,760 thousand of these things (or more) for a non-gaming purpose?
Did you hear the firmware updates and new PS3s remove the "Other OS" option?
Or did you think that those 3 incidents were entirely unrelated?
Man I ask a lot of questions.
Of course not...
its running linux!
I don't know if WINE does HD.
This post started as a joke - I don't know what it is now.
So why haven't you done that yet?
I mean you'll make tons of money and the world will be a happier place.
What happens when all the carriers get together and say "I think a Megabyte is worth a dollar more?"
The best way to undermine a broken, corrupt system is to draw attention to the inconsistencies in its operation.
Funny! That's also how my first marriage ended!
Cyberwar is the new nuclear war.
No it's not. it used to be that nuclear weapons were out of reach for a private entity.
That posed an interesting Google search for me, probably put me at the top of the US Watchlist. "Is it illegal to Own Nuclear Weapons?"
Which hasn't given me anything like what I'm looking for. Its more like everyone asking if Iran has nuclear weapons, new policies set forth by treaties and such... Nothing about a regular joe citizen owning a nuclear warhead, something I'm now curious about.
So I go next down the list, its gotta be like other weapons of the same classification. I google "Is it illegal to own a bomb?"
Oddly enough the fourth result is the Wikipedia entry for 4chan.
So - does anyone know the policy on that? I mean, it looks like it varies on state to state what kind of weaponry you're allowed to be packing. There are laws against illicit manufacturing of firearms and explosives, but like, there must be a legal way to manufacture guns, someone does it for the US army - so maybe there's a legal way to manufacture bombs. In that case would you be restricted to who you could sell it to? Is there some kind of registration program?
Too many questions. Point is, in America, you can own a gun. Most laws involving guns include ammunition and explosives. So, in theory, you should be able to own explosives as well, and by that logic, you should be able to own nuclear warheads.
I don't see why you act as if everything is so mutually exclusive.
If I have a "Soul" - it can easily be tied to how my brain functions, as my brain is obviously the central point where all my consciousness is based. If you copy my brain, you've copied my soul.
If you cloned a billion of me, perfect exact replicas of me, what would really make them any less human? What would mean they aren't life? Doesn't all life have souls?
So - with that in mind, no, when you copy me, I don't get a psychic link, but its still ME in that other body, its still MY soul, its just not the one inside this body. Much like how I copy a CD, they're both mine, sure one is the original but they are still one in the same.
So yes - much like a photograph won't live forever, you can it in, copy it, now it does live forever.
Would I want to be immortal in that case? Sure why not. Each soul will have its own death, but a copy of that soul will remain forever. It's the blessing of living forever minus the curse of actually living forever.
When you stop thinking about everything as a unique item that is unduplicatable - which cloning and bionics seems to push more towards every day, that doesn't mean you have to disconnect spirituality from it.
I mean, look at it this way. If you woke up one day and you were in a bed beside what appeared to an exact replica of you, and you were told that you were a clone copy, would you automatically write yourself off as having no soul (if you believed in that)? Because thats likely what the experience would feel like for the clone. (This is assuming memories transfer over and you're built to that age and stuff like that, lets not get into the super technical details)
How do you read that state back without applying any voltage to it?
I look at the wikipedia page and its all greek to me.
Would it though?
Anyone who understand budgets enough would understand that buying good stuff first, inspecting it, and getting your launch on time ends up with cost savings much higher than if you buy bad stuff, inspect it, repair it, inspect it again, and postpone the launch.
Not only do you lose the cost savings on the component by having to implement repairs, but thats all extra time you need to have your various contractors on site.
Stop for a moment and imagine what it would be like if the National Defense and the Space Program's budgets were accidentally switched for a year. Do you think we'd see cancellation after cancellation, faulty equipment problems, or postponed launches, or any of that stuff nearly as much as we do now?
Both Gmail and Hotmail have images turned off by default - Yahoo might as well I don't know. So any of the regular web clients are safe enough.
allowing NASA engineers more time to analyze why small cracks developed in the shuttle's huge external fuel tank
Might it have something to do with every component being built by the lowest bidder because funding keeps getting cut anytime someone at NASA blinks?
I'm going to guess negative 1 or 2 years.
Crooks or not, I often wonder about it though.
At work, we've got a massive volume license on Symantec - we have our own Synametc AV server that downloads the updates from their server and then our computers connect to our server to get the updates, at a time of our choosing, as opposed to hundreds of computers all requesting updates from the Symantec www server and bogging down the internet - we basically put all that traffic on our Gigabit intranet, much quicker and less slowdown.
Now - it does occaisonally happen that someone somewhere gets a virus on their PC. How this happens, we don't know. It's not unsurprisingly the departments that have relaxed management. You know, the ones where the manager is trying to be your friend more than he is trying to make sure work gets done. (Maybe I'm just jealous, haha).
So what we've got is an antivirus that runs weekly across the company and doesn't bog down our network. Bogging down a PC is an entirely different thing. Its usually not too bad if you schedule your PC's to do updates and scans after hours and make sure people leave their PC's on when that happens. Of course sometimes they forget, the scan ends up going as soon as they boot on the PC, and they wonder why this ccApp.exe is eating up all their memory, so everything takes really long to load.
So I understand what we're paying for; regular scanning, less network traffic. The real kicker is that Symantec has only ever caught about 5% of the infections that we have to fix, and when it does detect something, its often not equipped well enough to remove it.
So yeah, I know the CEO and IT manager will insist that SOME antivirus is on the computers and this seems as good a solution as any - but really, for home use? I would never pay for it.
Honestly, I don't know what you get out of paying for these that you don't get out of free solutions.
Has anyone ever had a controlled experiment where having the full paid for version of Symantec or AVG actually provided more security than their free counterparts?
Did you read the last line of my comment? Is it possible for me to copyright my work, distribute it freely, not inform you of the copyright, then sue you when you distribute it?
This smear campaign seems to be working. In the strangest ways
My Parents have a TV and hooked up to that TV is a computer. They use that computer to stream in movies. Not from Netflix or anything. Just those websites. I knew it would happen sooner or later, they got a nasty virus, I had to go and clean it up. Since I had the drive mounted to another computer in the back room while doing the scan, they had the news on. Of course a little blurb about Wikileaks comes on.
My mom says something along the lines of "oooh, you shouldn't visit that site!" To my father. What spurred this comment I couldn't quite tell. So I poke myself out of the back room, the scan was started and it would be a while before it was finished anyways. So I pondered. Then I queried "Why would you say that?". She paused, and looked at me. I couldn't quite tell if she had answer ready, so in order to give her time and keep us from an awkward silence I say "Well, I am actually quite informed of the whole situation, but I don't watch the news with any regularity, so I'm just curious what the public opinion is on the situation. Don't worry I'm not going to lecture you or anything."
To which she slowly spilled, "Well, I don't know anything about the site really. But I know that whenever a site makes it in the news like that, its a target for virus writers to try and put their code on the site and infect a lot of users."
Which is kind of something I told her earlier, about how people will try and inject malicious code onto an actually innocent website, but I could tell my laymen explanation of it wasn't quite technical enough for her to actually grasp how it works.
I wanted to respond to her silly logic, because she still visits Facebook, CNN.com, Yahoo, MSN - whatever, and there's no more assurance those sites will be safer than Wikileaks, but I just let my mom believe whatever it is she wants to believe.
It could have been full well that she doesn't like what Wikileaks is doing, or Julian Assange, or something else, but didn't want to get into a debate with me.
In any event, my anecdotal evidence is that the negative light the media shows on wikileaks is working on the average joes of North America.
Any good Man in the Middle is able to send the data to its original destination with at least trying to make it appear like it hasn't been tampered with, probably by some self signed Cert.
So, I mean, things like Chocolate bars, or Apple juice, you could probably get away with.
But it doesn't give you the right to then distribute it to everyone else. Another explicit licence would be needed for that.
But you aren't being shown the copyright agreement in that case, right?
I mean when you buy the CD you have the copyright agreement on the CD, on the case it comes in, and when you try ripping from the CD in something like Windows Media Player usually gives you a warning your first time.
If you simply download the music off Rapidshare - if no Copyright agreement is shown, can you assume the file you hold isn't under copyright? Or at least in that case - they can't take money from you, only cease and desist orders for distributing?
Seems odd if I could put a copyright on something, not tell you, and then sue you for thousands of dollars.
Those are the only subs we have that actually work.