When a smoker smokes, they are costing me money because we have a public safety net that subsidizes their treatment for illnesses caused by smoking. Rather than have *me* and *you* and everyone else pay for it, why don't they have to pay for it?
First of all, some people who use the public safety net won't "deserve" it. It's not all cute orphans and single mothers whose husband/boyfriend dumped her. There's a public safety net anyway. Second, cigarettes are already taxed extra for public health reasons. I haven't seen the US numbers, but in the UK smokers subsidize the healthy people at this point. This isn't what you suggested was a good thing; you suggested government health monitoring of "healthy lifestyles".
We pay "unfair" taxes all the time; I'm not on Medicare or Medicaid but I do pay for it. Same for unemployment pay, welfare, lots of other things. "Unhealthy Lifestyles" that can't be compensated for with a simple product tax (cigarettes, alcohol) aren't inefficient to the point they justify this kind of government intrusion. Assuming we can even identify them properly without punishing innocent people in the first place, that is - we're still not sure about all the biology behind obesity, and even when we figure it out that's another level of intrusion.
As a note of clarification, government subsidized healthcare (in which our tax dollars fund health care for groups of people that wouldn't otherwise be able to afford it) is a good idea - it's vulnerable to the same kind of meddling, but not to the same extent, and it targets a group of people that really need the help.
Sounds like a good idea to me. People with unhealthy lifestyles cost communities and bigger units (states, federal govt) a lot of money in emergency services, medicare costs, etc. I welcome the idea that those with healthy lifestyles shouldn't be subsidizing those with unhealthy lifestyles.
This seems facially reasonable, but is related to why I will never support government funded healthcare:
It allows the government (and by extension, a majority vote) to dictate what you do with your life by making it incredibly hard to live otherwise. For example, the British Conservative party wants to bar people with "Unhealthy Lifestyles" from getting NHS care. You know, the care they pay for. Furthermore, this never has any sane relation to the cost of the activity - In the UK, smoking costs 1.7 billion and raises 8 billion in excise taxes, another $2 billion in VAT. I find it unlikely that the same isn't true in the US. Plus, obesity is at least partly biological - apparently you want to punish people for things they have no control over.
Health has a great deal to do with dumb luck and actions we have no control over, even for "lifestyle diseases" that are more common with obesity, alcohol, or smoking. And getting one bad card in health can prevent you from living a healthy lifestyle. There's the surveillance implications - government is watching what you eat, how you live. There are some things that simply aren't the government's business, even if they might theoretically make emergency services more expensive. Front end taxes (on cigarettes, alcohol) are fine, if probably too high since they're an easy political sell; lifestyle monitoring is not. The government is here to serve us, not the other way around.
The issue is "Adverse Selection". Essentially, while the insurers aren't going to have any more information, people will. So the people that know they're going to need insurance are more likely to buy it and buy more of it, and the people that are less likely to need it will buy less of it.
This makes the insurance more expensive and less profitable; it can also put companies out of business by making insurance so expensive it won't sell, or by paying out more fees than you take in via premiums.
An example - I work for a company that (among other things) builds websites that sell insurance for other companies. One of the life insurance products we built a website for a while back fell victim to this - because it was an automatic approval product and lacked a few safeguards, it tended to get bought by adults buying out insurance on their old, sick parents. As a result, they paid out more than they got in premiums and had to replace the product. This wasn't any big trouble for the insurance company or us - it was one product out of many, and it was a fairly big insurance company - but it's a threat.
I don't think it's a big threat for health insurance, however, and I support the bill. Health insurance is broad enough that almost everyone wants coverage (the number of people who don't have health insurance that don't want it is small) and testing won't reveal risk factors for everything, so I don't think Adverse Selection will have that much of an effect. Also, the alternative of allowing them to use genetic information to discriminate is likely worse in terms of making it extremely hard for some groups of people to get health insurance.
No, historical accuracy *is* important. And yes, like every story, there are complexities beyond the most popular narrative.
The issue is, Goldberg (and by extension the post I was replying to) is casting the Galileo story as a myth, without actually addressing the reason the Church got criticized in the first place, namely the Church persecuting someone for publishing science that disagreed with doctrine. Yes, the stories have complexities beyond the basic summary, but those complexities don't contradict the primary point.
So, taking the article you link to at face value -
Galileo Myth:
Galileo persecuted by a powerful, monolithic church for disagreeing with religious dogma.
Galileo Reality:
Galileo persecuted by a powerful, conflicted church for disagreeing with religious dogma when his political enemies raised enough of a stink.
I'm not exactly sure how this is supposed to get the Church off the hook. Plus, Goldberg's attempt to minimize house arrest by saying "which is where he did all of his research anyway" is absurd.
As for the pope's comments, he essentially says that persecuting Galileo was justified because materialism is evil. Also, it seems to agree with someone that links Galileo to the atomic bomb, presumably on some form of "secularism/materialism is evil" theme. Ratzinger has always (incoherently) argued that reason based on faith is somehow a higher form of reason; the basis generally being something like the problem of induction. I still don't know how he fails to realize that religious faith - and especially Christian faith - doesn't solve this at all but simply adds a few more assumptions to the pile.
I don't see that much of a problem with the Pope's visit, but given the Pope's seeming support for arresting someone for disagreement on a scientific or philosophical point, their motivation is somewhat reasonable.
Few people are disagreeing with the voluntary use of this; pretty much all the debate is over involuntary use. You seem to feel even bringing this up is overdramatising it, despite the second article bringing it up twice (kids and convicted drug offenders).
For one, I highly doubt westernized society would be quick to start to inflict any form of medical procedure on someone who does not wish it.
You're joking, right? It's been done in the past, plenty (look at the history of westernized society dealing with the mentally ill, for example). Chemical Castration is mandatory in at least two states. Someone upthread has already suggested inoculating all kids as a matter of course. This is the drug war we're talking about; we already put people in mandatory treatment programs, not to mention the rest of the mess (asset forfeiture laws, no-knock raids, etc). And from the second article:
At Columbia, in 2003, Haney tested a cocaine vaccine on 10 people who had no plans to quit using the drug.
I think "no plans to quit using the drug" needs more context and explanation, especially as Haney is quoted as being against any sort of mandatory vaccination... but the use of this being legally required is a real issue.
As has been pointed out, Blue Dragon only outsold Zelda in Blue Dragon's launch week. Zelda sold 146,250* in its launch week last week, compared to 80,000 for Blue Dragon this week.
Incidentally, if you use the console comparison thing, the 360's 1 year launch lead wasn't a helpful factor for Blue Dragon, as the Wii had an installed base lead of 170,000 after its launch week; almost all of that launch day, for that matter. The lead is probably a little smaller now - Blue Dragon has been heavily marketed and bundled so it'll be a good week for 360s, and I don't know how many Wiis Nintendo is shipping to Japan weekly. Still, I haven't seen the charts themselves, just seen the vague references in the article.
*(Note: Link appears to point to a page that changes weekly; I couldn't find a permalink. 03 Dec is the Wii Launch Week).
I'm far from major-label only - I've been a subscriber to emusic for, um, 6 years next month minus the one year they had kicked me off for d/ling too much before switching to the limited subscription model.
But Mindawn seems to have a bit over 1000 albums in ogg, including duplicates, total. (Note that they list ogg and flac albums seperately). That's just... 1000 albums for a music service? Emusic has a relatively weak selection, and it has 102939 albums.
One thing that caught my eye on the intro was this bit:
Which means you shouldn't force your players to do stupid, boring, unnecessary work like running through a dozen screens again and again to get between important locations. "A game should offer the fastest and easiest possible way to do everything unless there is some entertaining or informative reason to prevent it." Preach on!
He apparently hasn't played the Metroid series, for example. Or read any reviews about it. Game designers don't throw in pointless exercises for the heck of it. There's a lot of backtracking and so on and so forth in all of the Metroid games... but it's necessary to fit in the world, even though it's not immediately "entertaining or informative".
It's something boring added in so something that makes the entire game more enjoyable; the feeling of a real world, the exploration, the slow discovery of new tricks on old enemies while allowing new challenges - the backtracking is, to an extent, required for that to work. And so, while it's undoubtedly not everyone's cup of tea, the rule doesn't apply for more than the simple reasons he gives. I'd be more interested in the book if he gave a good look of that kind of long term tradeoffs - what kind of things are more likely to push real interactivity or immersion and what are just wastes of time.
What are you talking about with The Hunger Site? The donations are still made whether or not you click on any of the ads. It's one of the few places still around that is pay-per-impression.
As for the other issue - the point being, they (i.e. Infoweek) lose money by paying for bandwidth that won't be made up on pay-per-click ads (as most are these days).
It's interesting how your memory rewrote what you watched.
Thanks for pointing to the transcript.
A couple of people (here or at kuro5hin) commented that the transcript may have been inaccurate. I seem to remember him saying "I'm conducting an investigation" at that point.
I'd check myself, but the videos aren't up for what should be obvious reasons (go slashdot!).
The site goes on about the cop saying he was "investigating an investigation" and implies the cop gave no reason for it or anything.
Which is overstating.
The cop never said he was "investigating an investigation" from watching the video. He did, however, say to the man as soon as he got there something along the lines "I'm investigating reports of a fight between you two" indicating the man and the woman in the car.
And the person asked for ID was fairly belligerent. He kept on asking the officer to arrest him.
The charge isn't specifically a law that makes it illegal to present ID, I think (though I'm not sure), it's a charge of obstructing a peace officer. Which may be from aforesaid law, but I didn't see that when I looked before.
And neither did the slashdotting. Anyone have a mirror of the article? And is someone going end up in the same boat as Greg Dean?
Luckily, this sort of thing happens with a number of contests. Pepsi will just fix it in future bottles (if any) and go on; not going to affect mp3s-as-commerce at all, really.
I think Turok pioneered that (Halo) control scheme, actually (I.E. C-Buttons/2nd Analog for forward/back/strafe, stick for aiming).
If not that, then something earlier. In any case, I'm pretty sure I've used that control scheme in 'Perfect Dark' and I'm certain I've used it in 'Fur Fighters' (DC) and 'MDK 2' (DC), so regardless if it was Turok or not it's not Halo's innovation. The difference between using a full analog and face buttons/d-pad for the movement/strafe is pretty much non-existant.
South Korea specifally - It has highly a concentrated population, especially in Seoul, so being highly networked isn't as much of a problem and was heavily pushed for.
Also, there were no japanese consoles up until recently (due to old import laws) so gaming became an entirely PC thing, and with the high broadband rates network games (not just MMORPGs, but stuff like Starcraft as well) and cyber cafes became extremely popular with a lack of competition.
The culture does seem to be different as well, as there is an emphasis on participating in the group given the descriptions I've seen of some of the teamwork showed in Lineage.
P.S: There's the upfront+monthly costs because there's upfront+montly costs in making the game. They have a long development time with a large team due to the amount of content necessary, and they have highly monthly costs due to servers (relatively cheap) and staff continuing to work on the game (not relatively cheap).
There are some free or cheap upfront games, of course, but they tend to be more modest efforts and/or be specifically targeted to smaller groups. Not to say they aren't worthwhile; "A Tale in the Desert" is a free download, $13.95 monthly, and apparently is quite good (I have never tried it, if only because I spend far too much time with games as it is).
It didn't work out, I forget why. The artists that had paid for it got their money back.
However, the CD-Baby owner did manage to get the music available in most of the other stores (EMusic I remember definately, I'm not sure about which of the rest).
Exact same thing happened at my university. Not a big plasma screen (a 17" TV and (elsewhere) some (about the same size) flat-planel displays) but same windows messenger popups for some diploma mill.
It's that this isn't Sony vs MS with Nintendo a niche player. It's Sony kicking everyone's asses, with MS and Nintendo fighting for leftovers. And MS is losing at the moment.
They may not be targeting a similar market to Nintendo, but they can't ignore it because the markets still have a lot of overlap.
If MS is worried about Nintendo, they have their heads farther up a dark cavity than I thought. Nintendo fills a niche market, and fills it quite well. The only company MS is battling for console supremacy is Sony, and they've been getting their asses handed to them.
The only way they're going to make a real gain (even if it's shortlived) is a decent sized price cut compared to the PS2
Right now, the X-Box is getting it's ass handed to it by Nintendo as well. They're going to end up third everywhere but the UK (and a distant third worldwide, given their Japan sales, which will likely stay non-existant) if they don't react before the holiday season. They're only not being outsold badly in the UK because they're matching the Gamecube (not by price, but on a cut-vs-cut level).
-> For Pepsi, it's one in 3 bottles that will have the code. They're selling 300 million bottles as part of the promotion, 100 million of them will have the codes in.
-> Cans aren't part of the promotion. Just 20-ounce and one liter.
-> McDonald's hasn't said anything about how they would be giving them away.
Slashdot Mirror
First of all, some people who use the public safety net won't "deserve" it. It's not all cute orphans and single mothers whose husband/boyfriend dumped her. There's a public safety net anyway. Second, cigarettes are already taxed extra for public health reasons. I haven't seen the US numbers, but in the UK smokers subsidize the healthy people at this point. This isn't what you suggested was a good thing; you suggested government health monitoring of "healthy lifestyles".
We pay "unfair" taxes all the time; I'm not on Medicare or Medicaid but I do pay for it. Same for unemployment pay, welfare, lots of other things. "Unhealthy Lifestyles" that can't be compensated for with a simple product tax (cigarettes, alcohol) aren't inefficient to the point they justify this kind of government intrusion. Assuming we can even identify them properly without punishing innocent people in the first place, that is - we're still not sure about all the biology behind obesity, and even when we figure it out that's another level of intrusion.
As a note of clarification, government subsidized healthcare (in which our tax dollars fund health care for groups of people that wouldn't otherwise be able to afford it) is a good idea - it's vulnerable to the same kind of meddling, but not to the same extent, and it targets a group of people that really need the help.
This seems facially reasonable, but is related to why I will never support government funded healthcare :
It allows the government (and by extension, a majority vote) to dictate what you do with your life by making it incredibly hard to live otherwise. For example, the British Conservative party wants to bar people with "Unhealthy Lifestyles" from getting NHS care. You know, the care they pay for. Furthermore, this never has any sane relation to the cost of the activity - In the UK, smoking costs 1.7 billion and raises 8 billion in excise taxes, another $2 billion in VAT. I find it unlikely that the same isn't true in the US. Plus, obesity is at least partly biological - apparently you want to punish people for things they have no control over.
Health has a great deal to do with dumb luck and actions we have no control over, even for "lifestyle diseases" that are more common with obesity, alcohol, or smoking. And getting one bad card in health can prevent you from living a healthy lifestyle. There's the surveillance implications - government is watching what you eat, how you live. There are some things that simply aren't the government's business, even if they might theoretically make emergency services more expensive. Front end taxes (on cigarettes, alcohol) are fine, if probably too high since they're an easy political sell; lifestyle monitoring is not. The government is here to serve us, not the other way around.
The issue is "Adverse Selection".
Essentially, while the insurers aren't going to have any more information, people will. So the people that know they're going to need insurance are more likely to buy it and buy more of it, and the people that are less likely to need it will buy less of it.
This makes the insurance more expensive and less profitable; it can also put companies out of business by making insurance so expensive it won't sell, or by paying out more fees than you take in via premiums.
An example - I work for a company that (among other things) builds websites that sell insurance for other companies. One of the life insurance products we built a website for a while back fell victim to this - because it was an automatic approval product and lacked a few safeguards, it tended to get bought by adults buying out insurance on their old, sick parents. As a result, they paid out more than they got in premiums and had to replace the product. This wasn't any big trouble for the insurance company or us - it was one product out of many, and it was a fairly big insurance company - but it's a threat.
I don't think it's a big threat for health insurance, however, and I support the bill. Health insurance is broad enough that almost everyone wants coverage (the number of people who don't have health insurance that don't want it is small) and testing won't reveal risk factors for everything, so I don't think Adverse Selection will have that much of an effect. Also, the alternative of allowing them to use genetic information to discriminate is likely worse in terms of making it extremely hard for some groups of people to get health insurance.
No, historical accuracy *is* important. And yes, like every story, there are complexities beyond the most popular narrative.
The issue is, Goldberg (and by extension the post I was replying to) is casting the Galileo story as a myth, without actually addressing the reason the Church got criticized in the first place, namely the Church persecuting someone for publishing science that disagreed with doctrine. Yes, the stories have complexities beyond the basic summary, but those complexities don't contradict the primary point.
So, taking the article you link to at face value -
Galileo Myth:
Galileo persecuted by a powerful, monolithic church for disagreeing with religious dogma.
Galileo Reality:
Galileo persecuted by a powerful, conflicted church for disagreeing with religious dogma when his political enemies raised enough of a stink.
I'm not exactly sure how this is supposed to get the Church off the hook. Plus, Goldberg's attempt to minimize house arrest by saying "which is where he did all of his research anyway" is absurd.
As for the pope's comments, he essentially says that persecuting Galileo was justified because materialism is evil. Also, it seems to agree with someone that links Galileo to the atomic bomb, presumably on some form of "secularism/materialism is evil" theme. Ratzinger has always (incoherently) argued that reason based on faith is somehow a higher form of reason; the basis generally being something like the problem of induction. I still don't know how he fails to realize that religious faith - and especially Christian faith - doesn't solve this at all but simply adds a few more assumptions to the pile.
I don't see that much of a problem with the Pope's visit, but given the Pope's seeming support for arresting someone for disagreement on a scientific or philosophical point, their motivation is somewhat reasonable.
Few people are disagreeing with the voluntary use of this; pretty much all the debate is over involuntary use. You seem to feel even bringing this up is overdramatising it, despite the second article bringing it up twice (kids and convicted drug offenders).
You're joking, right? It's been done in the past, plenty (look at the history of westernized society dealing with the mentally ill, for example). Chemical Castration is mandatory in at least two states. Someone upthread has already suggested inoculating all kids as a matter of course. This is the drug war we're talking about; we already put people in mandatory treatment programs, not to mention the rest of the mess (asset forfeiture laws, no-knock raids, etc). And from the second article:
I think "no plans to quit using the drug" needs more context and explanation, especially as Haney is quoted as being against any sort of mandatory vaccinationAs has been pointed out, Blue Dragon only outsold Zelda in Blue Dragon's launch week. Zelda sold 146,250* in its launch week last week, compared to 80,000 for Blue Dragon this week.
Incidentally, if you use the console comparison thing, the 360's 1 year launch lead wasn't a helpful factor for Blue Dragon, as the Wii had an installed base lead of 170,000 after its launch week; almost all of that launch day, for that matter. The lead is probably a little smaller now - Blue Dragon has been heavily marketed and bundled so it'll be a good week for 360s, and I don't know how many Wiis Nintendo is shipping to Japan weekly. Still, I haven't seen the charts themselves, just seen the vague references in the article.
*(Note: Link appears to point to a page that changes weekly; I couldn't find a permalink. 03 Dec is the Wii Launch Week).
I'm far from major-label only - I've been a subscriber to emusic for, um, 6 years next month minus the one year they had kicked me off for d/ling too much before switching to the limited subscription model.
... 1000 albums for a music service? Emusic has a relatively weak selection, and it has 102939 albums.
But Mindawn seems to have a bit over 1000 albums in ogg, including duplicates, total. (Note that they list ogg and flac albums seperately). That's just
He apparently hasn't played the Metroid series, for example. Or read any reviews about it. Game designers don't throw in pointless exercises for the heck of it. There's a lot of backtracking and so on and so forth in all of the Metroid games ... but it's necessary to fit in the world, even though it's not immediately "entertaining or informative".
It's something boring added in so something that makes the entire game more enjoyable; the feeling of a real world, the exploration, the slow discovery of new tricks on old enemies while allowing new challenges - the backtracking is, to an extent, required for that to work. And so, while it's undoubtedly not everyone's cup of tea, the rule doesn't apply for more than the simple reasons he gives. I'd be more interested in the book if he gave a good look of that kind of long term tradeoffs - what kind of things are more likely to push real interactivity or immersion and what are just wastes of time.
What are you talking about with The Hunger Site? The donations are still made whether or not you click on any of the ads. It's one of the few places still around that is pay-per-impression.
As for the other issue - the point being, they (i.e. Infoweek) lose money by paying for bandwidth that won't be made up on pay-per-click ads (as most are these days).
That said, Infoweek is still being stupid.
There are countless implementations that try to fix IE's lack of PNG transparency support, using AlphaImageLoader in some form.
However, none of them fully work; I've tried pretty much all of them and none of them will work with CSS or Javascript rollovers.
Okay, I found the bittorrent link and watched the video again.
He definately said "Because I'm conducting an investigation" in the part of the video transcribed there. Even the subtitles say that.
The transcript provided is wrong.
Thanks for pointing to the transcript.
A couple of people (here or at kuro5hin) commented that the transcript may have been inaccurate. I seem to remember him saying "I'm conducting an investigation" at that point.
I'd check myself, but the videos aren't up for what should be obvious reasons (go slashdot!).
The site goes on about the cop saying he was "investigating an investigation" and implies the cop gave no reason for it or anything.
Which is overstating.
The cop never said he was "investigating an investigation" from watching the video. He did, however, say to the man as soon as he got there something along the lines "I'm investigating reports of a fight between you two" indicating the man and the woman in the car.
And the person asked for ID was fairly belligerent. He kept on asking the officer to arrest him.
The charge isn't specifically a law that makes it illegal to present ID, I think (though I'm not sure), it's a charge of obstructing a peace officer. Which may be from aforesaid law, but I didn't see that when I looked before.
And neither did the slashdotting.
Anyone have a mirror of the article?
And is someone going end up in the same boat as Greg Dean?
Luckily, this sort of thing happens with a number of contests. Pepsi will just fix it in future bottles (if any) and go on; not going to affect mp3s-as-commerce at all, really.
They also left out "Early Childhood" (i.e. the real young edutainment stuff).
I imagine most of the 3.6% left out was them.
I think it's by units sold, but they never make it particularly clear.
Yes, but 26 large boxes of DVDs + however many "Lost" sets would look rather odd.
I think Turok pioneered that (Halo) control scheme, actually (I.E. C-Buttons/2nd Analog for forward/back/strafe, stick for aiming).
If not that, then something earlier. In any case, I'm pretty sure I've used that control scheme in 'Perfect Dark' and I'm certain I've used it in 'Fur Fighters' (DC) and 'MDK 2' (DC), so regardless if it was Turok or not it's not Halo's innovation. The difference between using a full analog and face buttons/d-pad for the movement/strafe is pretty much non-existant.
South Korea specifally - It has highly a concentrated population, especially in Seoul, so being highly networked isn't as much of a problem and was heavily pushed for.
Also, there were no japanese consoles up until recently (due to old import laws) so gaming became an entirely PC thing, and with the high broadband rates network games (not just MMORPGs, but stuff like Starcraft as well) and cyber cafes became extremely popular with a lack of competition.
The culture does seem to be different as well, as there is an emphasis on participating in the group given the descriptions I've seen of some of the teamwork showed in Lineage.
P.S: There's the upfront+monthly costs because there's upfront+montly costs in making the game. They have a long development time with a large team due to the amount of content necessary, and they have highly monthly costs due to servers (relatively cheap) and staff continuing to work on the game (not relatively cheap).
There are some free or cheap upfront games, of course, but they tend to be more modest efforts and/or be specifically targeted to smaller groups. Not to say they aren't worthwhile; "A Tale in the Desert" is a free download, $13.95 monthly, and apparently is quite good (I have never tried it, if only because I spend far too much time with games as it is).
It didn't work out, I forget why. The artists that had paid for it got their money back.
However, the CD-Baby owner did manage to get the music available in most of the other stores (EMusic I remember definately, I'm not sure about which of the rest).
Exact same thing happened at my university. Not a big plasma screen (a 17" TV and (elsewhere) some (about the same size) flat-planel displays) but same windows messenger popups for some diploma mill.
Was a while back.
It's not that Nintendo is king of the mountain.
It's that this isn't Sony vs MS with Nintendo a niche player. It's Sony kicking everyone's asses, with MS and Nintendo fighting for leftovers. And MS is losing at the moment.
They may not be targeting a similar market to Nintendo, but they can't ignore it because the markets still have a lot of overlap.
If MS is worried about Nintendo, they have their heads farther up a dark cavity than I thought. Nintendo fills a niche market, and fills it quite well. The only company MS is battling for console supremacy is Sony, and they've been getting their asses handed to them.
The only way they're going to make a real gain (even if it's shortlived) is a decent sized price cut compared to the PS2
Right now, the X-Box is getting it's ass handed to it by Nintendo as well. They're going to end up third everywhere but the UK (and a distant third worldwide, given their Japan sales, which will likely stay non-existant) if they don't react before the holiday season. They're only not being outsold badly in the UK because they're matching the Gamecube (not by price, but on a cut-vs-cut level).
-> You get to choose the song.
(reference: http://www.macnews.com/2003/10/16/applepepsi )
-> For Pepsi, it's one in 3 bottles that will have the code. They're selling 300 million bottles as part of the promotion, 100 million of them will have the codes in.
-> Cans aren't part of the promotion. Just 20-ounce and one liter.
-> McDonald's hasn't said anything about how they would be giving them away.