All i do is write perl scripts, jerk off, and read slashdot, why should I buy this?
I just thought of a good reason to buy it! First, I can pack more porn onto a single screen. Not only that, but I'd have enough screen real estate to write perl scripts, read slashdot, and jerk off to internet porn at the same time!
Perpetual indebtedness of corporations to their investors is not a sustainable economy. Treating investments as permanent entitlements instead of loans is the primary cause of the periodic stagnation and instability of our economy.
That's simply untrue -- it's one of the reasons why we have one of the best economies in the world. It's not perpetual indebtedness, it's partial ownership. Where is the indebtedness? We've already established that the stocks are not paying dividends -- so 99% of shareholders don't get a paycheck from their shares (you didn't miss that, did you?). Nobody is in debt to anyone. All this is, is a type of partial ownership. The company can buy back those shares if they want to. I think you're misunderstanding how things really work. And as far as not creating a sustainable economy, it's worked pretty well for 200 years...in fact, thus far, it's arguably been the best economic success story in history.
The government only becomes inefficient when corporations get their grubby little fingers into it. Things like municipal utilities, communications, health care... these kinds of things need to be heavily regulated by the government. Historically, deregulation and privatization has only increased costs and hurt consumers.
Is there a certain feeling -- maybe something you smell or just feel in your gut when you're really wrong? Have you ever worked for a private company on government contracts? Have you ever seen the bureaucratic mess that our government creates on a daily basis? I have. Do you know why the government hires private businesses to make things work for them? Let me give you a hint, it's not special interest groups pressuring the government. It's because government does things more expensively, and do not provide services adequately -- the federal government doesn't have any reason to do things better or cheaper. Federal employees do just enough to squeeze by. See, when companies compete for the government's business, there is incentive to provide the best possible service, for the lowest cost. If they don't provide, they're fired and their contract is rebid amongst the industry. The federal government is like the biggest business in the country (especially in that they're the largest employer in the country). Problem is -- they don't really have a specialty -- they just do general stuff. There is also no competitive incentive to do a better or cheaper job. Let me give you an example: Do you know how many federal employees were fired in 2001? 434. 434 employees were fired from the largest business in the country. Hell, smallcap companies dismiss more than that for performance in a year. This is just laughable. Read the article and think about it -- ask yourself why the largest business in the country only dismissed 434 employees for performance in 2001. While you think about it, remember that it ain't because our federal workers are more competent than everyone in the private sector.
The whole reason why we have a communications infrastructure in this country -- private innovation. A private indivudual saw a need, dreamed up an idea, and got other private investors to help them build a telecom network. Healthcare is another. If you can swing it, we have the best healthcare in the world. Know why? Because private practices have incentive to provide the best care there is. Private doctors have incentive to develop new medical procedures and drugs and profit from them. If they don't, the practice down the street (with the brand new MRI machine) will get their business. It might not be the fairest, but it is the best in the world, hands down. Don't believe me? Go to a country with socialized care for everyone and tell me about your experience.
Nothing of the sort. The investors can profit any amount that's mutually agreed
But how much did this particular bug cost the industry? This would be the maximum liability.
I have a couple of problems with this metric:
1. First of all, these numbers are always inflated. Do you really believe that worm X cost the industry $2.5 bil? Those are numbers that are calculated using estimates like the average amount of time lost per employee, or an average of how long it took to recover from it. These numbers are multiplied by other estimated numbers (number of companies out there * number of employees) and BLAMMO...there's your number. Alright -- I figure that they put a little more math into it than that, but the point is that the numbers are grossly inflated.
2. How do you determine who gets what money? Does every company get a check for $50? Do larger companies get a bigger check? Do companies who hire a really good IT group that set up a network to prevent these things get nothing then? Is that really fair since they spent the money to take care of these things?...or are you happy as long as a company (or industry) that you don't like gets money taken from them?
There is only an implicit warrenty once you charge for it.
Yeah, there's an implicit warranty. However, if your TV breaks -- you can take it back to Sony to get yours fixed (or get a new one). It doesn't mean that you can sue Sony for lost TV-watching time. If our Toyotas break, we can take it back for repairs. Under Lemon Laws, we can get our money back. It does not mean that we get to sue anyone unless we can prove negligance that resulted in injury or death. Not lost productivity ("I didn't make it to work so I'm suing for my salary" doesn't work). Also, if you're talking about liability -- liability doesn't begin and end with a sold, commodited product. If I made a car for you and gave it to you for free and it was inherently unsafe -- I'm liable for negligence, especially if I was aware of the unsafe condition that I created. In this case, free doesn't excuse anything when it comes to the standard that you're holding commercial software to.
The employees, the customers, and most of all, the community as a whole bear the greatest risk. They're the ones who suffer when times are hard, and get left holding the bag when the company folds. And if the company doesn't fold, the investor continues to demand a share of profits long after the initial investment is repaid. Both of these outcomes are ethical quagmires.
I'm not sure how they suffer more than an entrepreneur when times are hard. Most businesses in America are small businesses. We're talking restaurants, small medical practices, mom and pop stores, etc. So you're saying that when the company folds, the small business owner runs off like a bandit, screwing the consumer and all employees, and the community at large get screwed more? What are you smoking? Most times, the owner loses their job, as well as their most valuable asset...their business. If the business is just struggling to make ends meet -- the owner typically has to make payroll out of pocket. If the business doesn't fold, the owner (the investor) deserves to demand their share of the profit long after the investment is repaid. That's why they call it an investment...there is risk, and reward. You're suggesting that people take on risk, but are not allowed to profit from it beyond repayment of the principal. If this were the case, banks couldn't charge interest on their loans...and nobody would ever invest in anyone else's business -- meaning that we wouldn't have any businesses (no incentive to invest...because there is no ownership), and we wouldn't have an economy, and we wouldn't have the highest standard of living of any country in the world. Your idea is possibly the least intelligent thing I've heard all day, and it presents far more of an ethical quagmire than the former.
This is why I favor making all corporations non-profit, responsible only to the law and the community. You can still make a shitload of money investing in a non-profit. But when the investment is repaid, you have to keep reinvesting the money if you want to continue making a living by sitting on your ass. As a bonus, this will force capital back into small business. It the American dream, nigga!
All corporations non-profit? Oh please. Yeah -- that's a great idea. So, let me ask you this: how do companies which require vast infrastructure get started? I'm talking chip manufactureres which require fabs that cost $billions. What about mobile phone companies trying to build national networks? Those cost millions and millions. Who is going to invest in those companies (so they can build this really expensive infrastructure) if their return is strictly limited to the principal (or even the principal+prime)? Hell -- they can take their money to the bank and get their principal back with prime interest and a guarantee from the federal government that their bank dollars will never go away. Why would anyone invest in anyone's company if they wree all non-profits? You think the government should make these industries happen? Not gwinea work...you will find that the government is hugely inefficient and generally doesn't do well with huge projects (Apollo & the Manhattan project notwithstanding) and DEFINITELY don't know how to run long-term finances as well as a private business can. Privatization is happening at a growing pace because the government delivers substandard services at a high cost to the taxpayer (you and I).
Also, most stock doesn't pay out dividends -- 99% of investors don't get to sit on their ass and let the money roll in. A stock can increase in value indefinitely -- but putting undue restrictions on when people can and can't buy and sell stock is as dumb as telling people when they can buy and sell water...or any other commodity (because that what a stock is, a commodity).
Man, I can go on and on and on explaining the shortcomings of what you're suggesting. The fact is that you're an idealist...you seem to
There's no actual reason why older movies must be better.
I hadn't of thought much about this until I read your post...and it's an interesting point. Here are a few counterpoints that came to mind:
First, 90% of the older movies that we see are the most critically acclaimed for their time. It's easy to slap a judgement on them like "older movies are just better". If they were all so much better, Mystery Science Theater 3000 wouldn't have had anything to make fun of. There are thousands and thousands of old movies that suck.
Second, while techniques have become more honed, and our technology is far better, there is one thing that you fail to point out. Originality. As movie-making techniques have worked themselves out, it's become easier to make movies. They're being churned out pretty quickly these days. How often do you see a cinematographic technique and think "holy crap -- I've never seen anything like that before. Neat!" It may happen a small handful of times each decade...and those films usually win some kind of award. Even parts of movies are done over and over again. Take the car chase scene from Bullitt -- arguably, every car chase that ever followed was modeled based on what worked so well for Bullitt. That was over 30 years ago...and there have been very few car chase scenes that compare.
Originality also extends into content. How many times has Disney made a movie about an animal that becomes a sports star? How many buddy-cop action films are out there? Hollywood takes a good idea and beats it to death...because we'll keep buying it, but the movies that did it first -- those are the ones that we'll remember. We'll go back and watch them over and over again.
We're not out of good ideas for movies -- there are plenty to go around in all aspects of filmmaking. They're just becoming difficult to find, and making a canned hollywood movie is becoming easier every day.
You'd need about half a T3 to get reliable DVD-quality video and audio streaming.
IIRC, DVD bitrates can be as high as 9.8 Mb/s. On average, most commercial DVD's tend to be between 5 and 8 Mb/s. (Those are Megabits -- not bytes). So you'd need between a fifth and a tenth of a T3 to stream raw (well...straight MPEG2) DVD video...not half a T3. With modern compression streams, we can transmit far more video using the same or less bandwidth. DVD-quality video can be recompressed and transmitted over current cable/DSL Internet.
The technical limitations are now moot -- most major metropolitan areas can now get VoD through their cable providers. I believe that within the next 5-10 years, those same providers who make VoD available to their customers will provide the equivalent content in HDTV. Unless there is a HD-equivalent to DVD, it will give DVD a run for its money.
However, I agree with the (grand) parent poster -- people like their IP to be tangible, whether it's a book or a DVD. It just feels like less of a rip-off when there is something real to hold onto...especially when the non-tangible content is released onder a more restrictive (technologicaly enforced) license not allowing for resale or transfer of ownership.
What a repulsively ignorant attitude. America's rich don't work; they profit from the work of others.
What a repulsively ignorant attitude you seem to have. Who are you to tell someone that they're disgusting for having beliefs that are different than yours?
Let me put it to you this way -- when an entrepreneur starts a business, who generally takes on the majority share of the risk? (This one should be easy fo you) So do the employees, who take on only a marginal share of the risk (usually losing their jobs if the company fails) deserve as much as the person who invested their time and money (risking losing their shirt as well as their job)? Shit no. Get over yourself and stop whining, because you don't deserve a damn thing beyond what you can do for yourself -- just like the rest of us.
FWIW, I make a living through honest work, as do many other hardworking people here, and many of us are able to stay above the povery line. I suppose it's all our fault for selling out to the man though...You're just keepin' it real, right? Pff.
Sorry, I should have stated that the "once a week" is just a loose average. Many times it would drop out a few times per day (once for the entire day).
I see. Ignoring my "9's", however, the rest of the points were still valid. Broadband providers still don't care about their customers.
The T1 is that office's call. The best you can do is inform them of the risk (in writing), propose a solution (again in writing), and after that...they made their bed, they get to sleep in it:)
Does that mean I can expect a commensurate increase in the frequency of network outtages? I consult for an SBC (PacBell) customer. Most of the employees there also use PacBell DSL at home. Every one of them, including the business account, frequently drop off the 'Net for periods ranging from 5 to 45 minutes at least once per week. SBC-Yahoo-PacBell doesn't seem to see this as a problem.
I hate to sound like a jerk, but you get what you pay for. Furthermore, 5-45 minutes a week isn't the end-of-the-world for DSL...especially since there's no SLA for either residential or business DSL. Using that 5-45 minutes a week of downtime as a metric, they're still reaching between around 99.96 and 99.6% uptime. As far as SBC is concerned, that's a pretty respectable figure.
You said it right though -- that client needs to get a dedicated line...preferrably with an SLA, and a competitive carrier who will do whatever it takes to keep the business that they've got. I guess it's your employer's call though -- they need to weigh out how much that reliability is worth to them. LEC and cable providers couldn't give a shit about their broadband customers (residential or business). The competition is extremely limited (nearly non-existant for the LEC's), and the entire industry has a similar screw-the-ignorant-customer attitude. They've got very little to lose....unless someone can actaully figure out how to turn a buck with broadband businesses that actually care about customer service.
i was really disappointed about the theft, as it hurts the relationship between Valve and gamers everywhere, but moreso because this theft taints both the Half Life and Valve's good name and track record.
Oh please. Valve sorta hurt themselves here. They must have been just aching to find an excuse to delay their release. If it was ready at the time of the leak, it would have been released (Holding back a release for a full audit? Why? Nothing was changed -- it was bullshit...the game simply wasn't ready for release.)
I asked a friend who works for one of their competitors who knows those guys. I asked him if he knew what the deal really was -- he said that basically any "next-gen" game could use a few extra months -- that releases are (for the most part) all timing. Now that HL2 won't be the most amazing thing out there (Far Cry sorta stole it's thunder), Valve is in a tricky position...release something now that's not the next great thing, or polish it a little more and wait...losing even more potential revenue.
This is mostly speculative, but I'm pretty sure that it was Valve who put Valve in the position that they're in...even though they're going to publicly blame the folks who stole their code (as well as ensure that they're crucified in the courts).
Just a question: What if they put it on a billboard? Would it be a problem then?
Can Howard Stern's face be on a billboard? Sure. If he wanted to put an ad up for "Lord of the Anal Rings"...well -- I wouldn't have a problem with it, but I'd understand if someone did.
I still think there's a technical solution to this though. Make people get radios with something similar to the V-chip. If you don't want mature broadcasts -- lock 'em out. Then, just enforce the rating system...same goes for TV.
The HD cards that Windows supports may have some rudimentary software, but by no means a complete PVR/HTPC system. So, Linux has the advantage here for now (which is one of the primary reasons I chose MythTV over the windows counterparts).
Do you have one of these cards yet? It appears that there is no support for cable -- it's terrestrial-only. I wonder though -- can it accept an output from your cable box? If so, I'll bet you can set up MythTV to change channels on the cable box with a remote emulator, similar to how ReplayTV works. If you have one, what are your experiences?
The Federal Communications Commission has federal authority. No city or state is permitted to make any law governing the use of the radio spectrum. For example, a town cannot pass a law saying that amateur radio operators cannot operate, or require that no one is permitted to listen to the local police radios while at home.
I hate to be a pain in the ass knitpicky Slashdotter...but we are who we are;)...besides, this one pisses me off:
State regulators have found ways around federal law to ban radar detectors, these are the same laws that you outlined (see VA and DC). All these detectors are simply radios that listen for use of an unrestricted frequency (federal law permist listening into that frequency). State law can, have, and does trump federal law.
Have you read the article? It appears that you have completely missed one of his points. The author doesn't suggest scrapping the FCC and replacing it with nothing. If you can't be bothered to read the article, try this:
Abolishing the FCC does not mean airwave anarchy. What it means is returning to bottom-up law rather than the top-down process that has characterized telecommunications for the last 80 years.
Please, read the article. Essentially, other than their core function (oversight of the distribution of our radio spectrum) they've fucked up everything else that they've put their hands on (and they've got their hands in many other places outside of their initial core function). It's simply broken. Why not cut the part that works out, kill the rest of the FCC and call it something else (or keep the name, I don't care)? God forbid -- we try to fix something that's broken.
First: Censorship.
There is absolutely NO NEED for the FCC to be arbitrarily doling out penalties for fractures of undefined decency rules on TV. We've all been forced to buy a V-chip for our TV's for a number of years now. All new TV's have this technology. Now, instead of telling people what they can and can't say on TV, enforce the rating system. Do the 7 dirty words, violence, or nudity warrant an "mature" rating? Give it a mature rating. If a broadcaster doesn't properly rate their content -- fine based on that.
Oh, you say that the market will decide that it only wants adult programming and the airwaves are public -- for everyone to use? Fine -- I'm willing to take on a few more rules to share bandwidth with the lowest-common-denominator. Set up another system that determines that in any given market at any given time, there must be a full spectrum of content -- so that mature and general-audience programs can be shown on broadcast TV.
As far as radio goes, why can't we implement a radio v-chip? Surely, there aren't any technical limitations preventing us from doing this. I'd pay the extra $6 for the technology. Add a v-chip to all radios and again, enforce the rating not the content.
With this solution, I can already feel the flames from the naysayers. They're unwilling to compromise -- and it has nothing to do with protecting the children (although they'll cite this in their rationalle). They want to control what we say, hear, and see. This goes down a road very similar to that of the war on drugs. It cites a desire to protect us (and our children) from ourselves -- in reality, it is a thinly veiled attempt at controlling our minds. it sounds like a big stretch, but I'll elaborate a little -- the drug is, in part, mind control, since it's a war on "mind altering drugs" -- others would call the limited use of these drugs as consciousness exploration (such as the case in 60's and 70's literature in the explosion of experimentation with hallucinogenic drugs). The Nixon administration wanted a way to put away the public who opposed him. He couldn't put them away for protesting, so instead he declared war on the thing that his opponents all seemed to practice: consumption of certain drugs (some illegal, some not). I would say that the form of censorship we see in our media is similar, but it takes a different approach with the same general goal. Current rules do not reflect most community norms in the US, but tend to take a lowest-common-denominator approach. The goal appears to be (among others) to control community standards through mass media rather than to embrace them and direct policy based on those standards. Why is this mind control so palatable? 2 reasons: 1. It's pretty low-key. 2. We're used to it. It's been 80 years, which makes the FCC older than the addition of "under god" to our Pledge of Allegiance, which many Americans see as something that god himself put into our history before the beginning of time.
Second: Regulation of frequencies.
Quelrods, I hate it when people say to RTFA, but judging from your reaction, you haven't read the article. Please -- read the article, man. He's not proposing broadcast anarchy like you suggest.
I understand the fear people have in disecting the FCC. It's like a warm, fuzzy blanket that we've had for 80 years. What would life be like without it? What would we do without it? Could the industry possibly regulate itself?
The fact is that the FCC is a completely misdirected bureaucracy. They are granted far-reaching power, without direct oversight -- and they do not guarantee due process. Think about it conceptually, this organization controls mass-communication -- who gets voice, and who doesn't. Once a group has voice, the FCC goes on to control content. Thta's not to say that the FCC is useless -- they also ensure that devices don't interfere with each other and they also ensure that people don't encroach on the s
I hate to be a pain in the ass about semantics, but the article headline is a bit misleading. It states One-Time Pads To Protect Electronic Bank Access. The article is about one-time passwords. I'm no crypto expert, but I've done my fair share of reading. A one-time pad is the closest thing available to perfect, unbreakable encryption. The idea is that two pads are generated of completely randomly generated characters, one is used to encrypt the characters (via modulo divide/add/xor, whatever) and immediately destroyed. The other is used to decrypt the message. As long as the pads contain truly random numbers, and they are never reused or recovered, the encryption will never be broken (because the cyphertext is a completely random string of characters).
A one-time password, while usually a pretty good key, is just not the same -- especially if we're talking a 64-bit key with a known encryption scheme. It can be very good, but never even close to the former.
Anyway, like I said earlier I'm not a cryptographer, but a enthusiast (at one time)...but I found that the header in the article was misleading.
Automatic tarnmissions are better suited for towing because you can get more low end torque out of the viscous coupling than the manual/clutch physical coupling.
You could be right on this one -- on the low end. However, if a driver knows what they're doing, there shouldn't be any advantage to an automatic.
In a manual you can't use 100% of the power because the clutch isn't fully engaged.
Here's where I'm either misunderstanding or just plain disagree. In a manual, the clutch is either fully engaged, disengaged, or slipping somewhere in the middle. There are various systems to allow a little bit of play in the driveline (some cars use a spring-centered clutch, some use a dual-mass flywheel, and others use a rubber "puck" centered clutch -- there may be others) -- but other than this, when your foot is off of the clutch, the driveline is fully engaged. You may be mixing automatic transmissions up with manuals in your argument -- with automatic trannies, the torque converter always sheds some power.
It's a religious war alright -- I try to keep my opinions out of it (it's clear how I feel). Honestly, however, I don't do much hauling -- and I can't argue much about towing capacity. I can tell you up and down why (traditional torque converter style) automstic transmissions are a dumb idea on the track. On non-commercial vehicles, this tends to apply (I'm talking SUV's and most pickups). Once you get past that and into the larger vehicles, this doesn't apply and I'm back into a terrirory where I don't know what the hell I'm talking about.
Patent fees. Getting a patent is not a free service, in fact its quite expensive.
Indeed, it appears that there is some money to be made from patent applications. Upon some quick research, a patent application is quite expensive...and it's clear that the USPTO is not spending that money researching prior art. However, to shut the anti-corporate camp up a little (and Cyberlync, this is not a rip into you by any stretch)...if you read the fee schedule, there are separate fees for a small entity and "other than a small entity". The latter half have to pay double for everything.
big cash grab for the govt since all the USPTO does is grant and grant, and get paid big bucks for granting such garbage
I guess I don't understand how the USPTO works. How do they get paid big bucks for granting garbage patents? I was under the impression that they were funded by tax dollars.
I'm not sure why, but on all of the newer fullsize trucks the ones with automatic transmissions have greater towing capacity.
It's because the demand for manual transmissions is pretty low. Manufacturers just go to the parts bin and find the appropriate (manual) tranny. If the manual they match up to the vehicle is less robust (in either strength of cooling) than the slushbox they originally speced out for the vehicle, sobeit -- it's hardly a significant market share. They just downgrade the rated towing capacity for the manual to match the transmission they put in there...the automatic tranny car keeps it's higher rating. Many manufacturers of sport sedans do the same thing with their more powerful motors. For example, the Lincoln LS V6 was available in a stick, but the V8 wasn't. They're weren't trying to undermine standard trannies -- and a stick can certainly hold that torque. They just didn't have the right manual tranny for the job and didn't want to develop a new one for that market.
IMO, manual transmissions are still better suited to pulling. Less moving/friction parts to break/replace, and I believe that they can be built stronger and cooled easier...which is one of the reasons why tractor trailers still have manual transmissions. For towing, a manual may be better anyway. They tend to hold a gear better, which may be good if you're towing in hilly regions and need to drop a gear to maintain/shed speed. Most tiptronic/sportamatic/autostick/whatever trannies can't even hold a gear.
Anyway, I digress...but this may be a case similar to Betamax Vs. VHS.
Let's do the math. What do we get out of executing a murderer? Deterrence. A high-end estimate is that each execution deters about 10 murders.
I don't know where he gets his numbers, by all measures I've ever seen, they show that capital punishment isn't a deterrence. I guess this may go along with the idiom about lies, damn lies, and statistics.
What should we do? Well, we really don't know. We seem to be on the brink of a major climatic change. We also seem to be on the brink of a magnetic field shift.
Are we? We have some good scientists saying that there could be a major problem. We also have some other equally good scientists saying that the data is completely inconclusive. We have extremists (alarmists) who take the available data and say things like "we seem to be on the brink of a major climatic change". Like I said, the right solution is not to freak out and use legislature to impose major change. The right solution also does not involve doing absolutely nothing. Then again, it depends on your definition of "doing absolutely nothing" -- if you believe that people are smart enough to make their own decisions -- that the market will fix itself. But that would be doing something more than nothing. That has to do with having faith in people to make their own decisions. Those who fear this kind of rationale tend to think that not everyone else is as wise as they are.
What can we do? Well, pollute less seems to be the only sensible solution right now. We don't even have a solution to replenish the Ozone layer. How do we scrub all the CO2 out of the air? It surely doesn't help that we are burning down the Amazon Rainfoest, one of the largest carbon sinks on the planet.
Hmm -- you're grouping together alot of things that seem related, but in a political sense, are completely unrelated.
The ozone layer is completely different, and we've taken major steps to prevent future problems with our CFC output. I don't know if you've tried to recharge the coolant in your old car lately or not, but it's a HUGE pain in the ass if you use the earth-unfriendly stuff (R26?). The new stuff is FAR friendlier. The ozone problem isn't completely fixed -- but we've come a long, long way in our output of chemicals that erode our ozone layer. Have you seen any info about what's happened since we've made these changes? So...what do you propose we do next to save our ozone layer? Move into huts?
You also mention the rainforests in the Amazon. It's a favorite of political environmentalists. Let's look at who is cutting into the rainforests. This is am issue of poor farmers trying to use cheap unsustainable land to make a living -- and rich Americans are trying to puch them around and tell them what the right thing to do it (and rally socialist support by blaming "evil corporations" for the problem). Maybe the right thing to do is to educate farmers that the land is not sustainable for agriculture for more than two seasons...not try to enforce legislature in other countries where we have no business enforcing legislature. This is a case of what I call "not my fault" environmentalism. Point the finger at someone else so we don't have to modify our behavior or lifestyle.
Unfortunately on this issue, I really feel that extremism is the only answer. The risk of failure is too high. I don't relish extinction.
You know, there's a chance that a meteor could strike the planet RIGHT NOW and kill us all. Should we all alter our lifestyles -- move 500 miles away from the coastline, chagne our global economy and base it on meteor defense? The evidence isn't really there -- but there's certainly a probability of it. The risk of failure is very high, and extinction is not a pleasant thought. So, without all of the data present, I suggest that we use legislature to force everyone to significantly change their lifestyle...because they're not smart enough to make that decision for themselves. Let's raise taxes for everyone, and divert a significant portion of them into this meteor defense system. Let's have all of our buildings and residences retrofitted for meteor resistance at a massive cost to the taxpayer...becase clearly, nobody is smart enough to make their own decisions on this stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I'm a pretty serious wanker. ;)
I just thought of a good reason to buy it! First, I can pack more porn onto a single screen. Not only that, but I'd have enough screen real estate to write perl scripts, read slashdot, and jerk off to internet porn at the same time!
Tecnology roolz!
All i do is write perl scripts, jerk off, and read slashdot, why should I buy this? ;P
That's simply untrue -- it's one of the reasons why we have one of the best economies in the world. It's not perpetual indebtedness, it's partial ownership. Where is the indebtedness? We've already established that the stocks are not paying dividends -- so 99% of shareholders don't get a paycheck from their shares (you didn't miss that, did you?). Nobody is in debt to anyone. All this is, is a type of partial ownership. The company can buy back those shares if they want to. I think you're misunderstanding how things really work. And as far as not creating a sustainable economy, it's worked pretty well for 200 years...in fact, thus far, it's arguably been the best economic success story in history.
Is there a certain feeling -- maybe something you smell or just feel in your gut when you're really wrong? Have you ever worked for a private company on government contracts? Have you ever seen the bureaucratic mess that our government creates on a daily basis? I have. Do you know why the government hires private businesses to make things work for them? Let me give you a hint, it's not special interest groups pressuring the government. It's because government does things more expensively, and do not provide services adequately -- the federal government doesn't have any reason to do things better or cheaper. Federal employees do just enough to squeeze by. See, when companies compete for the government's business, there is incentive to provide the best possible service, for the lowest cost. If they don't provide, they're fired and their contract is rebid amongst the industry. The federal government is like the biggest business in the country (especially in that they're the largest employer in the country). Problem is -- they don't really have a specialty -- they just do general stuff. There is also no competitive incentive to do a better or cheaper job. Let me give you an example: Do you know how many federal employees were fired in 2001? 434. 434 employees were fired from the largest business in the country. Hell, smallcap companies dismiss more than that for performance in a year. This is just laughable. Read the article and think about it -- ask yourself why the largest business in the country only dismissed 434 employees for performance in 2001. While you think about it, remember that it ain't because our federal workers are more competent than everyone in the private sector.
The whole reason why we have a communications infrastructure in this country -- private innovation. A private indivudual saw a need, dreamed up an idea, and got other private investors to help them build a telecom network. Healthcare is another. If you can swing it, we have the best healthcare in the world. Know why? Because private practices have incentive to provide the best care there is. Private doctors have incentive to develop new medical procedures and drugs and profit from them. If they don't, the practice down the street (with the brand new MRI machine) will get their business. It might not be the fairest, but it is the best in the world, hands down. Don't believe me? Go to a country with socialized care for everyone and tell me about your experience.
I have a couple of problems with this metric:
...or are you happy as long as a company (or industry) that you don't like gets money taken from them?
1. First of all, these numbers are always inflated. Do you really believe that worm X cost the industry $2.5 bil? Those are numbers that are calculated using estimates like the average amount of time lost per employee, or an average of how long it took to recover from it. These numbers are multiplied by other estimated numbers (number of companies out there * number of employees) and BLAMMO...there's your number. Alright -- I figure that they put a little more math into it than that, but the point is that the numbers are grossly inflated.
2. How do you determine who gets what money? Does every company get a check for $50? Do larger companies get a bigger check? Do companies who hire a really good IT group that set up a network to prevent these things get nothing then? Is that really fair since they spent the money to take care of these things?
Yeah, there's an implicit warranty. However, if your TV breaks -- you can take it back to Sony to get yours fixed (or get a new one). It doesn't mean that you can sue Sony for lost TV-watching time. If our Toyotas break, we can take it back for repairs. Under Lemon Laws, we can get our money back. It does not mean that we get to sue anyone unless we can prove negligance that resulted in injury or death. Not lost productivity ("I didn't make it to work so I'm suing for my salary" doesn't work). Also, if you're talking about liability -- liability doesn't begin and end with a sold, commodited product. If I made a car for you and gave it to you for free and it was inherently unsafe -- I'm liable for negligence, especially if I was aware of the unsafe condition that I created. In this case, free doesn't excuse anything when it comes to the standard that you're holding commercial software to.
I'm not sure how they suffer more than an entrepreneur when times are hard. Most businesses in America are small businesses. We're talking restaurants, small medical practices, mom and pop stores, etc. So you're saying that when the company folds, the small business owner runs off like a bandit, screwing the consumer and all employees, and the community at large get screwed more? What are you smoking? Most times, the owner loses their job, as well as their most valuable asset...their business. If the business is just struggling to make ends meet -- the owner typically has to make payroll out of pocket. If the business doesn't fold, the owner (the investor) deserves to demand their share of the profit long after the investment is repaid. That's why they call it an investment...there is risk, and reward. You're suggesting that people take on risk, but are not allowed to profit from it beyond repayment of the principal. If this were the case, banks couldn't charge interest on their loans...and nobody would ever invest in anyone else's business -- meaning that we wouldn't have any businesses (no incentive to invest...because there is no ownership), and we wouldn't have an economy, and we wouldn't have the highest standard of living of any country in the world. Your idea is possibly the least intelligent thing I've heard all day, and it presents far more of an ethical quagmire than the former.
All corporations non-profit? Oh please. Yeah -- that's a great idea. So, let me ask you this: how do companies which require vast infrastructure get started? I'm talking chip manufactureres which require fabs that cost $billions. What about mobile phone companies trying to build national networks? Those cost millions and millions. Who is going to invest in those companies (so they can build this really expensive infrastructure) if their return is strictly limited to the principal (or even the principal+prime)? Hell -- they can take their money to the bank and get their principal back with prime interest and a guarantee from the federal government that their bank dollars will never go away. Why would anyone invest in anyone's company if they wree all non-profits? You think the government should make these industries happen? Not gwinea work...you will find that the government is hugely inefficient and generally doesn't do well with huge projects (Apollo & the Manhattan project notwithstanding) and DEFINITELY don't know how to run long-term finances as well as a private business can. Privatization is happening at a growing pace because the government delivers substandard services at a high cost to the taxpayer (you and I).
Also, most stock doesn't pay out dividends -- 99% of investors don't get to sit on their ass and let the money roll in. A stock can increase in value indefinitely -- but putting undue restrictions on when people can and can't buy and sell stock is as dumb as telling people when they can buy and sell water...or any other commodity (because that what a stock is, a commodity).
Man, I can go on and on and on explaining the shortcomings of what you're suggesting. The fact is that you're an idealist...you seem to
I hadn't of thought much about this until I read your post...and it's an interesting point. Here are a few counterpoints that came to mind:
First, 90% of the older movies that we see are the most critically acclaimed for their time. It's easy to slap a judgement on them like "older movies are just better". If they were all so much better, Mystery Science Theater 3000 wouldn't have had anything to make fun of. There are thousands and thousands of old movies that suck.
Second, while techniques have become more honed, and our technology is far better, there is one thing that you fail to point out. Originality. As movie-making techniques have worked themselves out, it's become easier to make movies. They're being churned out pretty quickly these days. How often do you see a cinematographic technique and think "holy crap -- I've never seen anything like that before. Neat!" It may happen a small handful of times each decade...and those films usually win some kind of award. Even parts of movies are done over and over again. Take the car chase scene from Bullitt -- arguably, every car chase that ever followed was modeled based on what worked so well for Bullitt. That was over 30 years ago...and there have been very few car chase scenes that compare.
Originality also extends into content. How many times has Disney made a movie about an animal that becomes a sports star? How many buddy-cop action films are out there? Hollywood takes a good idea and beats it to death...because we'll keep buying it, but the movies that did it first -- those are the ones that we'll remember. We'll go back and watch them over and over again.
We're not out of good ideas for movies -- there are plenty to go around in all aspects of filmmaking. They're just becoming difficult to find, and making a canned hollywood movie is becoming easier every day.
IIRC, DVD bitrates can be as high as 9.8 Mb/s. On average, most commercial DVD's tend to be between 5 and 8 Mb/s. (Those are Megabits -- not bytes). So you'd need between a fifth and a tenth of a T3 to stream raw (well...straight MPEG2) DVD video...not half a T3. With modern compression streams, we can transmit far more video using the same or less bandwidth. DVD-quality video can be recompressed and transmitted over current cable/DSL Internet.
The technical limitations are now moot -- most major metropolitan areas can now get VoD through their cable providers. I believe that within the next 5-10 years, those same providers who make VoD available to their customers will provide the equivalent content in HDTV. Unless there is a HD-equivalent to DVD, it will give DVD a run for its money.
However, I agree with the (grand) parent poster -- people like their IP to be tangible, whether it's a book or a DVD. It just feels like less of a rip-off when there is something real to hold onto...especially when the non-tangible content is released onder a more restrictive (technologicaly enforced) license not allowing for resale or transfer of ownership.
What a repulsively ignorant attitude you seem to have. Who are you to tell someone that they're disgusting for having beliefs that are different than yours?
Let me put it to you this way -- when an entrepreneur starts a business, who generally takes on the majority share of the risk? (This one should be easy fo you) So do the employees, who take on only a marginal share of the risk (usually losing their jobs if the company fails) deserve as much as the person who invested their time and money (risking losing their shirt as well as their job)? Shit no. Get over yourself and stop whining, because you don't deserve a damn thing beyond what you can do for yourself -- just like the rest of us.
FWIW, I make a living through honest work, as do many other hardworking people here, and many of us are able to stay above the povery line. I suppose it's all our fault for selling out to the man though...You're just keepin' it real, right? Pff.
I see. Ignoring my "9's", however, the rest of the points were still valid. Broadband providers still don't care about their customers.
The T1 is that office's call. The best you can do is inform them of the risk (in writing), propose a solution (again in writing), and after that...they made their bed, they get to sleep in it :)
I hate to sound like a jerk, but you get what you pay for. Furthermore, 5-45 minutes a week isn't the end-of-the-world for DSL...especially since there's no SLA for either residential or business DSL. Using that 5-45 minutes a week of downtime as a metric, they're still reaching between around 99.96 and 99.6% uptime. As far as SBC is concerned, that's a pretty respectable figure.
You said it right though -- that client needs to get a dedicated line...preferrably with an SLA, and a competitive carrier who will do whatever it takes to keep the business that they've got. I guess it's your employer's call though -- they need to weigh out how much that reliability is worth to them. LEC and cable providers couldn't give a shit about their broadband customers (residential or business). The competition is extremely limited (nearly non-existant for the LEC's), and the entire industry has a similar screw-the-ignorant-customer attitude. They've got very little to lose....unless someone can actaully figure out how to turn a buck with broadband businesses that actually care about customer service.
When they said "just around the corner", they failed to mention the 20-year straightaway that preceded that corner.
Oh please. Valve sorta hurt themselves here. They must have been just aching to find an excuse to delay their release. If it was ready at the time of the leak, it would have been released (Holding back a release for a full audit? Why? Nothing was changed -- it was bullshit...the game simply wasn't ready for release.)
I asked a friend who works for one of their competitors who knows those guys. I asked him if he knew what the deal really was -- he said that basically any "next-gen" game could use a few extra months -- that releases are (for the most part) all timing. Now that HL2 won't be the most amazing thing out there (Far Cry sorta stole it's thunder), Valve is in a tricky position...release something now that's not the next great thing, or polish it a little more and wait...losing even more potential revenue.
This is mostly speculative, but I'm pretty sure that it was Valve who put Valve in the position that they're in...even though they're going to publicly blame the folks who stole their code (as well as ensure that they're crucified in the courts).
Can Howard Stern's face be on a billboard? Sure. If he wanted to put an ad up for "Lord of the Anal Rings"...well -- I wouldn't have a problem with it, but I'd understand if someone did.
I still think there's a technical solution to this though. Make people get radios with something similar to the V-chip. If you don't want mature broadcasts -- lock 'em out. Then, just enforce the rating system...same goes for TV.
Do you have one of these cards yet? It appears that there is no support for cable -- it's terrestrial-only. I wonder though -- can it accept an output from your cable box? If so, I'll bet you can set up MythTV to change channels on the cable box with a remote emulator, similar to how ReplayTV works. If you have one, what are your experiences?
I hate to be a pain in the ass knitpicky Slashdotter...but we are who we are ;)...besides, this one pisses me off:
State regulators have found ways around federal law to ban radar detectors, these are the same laws that you outlined (see VA and DC). All these detectors are simply radios that listen for use of an unrestricted frequency (federal law permist listening into that frequency). State law can, have, and does trump federal law.
Have you read the article? It appears that you have completely missed one of his points. The author doesn't suggest scrapping the FCC and replacing it with nothing. If you can't be bothered to read the article, try this:
Please, read the article. Essentially, other than their core function (oversight of the distribution of our radio spectrum) they've fucked up everything else that they've put their hands on (and they've got their hands in many other places outside of their initial core function). It's simply broken. Why not cut the part that works out, kill the rest of the FCC and call it something else (or keep the name, I don't care)? God forbid -- we try to fix something that's broken.
Couple of issues:
First: Censorship.
There is absolutely NO NEED for the FCC to be arbitrarily doling out penalties for fractures of undefined decency rules on TV. We've all been forced to buy a V-chip for our TV's for a number of years now. All new TV's have this technology. Now, instead of telling people what they can and can't say on TV, enforce the rating system. Do the 7 dirty words, violence, or nudity warrant an "mature" rating? Give it a mature rating. If a broadcaster doesn't properly rate their content -- fine based on that.
Oh, you say that the market will decide that it only wants adult programming and the airwaves are public -- for everyone to use? Fine -- I'm willing to take on a few more rules to share bandwidth with the lowest-common-denominator. Set up another system that determines that in any given market at any given time, there must be a full spectrum of content -- so that mature and general-audience programs can be shown on broadcast TV.
As far as radio goes, why can't we implement a radio v-chip? Surely, there aren't any technical limitations preventing us from doing this. I'd pay the extra $6 for the technology. Add a v-chip to all radios and again, enforce the rating not the content.
With this solution, I can already feel the flames from the naysayers. They're unwilling to compromise -- and it has nothing to do with protecting the children (although they'll cite this in their rationalle). They want to control what we say, hear, and see. This goes down a road very similar to that of the war on drugs. It cites a desire to protect us (and our children) from ourselves -- in reality, it is a thinly veiled attempt at controlling our minds. it sounds like a big stretch, but I'll elaborate a little -- the drug is, in part, mind control, since it's a war on "mind altering drugs" -- others would call the limited use of these drugs as consciousness exploration (such as the case in 60's and 70's literature in the explosion of experimentation with hallucinogenic drugs). The Nixon administration wanted a way to put away the public who opposed him. He couldn't put them away for protesting, so instead he declared war on the thing that his opponents all seemed to practice: consumption of certain drugs (some illegal, some not). I would say that the form of censorship we see in our media is similar, but it takes a different approach with the same general goal. Current rules do not reflect most community norms in the US, but tend to take a lowest-common-denominator approach. The goal appears to be (among others) to control community standards through mass media rather than to embrace them and direct policy based on those standards. Why is this mind control so palatable? 2 reasons: 1. It's pretty low-key. 2. We're used to it. It's been 80 years, which makes the FCC older than the addition of "under god" to our Pledge of Allegiance, which many Americans see as something that god himself put into our history before the beginning of time.
Second: Regulation of frequencies.
Quelrods, I hate it when people say to RTFA, but judging from your reaction, you haven't read the article. Please -- read the article, man. He's not proposing broadcast anarchy like you suggest.
I understand the fear people have in disecting the FCC. It's like a warm, fuzzy blanket that we've had for 80 years. What would life be like without it? What would we do without it? Could the industry possibly regulate itself?
The fact is that the FCC is a completely misdirected bureaucracy. They are granted far-reaching power, without direct oversight -- and they do not guarantee due process. Think about it conceptually, this organization controls mass-communication -- who gets voice, and who doesn't. Once a group has voice, the FCC goes on to control content. Thta's not to say that the FCC is useless -- they also ensure that devices don't interfere with each other and they also ensure that people don't encroach on the s
I hate to be a pain in the ass about semantics, but the article headline is a bit misleading. It states One-Time Pads To Protect Electronic Bank Access. The article is about one-time passwords. I'm no crypto expert, but I've done my fair share of reading. A one-time pad is the closest thing available to perfect, unbreakable encryption. The idea is that two pads are generated of completely randomly generated characters, one is used to encrypt the characters (via modulo divide/add/xor, whatever) and immediately destroyed. The other is used to decrypt the message. As long as the pads contain truly random numbers, and they are never reused or recovered, the encryption will never be broken (because the cyphertext is a completely random string of characters).
A one-time password, while usually a pretty good key, is just not the same -- especially if we're talking a 64-bit key with a known encryption scheme. It can be very good, but never even close to the former.
Anyway, like I said earlier I'm not a cryptographer, but a enthusiast (at one time)...but I found that the header in the article was misleading.
You could be right on this one -- on the low end. However, if a driver knows what they're doing, there shouldn't be any advantage to an automatic.
Here's where I'm either misunderstanding or just plain disagree. In a manual, the clutch is either fully engaged, disengaged, or slipping somewhere in the middle. There are various systems to allow a little bit of play in the driveline (some cars use a spring-centered clutch, some use a dual-mass flywheel, and others use a rubber "puck" centered clutch -- there may be others) -- but other than this, when your foot is off of the clutch, the driveline is fully engaged. You may be mixing automatic transmissions up with manuals in your argument -- with automatic trannies, the torque converter always sheds some power.
It's a religious war alright -- I try to keep my opinions out of it (it's clear how I feel). Honestly, however, I don't do much hauling -- and I can't argue much about towing capacity. I can tell you up and down why (traditional torque converter style) automstic transmissions are a dumb idea on the track. On non-commercial vehicles, this tends to apply (I'm talking SUV's and most pickups). Once you get past that and into the larger vehicles, this doesn't apply and I'm back into a terrirory where I don't know what the hell I'm talking about.
Indeed, it appears that there is some money to be made from patent applications. Upon some quick research, a patent application is quite expensive...and it's clear that the USPTO is not spending that money researching prior art. However, to shut the anti-corporate camp up a little (and Cyberlync, this is not a rip into you by any stretch)...if you read the fee schedule, there are separate fees for a small entity and "other than a small entity". The latter half have to pay double for everything.
I guess I don't understand how the USPTO works. How do they get paid big bucks for granting garbage patents? I was under the impression that they were funded by tax dollars.
It's because the demand for manual transmissions is pretty low. Manufacturers just go to the parts bin and find the appropriate (manual) tranny. If the manual they match up to the vehicle is less robust (in either strength of cooling) than the slushbox they originally speced out for the vehicle, sobeit -- it's hardly a significant market share. They just downgrade the rated towing capacity for the manual to match the transmission they put in there...the automatic tranny car keeps it's higher rating. Many manufacturers of sport sedans do the same thing with their more powerful motors. For example, the Lincoln LS V6 was available in a stick, but the V8 wasn't. They're weren't trying to undermine standard trannies -- and a stick can certainly hold that torque. They just didn't have the right manual tranny for the job and didn't want to develop a new one for that market.
IMO, manual transmissions are still better suited to pulling. Less moving/friction parts to break/replace, and I believe that they can be built stronger and cooled easier...which is one of the reasons why tractor trailers still have manual transmissions. For towing, a manual may be better anyway. They tend to hold a gear better, which may be good if you're towing in hilly regions and need to drop a gear to maintain/shed speed. Most tiptronic/sportamatic/autostick/whatever trannies can't even hold a gear.
Anyway, I digress...but this may be a case similar to Betamax Vs. VHS.
From TFA
I don't know where he gets his numbers, by all measures I've ever seen, they show that capital punishment isn't a deterrence. I guess this may go along with the idiom about lies, damn lies, and statistics.
Are we? We have some good scientists saying that there could be a major problem. We also have some other equally good scientists saying that the data is completely inconclusive. We have extremists (alarmists) who take the available data and say things like "we seem to be on the brink of a major climatic change". Like I said, the right solution is not to freak out and use legislature to impose major change. The right solution also does not involve doing absolutely nothing. Then again, it depends on your definition of "doing absolutely nothing" -- if you believe that people are smart enough to make their own decisions -- that the market will fix itself. But that would be doing something more than nothing. That has to do with having faith in people to make their own decisions. Those who fear this kind of rationale tend to think that not everyone else is as wise as they are.
Hmm -- you're grouping together alot of things that seem related, but in a political sense, are completely unrelated.
The ozone layer is completely different, and we've taken major steps to prevent future problems with our CFC output. I don't know if you've tried to recharge the coolant in your old car lately or not, but it's a HUGE pain in the ass if you use the earth-unfriendly stuff (R26?). The new stuff is FAR friendlier. The ozone problem isn't completely fixed -- but we've come a long, long way in our output of chemicals that erode our ozone layer. Have you seen any info about what's happened since we've made these changes? So...what do you propose we do next to save our ozone layer? Move into huts?
You also mention the rainforests in the Amazon. It's a favorite of political environmentalists. Let's look at who is cutting into the rainforests. This is am issue of poor farmers trying to use cheap unsustainable land to make a living -- and rich Americans are trying to puch them around and tell them what the right thing to do it (and rally socialist support by blaming "evil corporations" for the problem). Maybe the right thing to do is to educate farmers that the land is not sustainable for agriculture for more than two seasons...not try to enforce legislature in other countries where we have no business enforcing legislature. This is a case of what I call "not my fault" environmentalism. Point the finger at someone else so we don't have to modify our behavior or lifestyle.
You know, there's a chance that a meteor could strike the planet RIGHT NOW and kill us all. Should we all alter our lifestyles -- move 500 miles away from the coastline, chagne our global economy and base it on meteor defense? The evidence isn't really there -- but there's certainly a probability of it. The risk of failure is very high, and extinction is not a pleasant thought. So, without all of the data present, I suggest that we use legislature to force everyone to significantly change their lifestyle...because they're not smart enough to make that decision for themselves. Let's raise taxes for everyone, and divert a significant portion of them into this meteor defense system. Let's have all of our buildings and residences retrofitted for meteor resistance at a massive cost to the taxpayer...becase clearly, nobody is smart enough to make their own decisions on this stuff.
Sou