I live in a smaller city, where there's really a University and not much else.
LOL, at first glance, it looked like you were describing my home town of Edmonton. Then I realized you said Comcast, not Dell... the similarities are striking, though!
I find it rather interesting that according to the article, Americans get paid ~$3 less than us.
You've also gotta remember that Canada is, believe it or not, a target for outsourcing. The lower dollar helps, and there's also the fact that the government largely foots the bill on healthcare, lowering one of the American employer's greatest costs. The result is they can pay a slightly higher wage in order to compete for the more competant candidates.
"All the western countries"?? Uhh, as a Canadian, I must point out that a) the US isn't "all the western countries", and b) there are many western nations that aren't as fucked up as the US. Are they perfect? Hardly. But the US leads the way in corruption, primarily, I think, thanks to the fact that it's the only first world nation I know of where bribing government officials is not only legal, but protected as "free speech", giving corporations and other special interests unbelievable influence. Of course, it's two-party (or, some might say, one-party) system of government doesn't help, either, as the people end up with very little in the way of options for change (which has been exacerbated by the two main stream parties doing what they can to prevent a third option from gaining any traction).
Second, you're talking about banning all DRM-free analog-to-digital hardware.
Nope. Just waiting out planned obsolesence. How easy do you think it is to find a working 8-track player? Or, heck, even a turntable? The same thing will happen with non-DRM-enabled hardware.
There is no such technology. Nothing you can do to the software can prevent me from grabbing the analog audio out of my computer and recording it if I really want to.
It works like this. First, you invent durable digital watermarks. These are little codes embedded in audio that can survive DA/AD conversions. Then, you modify the recording devices so they refuse to record media that has a valid watermark. Sure, it'll take a while for the old recording hardware to disappear from the market, but it'll happen eventually. And you could always modify the playback hardware (which people tend to upgrade frequently) so it refuses to play material from unsigned (ie, with a valid private key) sources which have been watermarked.
Of course, the hardest part in this scheme is the watermarking. I'm not sure what the state of the art is on this topic, but there's certainly been a lot of active research in the area.
Yes, but isn't it the case that, since it requires a fair bit more fuel to start an engine than simply run it, that you need to be stopped for a reasonable period of time before this technology becomes more efficient over a standard car?
The problem with this statement is that an individual DOES have the moral right to kill under certain circumstances, namely: self-defense.
You're absolutely right. If my person is in immediate danger, I have the right to defend myself. The problem is, this analogy doesn't hold for society at large, at least not in this scenario.
The death penalty is more analogous to me tracking down a convicted pedophile who's living in my area and shooting them. In both cases, there is a perceived *potential* threat, but no actual immediate threat, and in order to eliminate it, the individual is killed. And guess what, if I did that, my actions would be amoral and illegal. The same can be said for capital punishment.
Your analogy is more applicable to a society at war (in particular, a war in response to a threatening action by another nation). But, of course, that's not what we're discussing here.
Why should society bare the burden of feeding and housing such individuals? Why should guards be forced to risk their lives to deal with such individuals? Why should those who view others lives, repeatedly, and consistently as having no value, be treated any differently?
Simple. Because, if an individual does not have the moral right to kill, then neither does society at large. Alternatively, I would argue that the existence of the death penalty demeans the society, as, collectively, those people are saying that a human life is subject to the whims of a jury.
Too wishy-washy? How 'bout the fact that wrongful convictions have occured many times, and in recent history, no less, despite the existence of high tech forensic tools, etc. Are you willing to bet the life of an innocent human being in order to save a few dollars?
But wait, that's the best part. It doesn't save any money. Combine the cost of the actual execution with the cost of the appeals process, housing the individual on death row, etc, and guess what? It costs as much, if not more, than it does to simply imprison the person for life.
But that's not all! The death penalty isn't even handed down consistently. Racial minorities are far more likely to get the death penalty than a caucasian individual. Which only furthers the point that, when it comes down to it, humans are flawed and shouldn't be allowed to determine who lives and who dies.
Finally, the death penalty doesn't actually deter crime. The US, despite the existence of the death penalty, has higher violent crime rates than most other developed nations. So, if it doesn't work, why bother?
And yet support of the death penalty persists. Despite the fact that it doesn't deter crime. Despite the fact that it's expensive. Despite the risks of killing innocent individuals thanks to wrongful convictions. Despite the fact that it's morally reprehensible. And why? Revenge. Which brings us back to the original point.
What's wrong with the death penalty for the worst offenders? Some people deserve to die, IMNSHO.
Thus proving the GP's point that the US justice system, and the death penalty in particular, exists to dole out revenge, plain and simple. You may not want to call it that because "revenge" is an ugly word, but that is the simple truth of the matter.
So why pass a law in the first place?? Just start a public information campaign. Send fliers, broadcast commercials, that sort of thing. Laws should be our *last* resort when trying to deal with any sort of issue, and that includes technical ones.
Uhh... how is BSG not intellectual? It deals with civil rights, what it means to be human, the role of the military and government, and a myriad of other issues, and it does it very well, unlike the preachy, hackneyed ST:TOS. 'course, don't get me wrong, I love TOS, but if you're looking for real depth, I think BSG is the superior program.
Incidentally, I would claim that BSG is living up to the real intent of sci-fi better than most other shows before it. The writers realize that the science part of sci-fi is simply a vehicle for telling a story using devices and settings that would otherwise be unavailable to them. The real problem with many sci-fi shows is that they usually just devolve to simple deus ex machina, and BSG has generally avoided that pitfall.
Uhh... these products aren't aimed at your desktop box. They're for use in server farms, where virtualization provides an additional measure of security, along with providing the server operator more flexibility in how their hardware is utilized.
But I wonder how much energy did it consume to produce those huge amounts of Hydrogen & Oxygen? Will it be lesser than the power generated by the reaction between them?
Fuel cells and hydrogen are not a power generation technology. They are a power *storage* and *transportation* technology. This has been said time and time again. Get over it. You're not being clever. You are not poking holes in the hydrogen economy. You are simply missing the point. Please educate yourself, because you people are really starting to irritate me.
Well, you can say that all you want, but until a real life EULA is invalidated in a court of law, I wouldn't be taking my chances, unless you feel like being a legal guinea pig.
Riiiight... local government offers a business millions of dollars to set up shop in their region, and you're expecting the business to say *no*? Forget the fact that it makes no financial sense, if governments are willing to entice Wal-Mart to set up shop, who are they to refuse? Hell, the local constituents might *want* them there, for all you know.
Sorry, I understand people want to paint Wal-Mart as a corporation of pure evil, and it's quite possible there are reasons to do so, but in this case, if there's blame to be placed, it's solely on the governments who are doling out the pork against the will of their electorate.
Push email. I ran an agent on my Outlook at work and email appeared on my Blackberry, subject to the filtering rules I put in place. This is better than IMAP and POP3, I literally only saw emails I care about on the device. I'd much rather design my filters in an Outlook-like interface than on a small device.
Most decent mail servers allow you to install filtering rules server-side, which is far superior to client-side filters, since the client never has to download the email in the first place. Exchange definitely does this, and products like Sieve can be installed for Unix-based servers.
Push email is really the best point I see here, since the only other alternative I know of is IMAP IDLE mode, which requires a TCP connection to be maintained.
* The scroll wheel. It seems lame, but it's dead simple to navigate around the device with just your thumb.
* Small, efficient keyboard. Writing email was simple. A lot easier than T9.
And as the GP rightly pointed out, both of these features are easily duplicated, unless patents get in the way. Which brings us right back to his original point.:)
there are a lot of countries that pull the free-trade card when it comes to having access to US markets, but are still staunchly protectionist when it comes to their domestic markets and industries.
Wow, that's really funny. Many countries in free trade relationships with the US (like, say, Canada and Mexico), have the exact same complaint... about the US! Interesting how, when the tables turn, people suddenly get all uppity about free trade.
Slashdot Mirror
I live in a smaller city, where there's really a University and not much else.
LOL, at first glance, it looked like you were describing my home town of Edmonton. Then I realized you said Comcast, not Dell... the similarities are striking, though!
I find it rather interesting that according to the article, Americans get paid ~$3 less than us.
You've also gotta remember that Canada is, believe it or not, a target for outsourcing. The lower dollar helps, and there's also the fact that the government largely foots the bill on healthcare, lowering one of the American employer's greatest costs. The result is they can pay a slightly higher wage in order to compete for the more competant candidates.
Indeed... apparently the words "scholarship" and "bursary" have fallen out of some people's vocabularies.
"All the western countries"?? Uhh, as a Canadian, I must point out that a) the US isn't "all the western countries", and b) there are many western nations that aren't as fucked up as the US. Are they perfect? Hardly. But the US leads the way in corruption, primarily, I think, thanks to the fact that it's the only first world nation I know of where bribing government officials is not only legal, but protected as "free speech", giving corporations and other special interests unbelievable influence. Of course, it's two-party (or, some might say, one-party) system of government doesn't help, either, as the people end up with very little in the way of options for change (which has been exacerbated by the two main stream parties doing what they can to prevent a third option from gaining any traction).
Second, you're talking about banning all DRM-free analog-to-digital hardware.
Nope. Just waiting out planned obsolesence. How easy do you think it is to find a working 8-track player? Or, heck, even a turntable? The same thing will happen with non-DRM-enabled hardware.
There is no such technology. Nothing you can do to the software can prevent me from grabbing the analog audio out of my computer and recording it if I really want to.
It works like this. First, you invent durable digital watermarks. These are little codes embedded in audio that can survive DA/AD conversions. Then, you modify the recording devices so they refuse to record media that has a valid watermark. Sure, it'll take a while for the old recording hardware to disappear from the market, but it'll happen eventually. And you could always modify the playback hardware (which people tend to upgrade frequently) so it refuses to play material from unsigned (ie, with a valid private key) sources which have been watermarked.
Of course, the hardest part in this scheme is the watermarking. I'm not sure what the state of the art is on this topic, but there's certainly been a lot of active research in the area.
This would be the truth of the matter. You can thank Sony for this.
I had the opportunity to introduce my wife to the joys of fried leftover mac'n'cheese... ahh, the artery-clogging goodness.
Great, now I'm hungry...
Yes, but isn't it the case that, since it requires a fair bit more fuel to start an engine than simply run it, that you need to be stopped for a reasonable period of time before this technology becomes more efficient over a standard car?
The problem with this statement is that an individual DOES have the moral right to kill under certain circumstances, namely: self-defense.
You're absolutely right. If my person is in immediate danger, I have the right to defend myself. The problem is, this analogy doesn't hold for society at large, at least not in this scenario.
The death penalty is more analogous to me tracking down a convicted pedophile who's living in my area and shooting them. In both cases, there is a perceived *potential* threat, but no actual immediate threat, and in order to eliminate it, the individual is killed. And guess what, if I did that, my actions would be amoral and illegal. The same can be said for capital punishment.
Your analogy is more applicable to a society at war (in particular, a war in response to a threatening action by another nation). But, of course, that's not what we're discussing here.
Why should society bare the burden of feeding and housing such individuals? Why should guards be forced to risk their lives to deal with such individuals? Why should those who view others lives, repeatedly, and consistently as having no value, be treated any differently?
Simple. Because, if an individual does not have the moral right to kill, then neither does society at large. Alternatively, I would argue that the existence of the death penalty demeans the society, as, collectively, those people are saying that a human life is subject to the whims of a jury.
Too wishy-washy? How 'bout the fact that wrongful convictions have occured many times, and in recent history, no less, despite the existence of high tech forensic tools, etc. Are you willing to bet the life of an innocent human being in order to save a few dollars?
But wait, that's the best part. It doesn't save any money. Combine the cost of the actual execution with the cost of the appeals process, housing the individual on death row, etc, and guess what? It costs as much, if not more, than it does to simply imprison the person for life.
But that's not all! The death penalty isn't even handed down consistently. Racial minorities are far more likely to get the death penalty than a caucasian individual. Which only furthers the point that, when it comes down to it, humans are flawed and shouldn't be allowed to determine who lives and who dies.
Finally, the death penalty doesn't actually deter crime. The US, despite the existence of the death penalty, has higher violent crime rates than most other developed nations. So, if it doesn't work, why bother?
And yet support of the death penalty persists. Despite the fact that it doesn't deter crime. Despite the fact that it's expensive. Despite the risks of killing innocent individuals thanks to wrongful convictions. Despite the fact that it's morally reprehensible. And why? Revenge. Which brings us back to the original point.
What's wrong with the death penalty for the worst offenders? Some people deserve to die, IMNSHO.
Thus proving the GP's point that the US justice system, and the death penalty in particular, exists to dole out revenge, plain and simple. You may not want to call it that because "revenge" is an ugly word, but that is the simple truth of the matter.
I'm also a fan of "Shade" by Andrew Plotkin. It's a nice, smallish one-room game with fantastic atmosphere.
So why pass a law in the first place?? Just start a public information campaign. Send fliers, broadcast commercials, that sort of thing. Laws should be our *last* resort when trying to deal with any sort of issue, and that includes technical ones.
Uhh... how is BSG not intellectual? It deals with civil rights, what it means to be human, the role of the military and government, and a myriad of other issues, and it does it very well, unlike the preachy, hackneyed ST:TOS. 'course, don't get me wrong, I love TOS, but if you're looking for real depth, I think BSG is the superior program.
Incidentally, I would claim that BSG is living up to the real intent of sci-fi better than most other shows before it. The writers realize that the science part of sci-fi is simply a vehicle for telling a story using devices and settings that would otherwise be unavailable to them. The real problem with many sci-fi shows is that they usually just devolve to simple deus ex machina, and BSG has generally avoided that pitfall.
Uhh... these products aren't aimed at your desktop box. They're for use in server farms, where virtualization provides an additional measure of security, along with providing the server operator more flexibility in how their hardware is utilized.
You ride a motorcycle *6* Km?!? Jebus, dude, get a bicycle. It's probably about as safe, and at least you'll get some exercise.
Why? An encyclopedia is a repository of knowledge. Full stop. It's not Wikipedia's job to determine what is "of importance" and what's not.
But I wonder how much energy did it consume to produce those huge amounts of Hydrogen & Oxygen? Will it be lesser than the power generated by the reaction between them?
Fuel cells and hydrogen are not a power generation technology. They are a power *storage* and *transportation* technology. This has been said time and time again. Get over it. You're not being clever. You are not poking holes in the hydrogen economy. You are simply missing the point. Please educate yourself, because you people are really starting to irritate me.
Well, lucky us, then (says a happily employed Canadian). :)
Well, you can say that all you want, but until a real life EULA is invalidated in a court of law, I wouldn't be taking my chances, unless you feel like being a legal guinea pig.
Right, so we agree it's the government that's to blame. I'm glad we could resolve this. ;)
Riiiight... local government offers a business millions of dollars to set up shop in their region, and you're expecting the business to say *no*? Forget the fact that it makes no financial sense, if governments are willing to entice Wal-Mart to set up shop, who are they to refuse? Hell, the local constituents might *want* them there, for all you know.
Sorry, I understand people want to paint Wal-Mart as a corporation of pure evil, and it's quite possible there are reasons to do so, but in this case, if there's blame to be placed, it's solely on the governments who are doling out the pork against the will of their electorate.
Push email. I ran an agent on my Outlook at work and email appeared on my Blackberry, subject to the filtering rules I put in place. This is better than IMAP and POP3, I literally only saw emails I care about on the device. I'd much rather design my filters in an Outlook-like interface than on a small device.
:)
Most decent mail servers allow you to install filtering rules server-side, which is far superior to client-side filters, since the client never has to download the email in the first place. Exchange definitely does this, and products like Sieve can be installed for Unix-based servers.
Push email is really the best point I see here, since the only other alternative I know of is IMAP IDLE mode, which requires a TCP connection to be maintained.
* The scroll wheel. It seems lame, but it's dead simple to navigate around the device with just your thumb.
* Small, efficient keyboard. Writing email was simple. A lot easier than T9.
And as the GP rightly pointed out, both of these features are easily duplicated, unless patents get in the way. Which brings us right back to his original point.
Which is really only fair considering, in it's early days, the US pulled the same tricks vis a vis British copyright law.
there are a lot of countries that pull the free-trade card when it comes to having access to US markets, but are still staunchly protectionist when it comes to their domestic markets and industries.
Wow, that's really funny. Many countries in free trade relationships with the US (like, say, Canada and Mexico), have the exact same complaint... about the US! Interesting how, when the tables turn, people suddenly get all uppity about free trade.