Funny, sodomy is the only form of "torture" that Marines do to each other on weekends for fun. Not even remotely kidding. I was in the Marines, and I have friends who sodomized each other for fun.
You know, while that may be true, it does not really support your implied statement.
I don't care if your friends do it to each other for fun. If you don't have a problem with it being done to unwilling participants then there is something wrong with you.
Sad how GP's activity is perfectly legal, consensual or otherwise, but your hypothetical marine's is illegal under any circumstance. (Although I do wonder if it would be closer to legal if they did it to unwilling prisoners and then pretended not to enjoy it).
Thinking of a worst-case scenario, this would be like giving those hard working and intelligent enough a pass at a super-long life, while eliminating the unwashed masses.
I don't know if I buy the assumption that the wealthiest among us are more "hard-working and intelligent" than those with less money, but it is interesting to think of how the price point for this would be determined. After all, even if it is cheap to make, think of how much money it would save in hospital bills alone. when you add in an estimated monetary value for the extra years gained by the treatment, they could name their price. (That is assuming no side-effects)
Would they charge such a high amount that CEOs and celebrities would pay millions to buy an extra ten years? Would they mass-produce the stuff and charge just enough so that it is cheaper than a heart attack? Would insurance companies cover just enough treatment to keep workers 'perpetually 55' (or whatever the ideal age is, where the medical risk and cost of treatment are optimum)?
Worried? Build more capacity then. It's not like your customers have been or will be getting all that electricity for free (or even cheap in some cases).
It does seem odd that they are worried about having all these extra customers. It's like seeing McDonald's complaining that Americans are getting too fat, and they just can't afford to keep building all the restaurants needed to handle the increased demand for fast food.
Ok, so it's more like McDonald's complaining that these fat people are buying food from an existing restaurant, and they can't figure out how to handle a 200% increase in revenue without having to increase the size of the restaurant they currently have.
Actually, I think the in-game context makes it worse. The "bad guys" are not a form of self-expression on the part of the developers or the players, but the profile pic is, and the context (military conflict shortly after WWII) makes it seem more likely that the symbol worn by the guy who just shot you is a reference to Nazis, rather than Buddhists.
If you saw a KKK bumper sticker on someone's car, would you:
Assume he's a racist
Say "hmm, let's google the KKK and see if there is some group, somewhere who doesn't see them as racist"
Say "Ah ha! The Klan was originally a patriotic and religious organization who, at one time tried to reinvent themselves as a group that promotes pride in one's cultural heritage! Thank you for educating those who pass you on the freeway!"
Wonder if he is actually a foreign individual from a country where the KKK stands for something entirely different, and chastise the rest of the country for not having an in-depth understanding of this foreign culture.
I'm just wondering how much research you expect people to do when they see controversial symbols in random places?
How many others are wondering if this company is trying to "bait" people into getting their game? I don't think it makes good business sense, but they are practically begging to be pirated, and then shaking down the pirates.
He faces five to six years in prison and a $150,000 fine (PDF).
Good. And before we judge if that seems too harsh a punishment, I would ask if anyone knows what the Chinese government would do to an American engineer who did the same thing to a Chinese company.
I'd say it depends on the real value of what he stole. If he stole something valued at 100 million, then giving it back and paying a fine equal to 0.15% of that amount seems like a slap on the wrist.
I do disagree with the notion that we should judge our actions based on how China's laws work. Had he been from a country where this is legal, it wouldn't make sense to let him go, or reduce his sentence, so we shouldn't argue for a tougher sentence because he is from a country where such is the norm.
This is what tort laws are for. These people weighed the benefit of following the law against the benefit of breaking the law, with fines, penalties, and lawyers fees being just variables in an equation (and the moral implications of trying to shake down innocent people possibly included as a PR expense). They then decided that they were better off violating the law.
Strong tort laws exist not to reward people for falling down or burning themselves, but to punish those who would ignore the law because of a cost benefit analysis, like these people did.
I don't know if UK tort laws work like US tort laws, but I hope someone sues for lawyers fees and "pain and suffering", presenting this as evidence. It may not stop them from suing the guilty, but it may make them much more cautious about who they sue.
May be they should be sued for malpractice and made to pay triple damages. A taste of their own medicine might do a whole lot of good in this case.
This is the kind of thing tort laws were made for. They looked at the law and the penalty for violating it. They calculated that they could make more money by violating the law and paying up when they occasionally got caught, and the "punishment" should be high enough to ensure they don't do it again. I'm talking McDonald's hot coffee money levels. Abuse of the legal system hurts everybody, not just the few people who get nasty letters.
I thought this kind of shit only happens in the US.
I am looking forward to the lawyer bubble popping.
Why? When did a business ever fail due to unethical behavior? Look at the Catholic church*. Ethical behavior is supposed to be their product, but, somehow they seem to be weathering the child molestation scandal rather well. If the guy who's job is to tell you how to be good can get away with unethical behavior, then what mechanism would shoot down the guy whose job is to help you make money?
* Sorry for making this about religion, but it seems like too good a counter-example.
Is exactly the same battle as Apple vs. Microsoft a decade ago. And Apple will lose again for the same reasons: Inflated price, locked platform, and developer exclusion. Woz sees the obvious. Jobs apparently does not.
Is Apple losing? Apple's in a really great spot - they're raking in cash. So is Microsoft, except that Apple is moving far less units than Dell, HP, Acer and other hardware manufacturers, so their actual costs per sale is lower and margins are higher.
They also only have 2 iPhone models out that's outselling individual Android phones out there. The only reason Android phones are "winning" is the sheer number of models of Android phones out there. They also rake in close to 50% of mobile industry profits, despite only having anywhere from 1-2% total mobile marketshare. All the other bigger companies (LG, Samsung, Nokia, RIM) are scrapping over the remaining half, despite accounting for over 90% of units shipped.
Yeah, Apple is losing. Apple's not participating in the race to the bottom, instead letting Dell, HP, Acer, HTC, Samsung, LG, Nokia compete against each other driving their margins and profits down.
Apple in 10 years? Well, I don't know. Just like I don't know where Microsoft willb e in 10 years. Or what Android will be in 10 years. Hell, in the past 10 years, we saw the rise and fall of PalmOS, and the rise and fall of Windows Mobile. Symbian's a bit longer lived. Android and iOS may not even exist in the next 5 years.
So, to sum this up...
Apple may be losing market share, but they make up for it by bundling their OS and hardware. This allows them to stifle competition, and gouge the customer, which keeps their profit margins high and their costs low.
Thank you, Mr Wosniak. I think our readers will find this very enlightening.
In other news, the Beatles also have 13 albums on the pirate bay. People have been long awaiting the day when they could download the Beatles in an electronic format, but now they can. And thanks to the iTunes software, they can now transfer them to their iPhones, iPods, iBetterThenYous, or whatever silly gizmo these soft-headed fanboys prefer. It's a great day for the Beatles, the Pirate Bay, and for News sites that have nothing better to discuss.
Do you really think an iTunes download is better than a high-quality rip from a normal CD-ripper? I don't use iTunes, but I seem to recall them being the quality equivalent of 128kps or 160kps at most.
Slashdot Mirror
You know, while that may be true, it does not really support your implied statement.
I don't care if your friends do it to each other for fun. If you don't have a problem with it being done to unwilling participants then there is something wrong with you.
Sad how GP's activity is perfectly legal, consensual or otherwise, but your hypothetical marine's is illegal under any circumstance. (Although I do wonder if it would be closer to legal if they did it to unwilling prisoners and then pretended not to enjoy it).
Thinking of a worst-case scenario, this would be like giving those hard working and intelligent enough a pass at a super-long life, while eliminating the unwashed masses.
I don't know if I buy the assumption that the wealthiest among us are more "hard-working and intelligent" than those with less money, but it is interesting to think of how the price point for this would be determined. After all, even if it is cheap to make, think of how much money it would save in hospital bills alone. when you add in an estimated monetary value for the extra years gained by the treatment, they could name their price. (That is assuming no side-effects)
Would they charge such a high amount that CEOs and celebrities would pay millions to buy an extra ten years? Would they mass-produce the stuff and charge just enough so that it is cheaper than a heart attack? Would insurance companies cover just enough treatment to keep workers 'perpetually 55' (or whatever the ideal age is, where the medical risk and cost of treatment are optimum)?
It's still better than at least 90% of what counts as "music" today.
How long before someone autotunes it?
Give him a damn baseball or something, the last thing he needs in his formative years is to vegetate in front of a screen.
My kid learned to read the spell lists in Oblivion at the age of three, how is yours doing with the baseball?
He can spell "spalding". He can almost spell "ambulance", but he keeps doing it backward.
Worried? Build more capacity then. It's not like your customers have been or will be getting all that electricity for free (or even cheap in some cases).
It does seem odd that they are worried about having all these extra customers. It's like seeing McDonald's complaining that Americans are getting too fat, and they just can't afford to keep building all the restaurants needed to handle the increased demand for fast food.
Ok, so it's more like McDonald's complaining that these fat people are buying food from an existing restaurant, and they can't figure out how to handle a 200% increase in revenue without having to increase the size of the restaurant they currently have.
Actually, I think the in-game context makes it worse. The "bad guys" are not a form of self-expression on the part of the developers or the players, but the profile pic is, and the context (military conflict shortly after WWII) makes it seem more likely that the symbol worn by the guy who just shot you is a reference to Nazis, rather than Buddhists.
If you saw a KKK bumper sticker on someone's car, would you:
I'm just wondering how much research you expect people to do when they see controversial symbols in random places?
In all seriousness, though. I could imagine that time spent online would be an invaluable metric for health insurance providers.
So, slashdotter <40 == good risk
Slashdotter >40 == bad risk
And the worst thing you could possibly do to someone?
wget -r http://webmd.com/
How many others are wondering if this company is trying to "bait" people into getting their game? I don't think it makes good business sense, but they are practically begging to be pirated, and then shaking down the pirates.
He faces five to six years in prison and a $150,000 fine (PDF).
Good. And before we judge if that seems too harsh a punishment, I would ask if anyone knows what the Chinese government would do to an American engineer who did the same thing to a Chinese company.
I'd say it depends on the real value of what he stole. If he stole something valued at 100 million, then giving it back and paying a fine equal to 0.15% of that amount seems like a slap on the wrist.
I do disagree with the notion that we should judge our actions based on how China's laws work. Had he been from a country where this is legal, it wouldn't make sense to let him go, or reduce his sentence, so we shouldn't argue for a tougher sentence because he is from a country where such is the norm.
This is what tort laws are for. These people weighed the benefit of following the law against the benefit of breaking the law, with fines, penalties, and lawyers fees being just variables in an equation (and the moral implications of trying to shake down innocent people possibly included as a PR expense). They then decided that they were better off violating the law.
Strong tort laws exist not to reward people for falling down or burning themselves, but to punish those who would ignore the law because of a cost benefit analysis, like these people did.
I don't know if UK tort laws work like US tort laws, but I hope someone sues for lawyers fees and "pain and suffering", presenting this as evidence. It may not stop them from suing the guilty, but it may make them much more cautious about who they sue.
May be they should be sued for malpractice and made to pay triple damages. A taste of their own medicine might do a whole lot of good in this case.
This is the kind of thing tort laws were made for. They looked at the law and the penalty for violating it. They calculated that they could make more money by violating the law and paying up when they occasionally got caught, and the "punishment" should be high enough to ensure they don't do it again. I'm talking McDonald's hot coffee money levels. Abuse of the legal system hurts everybody, not just the few people who get nasty letters.
Can i subscribe to http://twitter.com/shitmywifesunclesays ?
I thought this kind of shit only happens in the US.
I am looking forward to the lawyer bubble popping.
Why? When did a business ever fail due to unethical behavior? Look at the Catholic church*. Ethical behavior is supposed to be their product, but, somehow they seem to be weathering the child molestation scandal rather well. If the guy who's job is to tell you how to be good can get away with unethical behavior, then what mechanism would shoot down the guy whose job is to help you make money?
* Sorry for making this about religion, but it seems like too good a counter-example.
So in other words, lawyers are good when they're on your side.
If you're on the right side, yes.
Is Apple losing? Apple's in a really great spot - they're raking in cash. So is Microsoft, except that Apple is moving far less units than Dell, HP, Acer and other hardware manufacturers, so their actual costs per sale is lower and margins are higher.
They also only have 2 iPhone models out that's outselling individual Android phones out there. The only reason Android phones are "winning" is the sheer number of models of Android phones out there. They also rake in close to 50% of mobile industry profits, despite only having anywhere from 1-2% total mobile marketshare. All the other bigger companies (LG, Samsung, Nokia, RIM) are scrapping over the remaining half, despite accounting for over 90% of units shipped.
Yeah, Apple is losing. Apple's not participating in the race to the bottom, instead letting Dell, HP, Acer, HTC, Samsung, LG, Nokia compete against each other driving their margins and profits down.
Apple in 10 years? Well, I don't know. Just like I don't know where Microsoft willb e in 10 years. Or what Android will be in 10 years. Hell, in the past 10 years, we saw the rise and fall of PalmOS, and the rise and fall of Windows Mobile. Symbian's a bit longer lived. Android and iOS may not even exist in the next 5 years.
So, to sum this up...
Apple may be losing market share, but they make up for it by bundling their OS and hardware. This allows them to stifle competition, and gouge the customer, which keeps their profit margins high and their costs low.
Thank you, Mr Wosniak. I think our readers will find this very enlightening.
It seems as though the only political party that understands the internet is the Libertarian party.
I suspect that they have the wrong idea on net neutrality. Aren't libertarians mostly opposed?
So, how does he feel about the filibuster? That's been the typical GOP response:
Dem: We need a comprehensive, effective, holistic, and economic means to initiate the process of x
Rep: I don't know what you just said, but I'm gonna filibuster it!
Dem: Aww, nuts!
In other news, the Beatles also have 13 albums on the pirate bay. People have been long awaiting the day when they could download the Beatles in an electronic format, but now they can. And thanks to the iTunes software, they can now transfer them to their iPhones, iPods, iBetterThenYous, or whatever silly gizmo these soft-headed fanboys prefer. It's a great day for the Beatles, the Pirate Bay, and for News sites that have nothing better to discuss.
Do you really think an iTunes download is better than a high-quality rip from a normal CD-ripper? I don't use iTunes, but I seem to recall them being the quality equivalent of 128kps or 160kps at most.
Of course the costs are to be determined by supply and demand. When supply is infinite, the price should drop.
Now that's a new way to prevent trolling. When you post something malicious on Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales beats up your dad.
Actually, the first robot actor ever was Keanu Reeves.
David Duchovney.