Bingo. Don't just tell kids about evolution... bring in an ornithologist (bird scientist) with Darwin's finches. Or arrange a Field Trip to take the kids out to see something where they can interact with some evolution.
As for Climate Change, we still teach kids about the Ice Age, right? Why is it so wrong to teach them that we're headed into a "warm age" or whatever you want to call it. You can include all the verbiage about how this is still theoretical, and blah blah blah... but if you look at trends over the past 100 years, you can form a hypothesis, right? Like you said, get the students engaged. Don't just tell them about climate change, actually TEACH them how to figure these things out.
Your argument fails at the very first assumption, that we are in a simple meritocracy.
The first point you miss is money:
If a foreigner (via this program, H1B visa, or any others) is only half-as-good as an American, but is willing to work for one third the pay... well...
Also consider the future, through trends established with a program like this. If we give outsource all the low-level tech jobs, low level American techs won't have a starting point. Not every college grad is going to immediately land a top level Engineering gig. Being able to hold down a steady job as tech support, call centers, circuit-board stuffers, etc can be a stop-gap measure while they look for a better job and/or continue their education.
That's not to say we should completely eliminate outsourcing or H1Bs and merit based programs like this, or that all foreign workers are only half as good. Nothing like that. The programs are all fine and good if used correctly; as a merit-based system to find highly talented workers and intelligent minds that want to immigrate here. Currently they're just used to find cheaper labor...
For most people, myself included, I'd imagine the deciding factor is not website layout, but something much more obvious.
Money, dear boy. (spoken with an English accent, ofc)
Plus a variety of other factors like shipping speeds, general reputation of the sites, ease of RMA, etc... Whether the "buy" button is Green, Orange or White is quite simply the last on my list of priorities, and pulling metrics on it without examining the other factors will net faulty results.
The majority of businesses do, but they really don't need to.
Sure, you'll always have engineers who need top-end rigs to run their CATIA and what-not, and there will always be jet-setting VPs who need their laptops... but the vast majority of business-class users could easily perform all of their tasks on a dumb terminal connected to a VM server somewhere. We have users in my office with towers sporting core i5 and i7 processors, 4+ gigs of ram (on XP *le'facepalm*) and dual 24"-inch monitors, who do nothing but access Citrix terminals all day. There is practically zero activity on their $1,000+ tower that couldn't be handled by a $30 Raspberry Pi. Other users have laptops that haven't left their docking stations, ever.... but I digress.
Back to the point, most of what drive business's IT needs is habit. People have always had a desktop, and so they insist on continuing to have them. They've grown accustomed to XP, so they insist on continuing to have XP. Also, the lock-in you've mentioned is a big issue: corporate offices are nearly universally on MS Office formats, which will not transition smoothly to an open/libre office suite. Add it all up, and the process of change become a VEERY slow one, if it occurs at all. We've only recently begun to sneak Win7 into the environment here, with every possible modification made to keep the desktop environment looking exactly like it did in XP. If Win7 ever becomes a corporate mainstay, it will be at least a decade before the next OS darkens these doors.
Wake me up when they produce banner-ad algorithms that beat adblock, noscript, etc.
The only possibly benefit I can see from this is *maybe* adjusting a site's color-scheme or layout to be more intuitive and easy to navigate. I.E. making the "add to cart" button easier to find without being obnoxious about it. But then again, if I decide to add something to my cart, I'm confident I'll find the button even if it's 1.2% less optimized. And visual optimization can be done by any 1st year graphic design student.
I suggest we all read up on our civil liberties, presumption of innocence, and the 4th, 6th, 9th, 10th and 14th amendments of the constitution. Here's a quick recap, in case anyone slept through school
Presumption of innocence, aka "innocent until proven guilty" under drone surveillance suffers the same as current red light cameras, in that they provide no ability to confront your accuser (more on that later) and they presume guilt. Have you ever received on of those red-light-camera tickets. I've received two, neither for me or my car, and both presuming my guilt and with LENGTHY instructions for how to pay up and plead guilty... and with a tiny little footnote about how to plead innocent. The most recent was over 6 months ago, and I'm *STILL* going through the process. The first one took over a year to deal with. The current system is tantamount to extortion, "pay $500 for this blurry picture that may or may not be your car and might not even show you driving, or spend the next year going back and forth between courts and cops to clear your good name."
Can you imagine this system getting any BETTER for the people with unmarked mobile cameras?
.
Constitutional Amendments -
4 : Protection from unreasonable searches, sets the rules for search warrants and probable cause. - What probable cause do the cops have to potentially tail any person they want, remotely, 24/7, without a warrant? None. If you can get a warrant, you can put a real cop on the case.
6 : Right to a fair trial, and the rights to confront your accuser, obtain witnesses and defend yourself. - How does one confront a drone? How do I obtain witnesses and prove my innocence if a drone accuses me of speeding 3 weeks ago.
9 : Protects all civil rights not stated here. - Basically a catch all that protects you from getting fucked by the government you in ways unforeseen at the time of writing, like using military grade spy hardware to peep on jaywalkers.
10 : Limits the power of government to what is written in the constitution. -The same as 9, from the other direction. The government is not allowed to make up crazy shit that's not in the constitution, like using military grade spy hardware to check up on you.
14 : Privileges and immunities (among other things) which basically repeats 9 and 10, but at the state level. Virginia, or any other state, cannot make any laws which screw with the rights and freedoms granted by the constitution, like using military grade... yeah you get the idea
..
Seriously though people. Lets actually examine our rights, examine the governors suggested plan, and think for ourselves if they can exist together.
Finally, ponder for one second how you would feel about less-transparent hardware of this same caliber used here at home. The governor wants MILITARY drones. That's on par with guys in combat fatigues with M-16s and grenades rolling down the street in an M1A1 Abrams. That's on par with Cobras and Apache strike helicopters replacing news choppers in covering high-speed pursuits down the freeway. If that mental image doesn't disturb you in the slightest, I'm not sure what will. This is the exact same level of gear, but some people think it's okay because we can't see it as easily? Really?
Bingo. +5 doesn't do it justice. People will gravitate towards what is easiest and most convenient for them. Money is secondary if the convenience is there.
If it's substantially easier to just torrent the thing so you can watch it how you want, where you want, when you want... that's what going to happen. I spent a LOT more money than the price of a cable bill setting up a nice little NAS system for my house. Was a fun little project I worked on over a few weeks, and now I have 6 TB worth of RAID-5 storage, accessible from any TV in the house. You can watch movies, view pictures, listen to music etc. It's great. Most of the content on their can be transferred to the iPad, Zune, etc or any other external media player.
And lets talk about that content, because it's mainly 2 flavors: Music, either ripped from my own CDs or downloaded legally through Amazon because that shit is TOO easy. I just think "man I haven't heard that song in a while," and boom $1 gone and the song is in my library.... and Movies, either ripped from my own DVDs or downloaded via torrents because there does not exist a legal method to do so. And yes, Game of Thrones is on there. If I had the option to download a legal copy, I certainly would. It's a great show, and I'd gladly pay for it... "Shut up and take my money!!" But that option does not exist, so you don't get my money.
Moderates and Independents are a growing segments of American politics *AND* too many people vote strict party lines. These are not mutually exclusive.
For now, I suggest a slight change, barely noticeable. I believe it's more likely to gain traction that wholesale changes to our political process. The anarchy quote was mostly a joke, though with the current polarization of US Politics, I could see even the slightest change being used as ammo, "My opponent supports this change because he's secretly a communist/terrorist/war-mongerer/etc."
I thought it through plenty. My point is that there was no data of any kind to back up their claim. I could tell you my shit smells of roses, and you'd probably not believe me, despite having no other readily available source of information regarding the scent of my bowel movements.
Simply put, 2-4 GB per month is nowhere NEAR average. A single streamed movie can easily approach that number, especially if it's HD. 20-40GB I might actually believe.
You're welcome to believe them if you'd like... but personally, I think their 2-4GB claim smells of shit.
Could also be Comcast playing with Mean, Median, Mode and just calling it average . Or simply discounting the top 10% ("they're not your average user") and taking a mean/average of the remainder. Could simply be ComCast's own self-created definition of their "Average User" completely divorced of any numerical data.
Could be doing a lot of things, without technically lying, but I trust ComCast in this even less than I trust random ACs. AC might potentially be a troll/shill/etc, spreading FUD for the lolz, but ComCast is positioned to directly profit from a false definition of "Average User."
Think: new user. If a new family joins comcast without any knowledge of their actual usage numbers... they might read this (or call ComCast and be told this info) and sign up for the lower tier... boom overages. It also gives ComCast a base number with which to demonize anyone going over their self-appointed average.
You're PAYING you deserve to get a copy you own and control, period. The "online business model" is bullshit corporate speak to take stupid chumps to the cleaners.
Entitled much? You're paying, so you deserve to get what they're selling. Period. If you don't like it, don't buy it.
Do you buy a car, and then a week later say "I bought a car with a full gas tank. I deserve to have it full ALWAYS. This 'pay as you go' business model is bullshit"
Do you bitch that NetFlix, Blockbuster, etc don't let you keep their movies? Are you upset by the fact that your subway sammich doesn't come with a happy ending?
Blizzard never hid their agenda, never lied to anyone or fooled you into thinking that an offline mode existed. It is exactly as advertised, with all the benefits and pitfalls inherent therein: Caveat emptor
*ahem* That being said, I could go for a little madness in today's political scheme. As the clown said, "introduce a little anarchy." The simple fact is, far *FAR* too many people simply go down their ballots selecting D or R, like they've done all their life. Probably the same letter than their parents chose. Mix it up a little bit, force people to actually think about what they've voting on, and whom they're voting for. Might see a change for the better. Given the current political landscape, I can't see it getting much worse.
If you want to keep it somewhat simple, we could just make it a series of letters. 2 or 3 letters denoting the persons fiscal policies, social beliefs and maybe religion.
The thing is, though, your rationale cancels itself out. They're not market testing, they're "Don't kill humans!" testing.
I might have slipped ahead in my target timeline... are we discussing the dangers inherent in Google's current line of testing in Nevada, or a potential future environment where anyone with enough cash can buy their own G'car. For the current testing, I expect them to keep following their previous testing models, i.e. the article I linked earlier where they put 150,000 miles on a car in complete secrecy. For future release to the public, well, one would HOPE that they stick with what works. If they follow my hunch and the test cars quietly navigate the Nevada roads in safety... then it would stand to reason that publicly marketed models would retain the same levels of anonymity.
I could see somebody standing up and making that argument, it's not a bad one, but I don't think it'd play out for two reasons: 1. In the US, we LOVE having people to blame . We're very lawsuit happy and Google has deep pockets. People will want to be able to blame Google if there's a crash. 2. People want to know to stay clear of these cars. I wouldn't be surprised AT ALL if these cars had to have a third different-colored tail light to indicate it's on auto-pilot.
Per my argument above, it should be easy enough to Google to release liability if a car manufacturer deviates from their testing methods. If forced to install an extra tail light or some other vestigial bit, Google would have their defense in the bag. "We didn't test it with that part... that part (and/or people's reaction to it) caused the accident. Blame Ford" (or whoever)
I think I'm misreading your post. You're supporting my point.
I think we have different opinions of gaudy or noticeable: Here's an example of the Japanese decals I mentioned for young and old drivers.
I can't see the US requiring anything more than that, if anything at all. More on that later...
None of those facts are anything like: "Google's last car was a sleeper hit. It took word of mouth to gain in popularity because nobody could spot the thing amongst a sea of Prius's and Civics!" It's like bragging about your snake oil being made from 'all natural ingredients'.
The fact is: a google auto-pilot car cruised around a major metro area for several months without anyone the wiser. I live a few hours south of Google HQ, and I didn't hear a peep about this until Google came out with their article. The facts about it's market performance once delivered to the public will come in due time (which, considering the nature of this project, is probably a LONG time... but due time) And how dare you besmirch my snake oil.
You were the one that went down the path that a highly recognizable self-driving car would mean an accident-prone one. I didn't really get it either, that's why I asked you to elaborate.
I went down the path that being highly recognizable would be the ONLY way for such a car to be unsafe, per the lookie-loos comment, but that the car itself, and the auto-drive technology would be perfectly safe (hence "in due time" probably being a very long time). It'll certainly be a lot safer than most human drivers. However, per my comments above, I think the powers that be (Google, DoT, whatever manufacturer gets involved, etc.) will understand these potential issues, and act accordingly. I'd wager than any marking, aside from the obvious cameras and what-not, will amount to nothing more than a sticker and/or slightly altered license plate.
Another thing to consider, if these things ever hit the mass-market, the first wave of Auto-Pilot cars will likely just be a retrofit of a current model.
I think the real problem is that there's only a handful of "political labels," and only two full-fledged "wings." It's not hard to understand why they aren't a perfect fit for everyone out there.
Personally, I'm a fiscally conservative, socially liberal, agnostic, gun-loving engineer, and a former U.S. Marine... With what party does that affiliate me?
They have a history of discretion in regards to testing their auto-car. This is an important distinction, I'm not making it to be contrarian.
What is their history regarding the production of the G'cars? Wait, there isn't one. Until we have some data on their habits in that matter, we can't simply assume one way or the other. In the meantime, I'll use the data currently available (testing data), which, while imperfect, at least exists.
I think the first issue is one of liability.
I was kinda thinking the same thing, but came to a different conclusion. As I mentioned before, the most dangerous thing about the cars will be the looky-loos trying to see it. To that end, I would expect an insurance company to require a modicum of tact and discretion.
It is more than likely that if these vehicles are allowed to share the road with human drivers they will have to be clearly marked as running on 'auto-pilot'. This wouldn't be a Google decision, it'd be up to whatever regulations are put into place once the states start figuring out how they're going to license these things.
Have you seen the "new driver" or "elderly driver" logo's that Japanese drivers are required to display? While noticeable, they're hardly gaudy. I would expect something similar for any required markings on an Auto-Pilot car. Also, see the old "HOV APPROVED" stickers that used to adorn hybrids here in the states. Clearly visible, not ridiculously so.
When the first hybrid came out they not only gave the body an unusual design, they also buried the rear tires half-way just to grab eyeballs. Once the word 'hybrid' got out there, they dialed it back a bit, mainly because cars still have to look attractive. That distinctive covering of the tire has become an eyesore now. Heh. Another thing to think about is that Google will *not* be manufacturing this car. They'll partner up with an auto manufacturer and... guess what? Toyota or Chevy or whoever ends up inking the deal, they're going to want to make sure people see their cars on the road just like Honda did with the Insight.
Three's no way an auto company is going to build the dream car everybody's been waiting 50+ years for and not go nuts marketing the hell out of it. That's why I'm having so much difficulty understanding where you're coming from on that.
Again, same data, disparate conclusions. I didn't see the half-covered tires as all that crazy. Less eye-grabbing than the yellow "HOV APPROVED" stickers that hybrids used to receive. And you're confusing marketing with road-recognition. Again look at the Volt. There have been hundreds of articles about that car. It's a whole new breed of hybrid, a hybrid-hybrid if you will (half Leaf, half Prius) and for all the pomp and circumstance, one could pull up next to you, and you wouldn't know it.
All of my assumptions are based on facts: how Google has behaved with regards to this car in the past, how various governments have marked specialty vehicles (both here in the US and abroad) and how car manufacturers have treated "special" cars in the past. Really, I just don't see how a hybrid with covered tires translates into an unsafe auto-pilot car.
But it's not a single-player game. D3 is, in essence, an MMO with a better mechanic for preventing greifing if you chose to solo. Unlike WoW, et al, if you decide to run solo, everyone else simply ceases to exist. Which makes it a pretty sweet MMO, if you ask me.
Does launch day log-jam kinda suck? Yeah. But if you were willing to pre-purchase and stay up till midnight (or 3am Eastern) and log onto slashdot to bitch about it... well, you're not a lost sale to them. You're probably one of their best customers, just whiny
Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration
on
Diablo III Released
·
· Score: 0
Just a hunch here, because I haven't tried them... they work by installing a trojan or other malware on your computer
Again, just a guess... suffice to say, there is no way to run D3 in a standalone mode, short of maybe building your own D3 server on the same computer... maybe
Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration
on
Diablo III Released
·
· Score: 2
This is more than just piracy... this is real money in-game transactions. That's the real issue.
Diablo is the first game in which I can legally, with full dev support, sell you an awesome sword of +1 buttwhooping that I found for $10 (or whatever price-point I set) This isn't Dev-sold items, this isn't the F2P model where you pay $$ to the publisher to unlock new costume items... no. This is you or me, potentially supplementing our income by playing a video game. That's unprecedented.
In order for that to work, Blizzard must do everything possible to combat the RAMPANT hacking, duping, and various other cheating methods that plagued Diablo2. And don't kid yourself, D2 was rife with that crap. End result: online only. All drops exist server-side. Added benefit of lowered requirements on client-side PCs
All that said, Blizz has never really let me down in a big way. Sure, I don't agree with everything they've done, and we could argue for hours on end about making WoW too casual and what-not... but they've never really screwed the pooch, imo. To that end, I fully believe that should Blizzard ever go tits-up, or the Diablo3 servers cease to exist, I am confident that Blizz would axe the real-money auction house (with plenty of advance notification,natch) and release some "stand-alone" update so that you can continue to play 10-20-30 years down the road, if you so desire.
I have no ability to portend the future, except to examine trends of the past. Google has a history of discretion in regards to their auto-car.
If you've a more reliable method, I'm all ears. What makes you think the final product (if there ever is a final product) will be some great ostentatious thing?
Also examine trends of hybrid cars. The only one that's somewhat noticeable is the Prius, and that's mostly because it's an entirely new car with a new body-style. Every other hybrid (Camry, Civic, Altima, Volt, etc.) only has a small logo to identify its hybrid nature. If you think Google (or whoever is eventually in charge) is after sexy sexy P.R. and that's the principle factor to make a hypothetical Auto-auto stand out... I'd say you've already been proven wrong. Any one of those Hybrid-making companies could etch great big leaves in their chassis, or make major modifications to the frames so they get recognized and soak up all the green PR. Hell, the Volt has received so much pomp and circumstance that I half expected it to leave a trail of flowers in its wake... actually saw one a few weeks ago. Pulled up behind her at a stop light. Other than the badge, there was really no way to tell it from every other average sedan at the light.
P.S. before you say "Tesla roadster," that's noticeable for being an extremely rare high end roadster, the electric component is tertiary at best. No different that seeing a Bugatti Veyron or Maserati Granturismo pulling up next to you.
Did I miss something in regards to the targeted age-range in TFA?
I don't know too many 4'6" adults. That's not to deny the existence of midgets, dwarfism, little people, or whatever the correct term is... but those conditions should preclude the use of a "general guideline" for height to weight ratio.
Maybe it's just me, but I think of the whole democratic process as kind of a big deal. It's only the foundation for the country. Why the hell are we allowing single points of failure ANYWHERE in the process. My toaster oven has better redundancy and error reporting than the voting process described in TFA.
Simple solution: Every vote is counted at least 3 times at the district level: Once by a Republican appointee, once by a Democrat appointee, and once by a machine (note, this is ONLY a counting machine, unconnected to any network.) You can add another appointee if there is a 3rd party candidate on the ballot. Once you have the totals, cross-check. A discrepancy of more than 1% will trigger a re-count with a completely new cast. A new R, new D and a new machine. Cross-check again and repeat as necessary. Also cross-check against the total number of ballots received to make sure some didn't get swept under the rug during the counting process.
Might this process take a bit longer? Yeah, probably. But if you can wait 24 hours for your American Idol results, you can certainly wait a bit longer to for your Presidential Election results.
P.S. the 1% threshold for recount is just a number I threw out for the sake of argument.. nothing I've set into stone.
Slashdot Mirror
Bingo. Don't just tell kids about evolution... bring in an ornithologist (bird scientist) with Darwin's finches. Or arrange a Field Trip to take the kids out to see something where they can interact with some evolution.
As for Climate Change, we still teach kids about the Ice Age, right? Why is it so wrong to teach them that we're headed into a "warm age" or whatever you want to call it. You can include all the verbiage about how this is still theoretical, and blah blah blah ... but if you look at trends over the past 100 years, you can form a hypothesis, right? Like you said, get the students engaged. Don't just tell them about climate change, actually TEACH them how to figure these things out.
Seeing as how this is all taking place in Euro'ville, shouldn't "making it zero for four," be instead written as "Manchester United 4 - ACTA nil?"
Because all the fun toys are built for it?
Your argument fails at the very first assumption, that we are in a simple meritocracy.
The first point you miss is money:
If a foreigner (via this program, H1B visa, or any others) is only half-as-good as an American, but is willing to work for one third the pay ... well ...
Also consider the future, through trends established with a program like this. If we give outsource all the low-level tech jobs, low level American techs won't have a starting point. Not every college grad is going to immediately land a top level Engineering gig. Being able to hold down a steady job as tech support, call centers, circuit-board stuffers, etc can be a stop-gap measure while they look for a better job and/or continue their education.
That's not to say we should completely eliminate outsourcing or H1Bs and merit based programs like this, or that all foreign workers are only half as good. Nothing like that. The programs are all fine and good if used correctly; as a merit-based system to find highly talented workers and intelligent minds that want to immigrate here. Currently they're just used to find cheaper labor...
For most people, myself included, I'd imagine the deciding factor is not website layout, but something much more obvious.
Money, dear boy. (spoken with an English accent, ofc)
Plus a variety of other factors like shipping speeds, general reputation of the sites, ease of RMA, etc... Whether the "buy" button is Green, Orange or White is quite simply the last on my list of priorities, and pulling metrics on it without examining the other factors will net faulty results.
The majority of businesses do, but they really don't need to.
Sure, you'll always have engineers who need top-end rigs to run their CATIA and what-not, and there will always be jet-setting VPs who need their laptops ... but the vast majority of business-class users could easily perform all of their tasks on a dumb terminal connected to a VM server somewhere. We have users in my office with towers sporting core i5 and i7 processors, 4+ gigs of ram (on XP *le'facepalm*) and dual 24"-inch monitors, who do nothing but access Citrix terminals all day. There is practically zero activity on their $1,000+ tower that couldn't be handled by a $30 Raspberry Pi. Other users have laptops that haven't left their docking stations, ever.... but I digress.
Back to the point, most of what drive business's IT needs is habit. People have always had a desktop, and so they insist on continuing to have them. They've grown accustomed to XP, so they insist on continuing to have XP. Also, the lock-in you've mentioned is a big issue: corporate offices are nearly universally on MS Office formats, which will not transition smoothly to an open/libre office suite. Add it all up, and the process of change become a VEERY slow one, if it occurs at all. We've only recently begun to sneak Win7 into the environment here, with every possible modification made to keep the desktop environment looking exactly like it did in XP. If Win7 ever becomes a corporate mainstay, it will be at least a decade before the next OS darkens these doors.
about nothing
Wake me up when they produce banner-ad algorithms that beat adblock, noscript, etc.
The only possibly benefit I can see from this is *maybe* adjusting a site's color-scheme or layout to be more intuitive and easy to navigate. I.E. making the "add to cart" button easier to find without being obnoxious about it. But then again, if I decide to add something to my cart, I'm confident I'll find the button even if it's 1.2% less optimized. And visual optimization can be done by any 1st year graphic design student.
I suggest we all read up on our civil liberties, presumption of innocence, and the 4th, 6th, 9th, 10th and 14th amendments of the constitution. Here's a quick recap, in case anyone slept through school
Presumption of innocence, aka "innocent until proven guilty" under drone surveillance suffers the same as current red light cameras, in that they provide no ability to confront your accuser (more on that later) and they presume guilt. Have you ever received on of those red-light-camera tickets. I've received two, neither for me or my car, and both presuming my guilt and with LENGTHY instructions for how to pay up and plead guilty... and with a tiny little footnote about how to plead innocent. The most recent was over 6 months ago, and I'm *STILL* going through the process. The first one took over a year to deal with. The current system is tantamount to extortion, "pay $500 for this blurry picture that may or may not be your car and might not even show you driving, or spend the next year going back and forth between courts and cops to clear your good name."
Can you imagine this system getting any BETTER for the people with unmarked mobile cameras?
Constitutional Amendments -
4 : Protection from unreasonable searches, sets the rules for search warrants and probable cause. - What probable cause do the cops have to potentially tail any person they want, remotely, 24/7, without a warrant? None. If you can get a warrant, you can put a real cop on the case.
6 : Right to a fair trial, and the rights to confront your accuser, obtain witnesses and defend yourself. - How does one confront a drone? How do I obtain witnesses and prove my innocence if a drone accuses me of speeding 3 weeks ago.
9 : Protects all civil rights not stated here. - Basically a catch all that protects you from getting fucked by the government you in ways unforeseen at the time of writing, like using military grade spy hardware to peep on jaywalkers.
10 : Limits the power of government to what is written in the constitution. -The same as 9, from the other direction. The government is not allowed to make up crazy shit that's not in the constitution, like using military grade spy hardware to check up on you.
14 : Privileges and immunities (among other things) which basically repeats 9 and 10, but at the state level. Virginia, or any other state, cannot make any laws which screw with the rights and freedoms granted by the constitution, like using military grade ... yeah you get the idea
. .
Seriously though people. Lets actually examine our rights, examine the governors suggested plan, and think for ourselves if they can exist together.
Finally, ponder for one second how you would feel about less-transparent hardware of this same caliber used here at home. The governor wants MILITARY drones. That's on par with guys in combat fatigues with M-16s and grenades rolling down the street in an M1A1 Abrams. That's on par with Cobras and Apache strike helicopters replacing news choppers in covering high-speed pursuits down the freeway. If that mental image doesn't disturb you in the slightest, I'm not sure what will. This is the exact same level of gear, but some people think it's okay because we can't see it as easily? Really?
Fuck. That.
Bingo. +5 doesn't do it justice. People will gravitate towards what is easiest and most convenient for them. Money is secondary if the convenience is there.
If it's substantially easier to just torrent the thing so you can watch it how you want, where you want, when you want... that's what going to happen. I spent a LOT more money than the price of a cable bill setting up a nice little NAS system for my house. Was a fun little project I worked on over a few weeks, and now I have 6 TB worth of RAID-5 storage, accessible from any TV in the house. You can watch movies, view pictures, listen to music etc. It's great. Most of the content on their can be transferred to the iPad, Zune, etc or any other external media player.
And lets talk about that content, because it's mainly 2 flavors: Music, either ripped from my own CDs or downloaded legally through Amazon because that shit is TOO easy. I just think "man I haven't heard that song in a while," and boom $1 gone and the song is in my library .... and Movies, either ripped from my own DVDs or downloaded via torrents because there does not exist a legal method to do so. And yes, Game of Thrones is on there. If I had the option to download a legal copy, I certainly would. It's a great show, and I'd gladly pay for it... "Shut up and take my money!!" But that option does not exist, so you don't get my money.
Moderates and Independents are a growing segments of American politics *AND* too many people vote strict party lines. These are not mutually exclusive.
For now, I suggest a slight change, barely noticeable. I believe it's more likely to gain traction that wholesale changes to our political process. The anarchy quote was mostly a joke, though with the current polarization of US Politics, I could see even the slightest change being used as ammo, "My opponent supports this change because he's secretly a communist/terrorist/war-mongerer/etc."
That report is 2 years old, but closer to reality.
I thought it through plenty. My point is that there was no data of any kind to back up their claim. I could tell you my shit smells of roses, and you'd probably not believe me, despite having no other readily available source of information regarding the scent of my bowel movements.
Simply put, 2-4 GB per month is nowhere NEAR average. A single streamed movie can easily approach that number, especially if it's HD. 20-40GB I might actually believe.
You're welcome to believe them if you'd like... but personally, I think their 2-4GB claim smells of shit.
Could also be Comcast playing with Mean, Median, Mode and just calling it average . Or simply discounting the top 10% ("they're not your average user") and taking a mean/average of the remainder. Could simply be ComCast's own self-created definition of their "Average User" completely divorced of any numerical data.
Could be doing a lot of things, without technically lying, but I trust ComCast in this even less than I trust random ACs. AC might potentially be a troll/shill/etc, spreading FUD for the lolz, but ComCast is positioned to directly profit from a false definition of "Average User."
Think: new user. If a new family joins comcast without any knowledge of their actual usage numbers... they might read this (or call ComCast and be told this info) and sign up for the lower tier... boom overages. It also gives ComCast a base number with which to demonize anyone going over their self-appointed average.
Consider your source.
You're PAYING you deserve to get a copy you own and control, period. The "online business model" is bullshit corporate speak to take stupid chumps to the cleaners.
Entitled much? You're paying, so you deserve to get what they're selling. Period. If you don't like it, don't buy it.
Do you buy a car, and then a week later say "I bought a car with a full gas tank. I deserve to have it full ALWAYS. This 'pay as you go' business model is bullshit"
Do you bitch that NetFlix, Blockbuster, etc don't let you keep their movies? Are you upset by the fact that your subway sammich doesn't come with a happy ending?
Blizzard never hid their agenda, never lied to anyone or fooled you into thinking that an offline mode existed. It is exactly as advertised, with all the benefits and pitfalls inherent therein: Caveat emptor
Madness?
MADNESS?? THIS. IS. OVERUSEDMEME.
*ahem* That being said, I could go for a little madness in today's political scheme. As the clown said, "introduce a little anarchy." The simple fact is, far *FAR* too many people simply go down their ballots selecting D or R, like they've done all their life. Probably the same letter than their parents chose. Mix it up a little bit, force people to actually think about what they've voting on, and whom they're voting for. Might see a change for the better. Given the current political landscape, I can't see it getting much worse.
If you want to keep it somewhat simple, we could just make it a series of letters. 2 or 3 letters denoting the persons fiscal policies, social beliefs and maybe religion.
The thing is, though, your rationale cancels itself out. They're not market testing, they're "Don't kill humans!" testing.
I might have slipped ahead in my target timeline... are we discussing the dangers inherent in Google's current line of testing in Nevada, or a potential future environment where anyone with enough cash can buy their own G'car. For the current testing, I expect them to keep following their previous testing models, i.e. the article I linked earlier where they put 150,000 miles on a car in complete secrecy. For future release to the public, well, one would HOPE that they stick with what works. If they follow my hunch and the test cars quietly navigate the Nevada roads in safety... then it would stand to reason that publicly marketed models would retain the same levels of anonymity.
I could see somebody standing up and making that argument, it's not a bad one, but I don't think it'd play out for two reasons: 1. In the US, we LOVE having people to blame . We're very lawsuit happy and Google has deep pockets. People will want to be able to blame Google if there's a crash. 2. People want to know to stay clear of these cars. I wouldn't be surprised AT ALL if these cars had to have a third different-colored tail light to indicate it's on auto-pilot.
Per my argument above, it should be easy enough to Google to release liability if a car manufacturer deviates from their testing methods. If forced to install an extra tail light or some other vestigial bit, Google would have their defense in the bag. "We didn't test it with that part... that part (and/or people's reaction to it) caused the accident. Blame Ford" (or whoever)
I think I'm misreading your post. You're supporting my point.
I think we have different opinions of gaudy or noticeable: Here's an example of the Japanese decals I mentioned for young and old drivers. I can't see the US requiring anything more than that, if anything at all. More on that later...
None of those facts are anything like: "Google's last car was a sleeper hit. It took word of mouth to gain in popularity because nobody could spot the thing amongst a sea of Prius's and Civics!" It's like bragging about your snake oil being made from 'all natural ingredients'.
The fact is: a google auto-pilot car cruised around a major metro area for several months without anyone the wiser. I live a few hours south of Google HQ, and I didn't hear a peep about this until Google came out with their article. The facts about it's market performance once delivered to the public will come in due time (which, considering the nature of this project, is probably a LONG time... but due time) And how dare you besmirch my snake oil.
You were the one that went down the path that a highly recognizable self-driving car would mean an accident-prone one. I didn't really get it either, that's why I asked you to elaborate.
I went down the path that being highly recognizable would be the ONLY way for such a car to be unsafe, per the lookie-loos comment, but that the car itself, and the auto-drive technology would be perfectly safe (hence "in due time" probably being a very long time). It'll certainly be a lot safer than most human drivers. However, per my comments above, I think the powers that be (Google, DoT, whatever manufacturer gets involved, etc.) will understand these potential issues, and act accordingly. I'd wager than any marking, aside from the obvious cameras and what-not, will amount to nothing more than a sticker and/or slightly altered license plate. Another thing to consider, if these things ever hit the mass-market, the first wave of Auto-Pilot cars will likely just be a retrofit of a current model.
I think the real problem is that there's only a handful of "political labels," and only two full-fledged "wings." It's not hard to understand why they aren't a perfect fit for everyone out there.
Personally, I'm a fiscally conservative, socially liberal, agnostic, gun-loving engineer, and a former U.S. Marine... With what party does that affiliate me?
They have a history of discretion in regards to testing their auto-car. This is an important distinction, I'm not making it to be contrarian.
What is their history regarding the production of the G'cars? Wait, there isn't one. Until we have some data on their habits in that matter, we can't simply assume one way or the other. In the meantime, I'll use the data currently available (testing data), which, while imperfect, at least exists.
I think the first issue is one of liability.
I was kinda thinking the same thing, but came to a different conclusion. As I mentioned before, the most dangerous thing about the cars will be the looky-loos trying to see it. To that end, I would expect an insurance company to require a modicum of tact and discretion.
It is more than likely that if these vehicles are allowed to share the road with human drivers they will have to be clearly marked as running on 'auto-pilot'. This wouldn't be a Google decision, it'd be up to whatever regulations are put into place once the states start figuring out how they're going to license these things.
Have you seen the "new driver" or "elderly driver" logo's that Japanese drivers are required to display? While noticeable, they're hardly gaudy. I would expect something similar for any required markings on an Auto-Pilot car. Also, see the old "HOV APPROVED" stickers that used to adorn hybrids here in the states. Clearly visible, not ridiculously so.
When the first hybrid came out they not only gave the body an unusual design, they also buried the rear tires half-way just to grab eyeballs. Once the word 'hybrid' got out there, they dialed it back a bit, mainly because cars still have to look attractive. That distinctive covering of the tire has become an eyesore now. Heh. Another thing to think about is that Google will *not* be manufacturing this car. They'll partner up with an auto manufacturer and... guess what? Toyota or Chevy or whoever ends up inking the deal, they're going to want to make sure people see their cars on the road just like Honda did with the Insight.
Three's no way an auto company is going to build the dream car everybody's been waiting 50+ years for and not go nuts marketing the hell out of it. That's why I'm having so much difficulty understanding where you're coming from on that.
Again, same data, disparate conclusions. I didn't see the half-covered tires as all that crazy. Less eye-grabbing than the yellow "HOV APPROVED" stickers that hybrids used to receive. And you're confusing marketing with road-recognition. Again look at the Volt. There have been hundreds of articles about that car. It's a whole new breed of hybrid, a hybrid-hybrid if you will (half Leaf, half Prius) and for all the pomp and circumstance, one could pull up next to you, and you wouldn't know it.
All of my assumptions are based on facts: how Google has behaved with regards to this car in the past, how various governments have marked specialty vehicles (both here in the US and abroad) and how car manufacturers have treated "special" cars in the past. Really, I just don't see how a hybrid with covered tires translates into an unsafe auto-pilot car.
But it's not a single-player game. D3 is, in essence, an MMO with a better mechanic for preventing greifing if you chose to solo. Unlike WoW, et al, if you decide to run solo, everyone else simply ceases to exist. Which makes it a pretty sweet MMO, if you ask me.
Does launch day log-jam kinda suck? Yeah. But if you were willing to pre-purchase and stay up till midnight (or 3am Eastern) and log onto slashdot to bitch about it ... well, you're not a lost sale to them. You're probably one of their best customers, just whiny
Just a hunch here, because I haven't tried them... they work by installing a trojan or other malware on your computer
Again, just a guess... suffice to say, there is no way to run D3 in a standalone mode, short of maybe building your own D3 server on the same computer... maybe
This is more than just piracy... this is real money in-game transactions. That's the real issue.
Diablo is the first game in which I can legally, with full dev support, sell you an awesome sword of +1 buttwhooping that I found for $10 (or whatever price-point I set) This isn't Dev-sold items, this isn't the F2P model where you pay $$ to the publisher to unlock new costume items... no. This is you or me, potentially supplementing our income by playing a video game. That's unprecedented.
In order for that to work, Blizzard must do everything possible to combat the RAMPANT hacking, duping, and various other cheating methods that plagued Diablo2. And don't kid yourself, D2 was rife with that crap. End result: online only. All drops exist server-side. Added benefit of lowered requirements on client-side PCs
All that said, Blizz has never really let me down in a big way. Sure, I don't agree with everything they've done, and we could argue for hours on end about making WoW too casual and what-not... but they've never really screwed the pooch, imo. To that end, I fully believe that should Blizzard ever go tits-up, or the Diablo3 servers cease to exist, I am confident that Blizz would axe the real-money auction house (with plenty of advance notification,natch) and release some "stand-alone" update so that you can continue to play 10-20-30 years down the road, if you so desire.
I have no ability to portend the future, except to examine trends of the past. Google has a history of discretion in regards to their auto-car.
If you've a more reliable method, I'm all ears. What makes you think the final product (if there ever is a final product) will be some great ostentatious thing?
Also examine trends of hybrid cars. The only one that's somewhat noticeable is the Prius, and that's mostly because it's an entirely new car with a new body-style. Every other hybrid (Camry, Civic, Altima, Volt, etc.) only has a small logo to identify its hybrid nature. If you think Google (or whoever is eventually in charge) is after sexy sexy P.R. and that's the principle factor to make a hypothetical Auto-auto stand out... I'd say you've already been proven wrong. Any one of those Hybrid-making companies could etch great big leaves in their chassis, or make major modifications to the frames so they get recognized and soak up all the green PR. Hell, the Volt has received so much pomp and circumstance that I half expected it to leave a trail of flowers in its wake... actually saw one a few weeks ago. Pulled up behind her at a stop light. Other than the badge, there was really no way to tell it from every other average sedan at the light.
P.S. before you say "Tesla roadster," that's noticeable for being an extremely rare high end roadster, the electric component is tertiary at best. No different that seeing a Bugatti Veyron or Maserati Granturismo pulling up next to you.
I don't know too many 4'6" adults. That's not to deny the existence of midgets, dwarfism, little people, or whatever the correct term is... but those conditions should preclude the use of a "general guideline" for height to weight ratio.
Maybe it's just me, but I think of the whole democratic process as kind of a big deal. It's only the foundation for the country. Why the hell are we allowing single points of failure ANYWHERE in the process. My toaster oven has better redundancy and error reporting than the voting process described in TFA.
Simple solution: Every vote is counted at least 3 times at the district level: Once by a Republican appointee, once by a Democrat appointee, and once by a machine (note, this is ONLY a counting machine, unconnected to any network.) You can add another appointee if there is a 3rd party candidate on the ballot. Once you have the totals, cross-check. A discrepancy of more than 1% will trigger a re-count with a completely new cast. A new R, new D and a new machine. Cross-check again and repeat as necessary. Also cross-check against the total number of ballots received to make sure some didn't get swept under the rug during the counting process.
Might this process take a bit longer? Yeah, probably. But if you can wait 24 hours for your American Idol results, you can certainly wait a bit longer to for your Presidential Election results.
P.S. the 1% threshold for recount is just a number I threw out for the sake of argument.. nothing I've set into stone.