Whoa, whoa, whoa.. Who clicked insightful on this one?
Instagram has not had ads since it began in 2010. That's the whole point. Thus far they HAVEN'T made money. For three years, Chad's been maintaining a crapload of data for free. I would say that's rather generous, wouldn't you?
That said, I won't pretend to feel sorry for a business that's been sold for a billion+ dollars. They have enough green tissues to blow their noses with. But I won't hesitate to criticize 8 million users who get angry when they realize that online services aren't free. Nothing's free, kids...
I can appreciate your desire to eliminate a class of poverty in America, but the issue is complicated - as history demonstrates. So I pose a few questions to you.
Does freedom allow people to make poor decisions?
If someone would rather not work and be poor, is it best to force them to work, or should we just let them be poor and figure it out on their own?
If such people (as referenced above) exist, then is it best to give them money and equalize the classes or to educate them and empower them?
Is America a place where anyone can succeed by persistent hard work and self-discipline? If not, can we make it such a place?
Does a government exist to impose equality across the peoples, or to empower people to better themselves?
Is it possible to force an equalization of wealth across a nation without eliminating freedom? If not, is it worth it?
Wait, wait - I got this - we have this cat in a box and it dies, or something... I'm pretty sure this has something to do with it.
Hold on, I think it's because of innumerable, invisible vibrating strings that permeate the universe.
Noooooooo, it's from this thing called the Higg's Boson and once we understand it, it'll explain it. Ah, shit. Now there's two.
Well, no one really understands gravity, so it is probably caused by whatever causes that. Um, dark energy/matter, perhaps?
Well, at least there's a parallel universe wherein we do figure it out.
Just because something's complicated doesn't mean we don't try to figure it out. If we see a trend or occurrence in a scientific discipline that is unprecedented or poorly understood, then we try to find the a reason or cause for such anomalies. In this case, finding a cause (or several causes - which is more likely to be the case) could help us prevent similar incidents in the future and potentially save lives. Isn't that worth the speculation? Besides, societal trends, regardless of the complexity of a society, are still less complicated than theoretical physics.
T&C's exist because bad laws exist, so we give websites the opportunity to get around them.
Maybe we could just let people learn to be responsible with their information and let the market work like it always does. If a website leaks your information, then don't use it. Why should we have the right to sue them?
...and regardless of the size, color, or style of the font, people will still ignore it.
Consumers throw their personal information like water balloons at as many websites as they can and then we feel it's somehow the website's fault when they drop one. If you don't want your privacy balloon to pop, hold onto it.
Nah, let's just get a few dozen of us to bring cameras on a weekend and we can take pictures of ourselves getting tackled by security. It'll take them all day to get all of us!
I assume you're referring to human's nature to create?
What about human nature to be selfish? Hell, what about the human nature to survive by having a profession that is actually lucrative? It's easy for us, the consumers, to demand that all creators do their work for free because we only look at the exorbitantly wealthy publishers who profit from them. Do I like copyright laws? No, I don't, but to jump blindly to the other extreme is just naive. Just my two cents.
Just a thought... what if your boss reduced your pay by 50% and told you that "if you're only doing it for money, then you're doing it for the wrong reason"?
Of course the only reason I write is because I enjoy it. And submitting any of my work for publishing would have reward in and of itself, but to do so would require that I devote an enormous amount of time that I could otherwise spend earning money and providing for my family, which, right now, I consider the more important task.
Sorry buddy, "because FUCK the copyright holders!" is not an argument. You may be right in saying that we should have the right to do what we want with what we've purchased, but play the Devil's advocate for a moment...
The year is 2016: Every book that has ever been printed is now considered "public domain" since copyright laws have been abolished and you can find any literature you want just by googling the title and author. Sound great? Well it also turns out that books have annually been published 80% less since the copyright laws were struck down. Why is that, do you think? Perhaps it's because there's no longer any motivation for authors to publish their books since they aren't paid any money once they are published. They are made immediately available for the public's viewing. All the author gets is good feeling that people are reading their work. Reward enough? 80% of authors would say no.
Obviously it's a hypothetical argument, but I can say that as an aspiring novelist, my motivation to finish my book would be lessened if I knew that even if my work went viral, I would have nothing to show for it except for a few book readings at coffee shops.
Within -- "An amateur gunsmith has already used a 3-D printer to make the lower receiver of a semiautomatic rifle, the AR-15. This heavily regulated part holds the bullets and carries the gun’s serial number. A German hacker made 3-D copies of tightly controlled police handcuff keys. Two of my own students, Will Langford and Matt Keeter, made master keys, without access to the originals, for luggage padlocks approved by the U.S. Transportation Security Administration."
The lower receiver is heavily regulated because it is the piece that can convert a semiautomatic rifle to a full automatic if you are able to manipulate it properly. A 3D printer could circumvent what was previously an extremely difficult task to convert the receiver from semi-auto to full auto.
And in the latter half of the paragraph, yet another reference to the TSA. How ironic.
You'll people are already making parts to guns and master keys that can unlock anything from baggage padlocks to police handcuffs. Yes, these are probably laboratory grade 3D printers, but it won't be long before the public can get their hands on something similar.
Ok, so I know there was a drought in the US for a ridiculous amount of time, but considering modern technology, I'm having a hard time understanding why this has to mean no more bacon. Why can't farmers just heavily irrigate their fields? Isn't pumping water where need it worth it to produce a good crop and, more importantly, still have bacon? It's not like we don't have water in the world. Don't we have the tech to get it where we need it to be? Or if heat is the problem, can't we cover the fields with shade sheets or something?
I live in Phoenix and we have terribly hot summers with extraordinary long droughts, but we still seem to do ok and there's never a panic among the farming community. Can't we avoid these crises with some simple planning?
Anyone who knows anything about farming, feel free to enlighten this ignorant city kid.
A useful hand-held US machine could assist in a variety of ways in the healthcare profession. It would mean that trained doctors without access to other, larger equipment (remote places) could reliably diagnose or rule out appendicitis (among many other disease processes). If paramedics were trained on the machine, they could quickly establish peripheral IV access to administer medication in life or death situations.
I work an emergency department with an emergency physician who uses a "large, clunky US machine" to evaluate for countless disease processes quickly in pt's rooms. He and many other progressively minded physicians would jump at advances in this technology that would make it easier to use them to use.
Do you really think that a significant amount of people in third world countries would get access to hand-held US (and know how to use it!) before they had access to an OB/GYN who could give them a sonogram anyways? The latter would, of course, thus allow them to determine the sex of their child and so have the same result.
Yes, that's already happening every day in China, but I personally, don't think hand-held US aren't going to make it happen any faster. Why would anyone spend $7000 on a hand-held US when they could go get a sonogram for $200? (Source: http://children.costhelper.com/ultrasound.html)
There's an episode of House where this is nicely demonstrated by House and Wilson trying to figure out if Cuddy's daughter has swallowed a coin. On ultrasound it might be a dime, or it may just be an air bubble.
While I've heard that some House episodes are very educational, I can tell you that that House episode was just another medical TV show keeping the public sufficiently ignorant of medicine to ensure that we'll always need health professionals. What the HELL were they doing getting an US!?! I work in an emergency department and anyone with eyes can tell the difference between a foreign body and an air bubble on an X-ray. To my knowledge US is never used to evaluate for foreign body.
However, just because US aren't useful for evaluating foreign bodies it doesn't mean that the technology isn't extremely promising for other factors of disease or (in the case of the article) complications with pregnancy. Can you imagine if these were widely available how easy it would be for a soon-to-be mother to learn the basics on what to look for to prevent a serious complication? Think about how many books and media a pregnant mother reads and intakes to educate themselves on pregnancy to ensure they have a healthy 9 months? If a 3-hour class was offered to mothers about how to look for an US complication and a hand-held US machine was loaned to them for their pregnancy, I'm confident that nearly all would jump at the opportunity. It wouldn't be training them to diagnose themselves or their babies with any disease it would be like, "If you see your baby's umbilical cord wrapped around his neck and you feel funny, then you should probably come see the OB/GYN immediately." That's something you could teach in a 3-hour class.
What's enticing about Google isn't so much how big it can get as a corporate company, but how much it can connect the world through open-source methods and ideas. The prospect of connecting the world's largest demographic through social media and other social interactivity to America and the rest of the world who relies heavily on Google fits very nicely into Google's vision. It makes perfect sense why Google would want to expand their market to China. Google isn't going to accept a "comfortable size" - it's always wanted the world.
I'm no fan of one giant conglomeration conquering the world market of anything, but I admit that it's exciting to imagine being able to easily interact with other nations, especially China. The medium doesn't have to be Google, but right now, it's the only one with the vision big enough to do it. I don't see Baidu offering me free music downloads.
On the other hand maybe they shouldn't be on Facebook.
I think this is the key point here... if you don't like it, leave it. No reason to be hating those that choose to enjoy the social media. If you don't mind your identity being exposed to the public, then you won't care if people know your real name. Those that post photos of themselves drunk online should know better and you can always tag pictures as inappropriate if you're worried a potential employer is stalking you and your buddy's posting pics of you losing horribly at beer pong.
And anyways, we can always go and and post any comments or pictures that might us in trouble on sites that DO allow anonymity... like Slashdot.
I agree that seeing the actual post would be enlightening, but the fact he likened his hypothetical actions to a concrete event makes me think that this wasn't simply an off-handed comment.
I find this is a pretty key line in the article: "The online post on ESPN said that a shooting would be like the one in Aurora, Colo., where 12 people were killed and 58 were injured in July, authorities said."
That's referring to the post he made that they responded to. He didn't just say, "Ah man, I'd like to shoot kids who get expensive sneakers." It was more like, "Here's how it's going down..."
If you don't think this is grounds to go after someone (fine), then when should we pursue a terrorist(ish) comment online? How descriptive do you have to get?
Right in the middle of the article: "The online post on ESPN said that a shooting would be like the one in Aurora, Colo., where 12 people were killed and 58 were injured in July, authorities said."
That's not a comment on business practices - that's a threat.
Slashdot Mirror
Whoa, whoa, whoa.. Who clicked insightful on this one?
Instagram has not had ads since it began in 2010. That's the whole point. Thus far they HAVEN'T made money. For three years, Chad's been maintaining a crapload of data for free. I would say that's rather generous, wouldn't you?
That said, I won't pretend to feel sorry for a business that's been sold for a billion+ dollars. They have enough green tissues to blow their noses with. But I won't hesitate to criticize 8 million users who get angry when they realize that online services aren't free. Nothing's free, kids...
I can appreciate your desire to eliminate a class of poverty in America, but the issue is complicated - as history demonstrates. So I pose a few questions to you.
Does freedom allow people to make poor decisions?
If someone would rather not work and be poor, is it best to force them to work, or should we just let them be poor and figure it out on their own?
If such people (as referenced above) exist, then is it best to give them money and equalize the classes or to educate them and empower them?
Is America a place where anyone can succeed by persistent hard work and self-discipline? If not, can we make it such a place?
Does a government exist to impose equality across the peoples, or to empower people to better themselves?
Is it possible to force an equalization of wealth across a nation without eliminating freedom? If not, is it worth it?
It's because of the wave nature of electrons!
Whoa, hang on, it's because of the particle nature of electrons!
Pssssh, fools! Relativity! E=MC^2. You're welcome.
Wait, wait - I got this - we have this cat in a box and it dies, or something... I'm pretty sure this has something to do with it.
Hold on, I think it's because of innumerable, invisible vibrating strings that permeate the universe.
Noooooooo, it's from this thing called the Higg's Boson and once we understand it, it'll explain it. Ah, shit. Now there's two.
Well, no one really understands gravity, so it is probably caused by whatever causes that. Um, dark energy/matter, perhaps?
Well, at least there's a parallel universe wherein we do figure it out.
Just because something's complicated doesn't mean we don't try to figure it out. If we see a trend or occurrence in a scientific discipline that is unprecedented or poorly understood, then we try to find the a reason or cause for such anomalies. In this case, finding a cause (or several causes - which is more likely to be the case) could help us prevent similar incidents in the future and potentially save lives. Isn't that worth the speculation? Besides, societal trends, regardless of the complexity of a society, are still less complicated than theoretical physics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=HlZRcxvGIWE&NR=1
Thank God someone will be out there to defend us against stuff like this.
T&C's exist because bad laws exist, so we give websites the opportunity to get around them.
Maybe we could just let people learn to be responsible with their information and let the market work like it always does. If a website leaks your information, then don't use it. Why should we have the right to sue them?
...and regardless of the size, color, or style of the font, people will still ignore it.
I don't get it.
Consumers throw their personal information like water balloons at as many websites as they can and then we feel it's somehow the website's fault when they drop one. If you don't want your privacy balloon to pop, hold onto it.
Nah, let's just get a few dozen of us to bring cameras on a weekend and we can take pictures of ourselves getting tackled by security. It'll take them all day to get all of us!
Among the many other problems already listed is whether or not paintballs will pop at 2.7 degrees kelvin.
I assume you're referring to human's nature to create?
What about human nature to be selfish? Hell, what about the human nature to survive by having a profession that is actually lucrative? It's easy for us, the consumers, to demand that all creators do their work for free because we only look at the exorbitantly wealthy publishers who profit from them. Do I like copyright laws? No, I don't, but to jump blindly to the other extreme is just naive. Just my two cents.
Just a thought... what if your boss reduced your pay by 50% and told you that "if you're only doing it for money, then you're doing it for the wrong reason"?
Of course the only reason I write is because I enjoy it. And submitting any of my work for publishing would have reward in and of itself, but to do so would require that I devote an enormous amount of time that I could otherwise spend earning money and providing for my family, which, right now, I consider the more important task.
The year is 2016: Every book that has ever been printed is now considered "public domain" since copyright laws have been abolished and you can find any literature you want just by googling the title and author. Sound great? Well it also turns out that books have annually been published 80% less since the copyright laws were struck down. Why is that, do you think? Perhaps it's because there's no longer any motivation for authors to publish their books since they aren't paid any money once they are published. They are made immediately available for the public's viewing. All the author gets is good feeling that people are reading their work. Reward enough? 80% of authors would say no.
Obviously it's a hypothetical argument, but I can say that as an aspiring novelist, my motivation to finish my book would be lessened if I knew that even if my work went viral, I would have nothing to show for it except for a few book readings at coffee shops.
Within -- "An amateur gunsmith has already used a 3-D printer to make the lower receiver of a semiautomatic rifle, the AR-15. This heavily regulated part holds the bullets and carries the gun’s serial number. A German hacker made 3-D copies of tightly controlled police handcuff keys. Two of my own students, Will Langford and Matt Keeter, made master keys, without access to the originals, for luggage padlocks approved by the U.S. Transportation Security Administration."
The lower receiver is heavily regulated because it is the piece that can convert a semiautomatic rifle to a full automatic if you are able to manipulate it properly. A 3D printer could circumvent what was previously an extremely difficult task to convert the receiver from semi-auto to full auto.
And in the latter half of the paragraph, yet another reference to the TSA. How ironic.
They can't work with metal, never mind electronics.
Not so my friend... http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/138154/neil-gershenfeld/how-to-make-almost-anything?page=show
You'll people are already making parts to guns and master keys that can unlock anything from baggage padlocks to police handcuffs. Yes, these are probably laboratory grade 3D printers, but it won't be long before the public can get their hands on something similar.
Places where it's raining? I dunno, just a thought.
Yeah, but nobody gets the missing corn that started this whole mess in the first place. Neither you or the pigs. I guess we all get gummy worms.
I live in Phoenix and we have terribly hot summers with extraordinary long droughts, but we still seem to do ok and there's never a panic among the farming community. Can't we avoid these crises with some simple planning?
Anyone who knows anything about farming, feel free to enlighten this ignorant city kid.
I work an emergency department with an emergency physician who uses a "large, clunky US machine" to evaluate for countless disease processes quickly in pt's rooms. He and many other progressively minded physicians would jump at advances in this technology that would make it easier to use them to use.
Yes, that's already happening every day in China, but I personally, don't think hand-held US aren't going to make it happen any faster. Why would anyone spend $7000 on a hand-held US when they could go get a sonogram for $200? (Source: http://children.costhelper.com/ultrasound.html)
There's an episode of House where this is nicely demonstrated by House and Wilson trying to figure out if Cuddy's daughter has swallowed a coin. On ultrasound it might be a dime, or it may just be an air bubble.
While I've heard that some House episodes are very educational, I can tell you that that House episode was just another medical TV show keeping the public sufficiently ignorant of medicine to ensure that we'll always need health professionals. What the HELL were they doing getting an US!?! I work in an emergency department and anyone with eyes can tell the difference between a foreign body and an air bubble on an X-ray. To my knowledge US is never used to evaluate for foreign body.
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_body_in_alimentary_tract
GI tract example: http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/776566-overview - Is it a nail, or an air bubble???
However, just because US aren't useful for evaluating foreign bodies it doesn't mean that the technology isn't extremely promising for other factors of disease or (in the case of the article) complications with pregnancy. Can you imagine if these were widely available how easy it would be for a soon-to-be mother to learn the basics on what to look for to prevent a serious complication? Think about how many books and media a pregnant mother reads and intakes to educate themselves on pregnancy to ensure they have a healthy 9 months? If a 3-hour class was offered to mothers about how to look for an US complication and a hand-held US machine was loaned to them for their pregnancy, I'm confident that nearly all would jump at the opportunity. It wouldn't be training them to diagnose themselves or their babies with any disease it would be like, "If you see your baby's umbilical cord wrapped around his neck and you feel funny, then you should probably come see the OB/GYN immediately." That's something you could teach in a 3-hour class.
I'm no fan of one giant conglomeration conquering the world market of anything, but I admit that it's exciting to imagine being able to easily interact with other nations, especially China. The medium doesn't have to be Google, but right now, it's the only one with the vision big enough to do it. I don't see Baidu offering me free music downloads.
On the other hand maybe they shouldn't be on Facebook.
I think this is the key point here... if you don't like it, leave it. No reason to be hating those that choose to enjoy the social media. If you don't mind your identity being exposed to the public, then you won't care if people know your real name. Those that post photos of themselves drunk online should know better and you can always tag pictures as inappropriate if you're worried a potential employer is stalking you and your buddy's posting pics of you losing horribly at beer pong.
And anyways, we can always go and and post any comments or pictures that might us in trouble on sites that DO allow anonymity... like Slashdot.
You might as well lock yourself in a jail cell and throw away the keys.
I agree that seeing the actual post would be enlightening, but the fact he likened his hypothetical actions to a concrete event makes me think that this wasn't simply an off-handed comment.
That's referring to the post he made that they responded to. He didn't just say, "Ah man, I'd like to shoot kids who get expensive sneakers." It was more like, "Here's how it's going down..."
If you don't think this is grounds to go after someone (fine), then when should we pursue a terrorist(ish) comment online? How descriptive do you have to get?
Right in the middle of the article: "The online post on ESPN said that a shooting would be like the one in Aurora, Colo., where 12 people were killed and 58 were injured in July, authorities said."
That's not a comment on business practices - that's a threat.