I think what a lot of art snobs fail to realize (and lament every time creative talent doesn't go in a direction that they unilaterally deem "correct") is that nobody wants to listen to the same 100+ year old piece of work over and over again. Tastes inevitably change, people inevitably want something new. That said, any artist that always clings on to the old ways of doing anything and/or insists that older art is better than what we have today is inevitably never going to make it anywhere.
Contrary to what Roger Ebert claims, video games are indeed art, and very good art at that. That, combined with their popularity, inevitably is going to influence other art forms.
Why would you assume that the presence of press decals is proof that they're in the press?
Probably because, as they mentioned, the press had already done that before. Not only that, but RGJ even admitted that it was their employees, mentioning that one of them has been working with them since 1998.
Do you think a simple number plate capture is a challenge for security operations at this level?
I'm going to break debate etiquette and answer that with a question: Would you just assume that your technology is going to be foolproof and work 100% of the time, and not bother to write down the plate number when the car is right in front of you?
Another question: If you read the blog, you can notice that both employees had RGJ press ID badges, and their car also had RGJ decals prominently displayed on it. For what reason are they to assume that press people are going to take hostile action against them?
Keep in mind that the blog also notes that this isn't the first break in by press people, rather this is simply the first time that the press people assaulted them when they noted the incident. And by the way, they were assaulted twice, the second time happened later when the safety management were driving to the scene on an ATV that the press vehicle deliberately collided into. The driver was charged with two counts of felony assault and criminal trespass, whereas the other person was just charged with criminal trespass.
They think every person that pirated their product would have bought it instead, that's definitely not the case. Some people are just looking for free content, they would otherwise have no bothered purchasing it.
The term you're looking for there is price elasticity. When the price goes down, the demand rises.
The reason DRM is being implemented is not to prevent all piracy ever - simply put, that's impossible - but rather to prevent common, casual piracy among low-skilled users. And to that end DRM works very well.
That depends on who is implementing the DRM. The MPAA always seems convinced that they've got something new right around the corner that is unbreakable. Their goal is to prevent piracy completely. The same can be said for Intel and HDCP, which would instantly become pointless once broken.
Also DirecTV's crypto is more intended to be conditional access rather than DRM.
Last I checked, Playboy is supposed to be focused on eroticism, or at least somewhat dealing with eroticism. What is erotic about an abortion? In fact, a lot of their articles are just highly politically charged and more remind me of those poorly xeroxed propaganda newsletters that left wing demonstrators like to pass around but they're so uninteresting that you can't help but toss them into the nearest trash can.
Classy softcore pornography is good, along with commentary on related subjects. Not this crap. Furthermore, I think in a few of the issues there were more ads that featured guys without shirts than there were any women, or at least, they were always featured on those thick cardstock pages that make you flip to them when you skip pages...isn't this supposed to be a gentlemen's magazine? What kind of gentleman wants to see that?
At any rate, I had a free year of Playboy and only really opened the first 6 issues. The rest I just threw away without even opening.
I think what you guys are missing is that most security cameras have an elevated vantage point so that they can see what people are doing. Often times when cars are around in such a situation, the license plate isn't within proper view of the camera.
This is in contrast to traffic cameras which are positioned to best photograph license plates. They can do that better in those situations because it's a roadway and you can generally predict where a vehicle is going to be, and thus the proper placement to get a good plate ID.
But mostly, and above all else, if I were a security guard, I wouldn't just assume that one of the cameras will capture it; I would do my best to see it for myself and write it down. Doing otherwise is flat out moronic.
If you disagree, then go take it up to your own leadership who is now resorting to legal tactics to try to push out American competitors to local European firms for no reason other than they just can't manage to produce a good enough product to effectively compete on the global economy.
IMO it's going to be hard to do any open network hardware going forward unless you start designing ASICs. Even gigabit routers (which are technically gigabit layer 3 switches) need an ASIC in order to fully saturate your WAN bandwidth if you are with a gig provider.
Their articles already suck. I remember reading one that had a huge article about...abortion...It's as if the editors deliberately intended for the reader to become flaccid.
Seriously, you Assange cult members just make up a lot of shit just to feed his gigantic narcissistic ego. I'll debunk two of the cult myths right here:
First of all, the US/UK treaty allows for a LOT more ways that somebody can get extradited than the US/Sweden treaty, so the whole notion that he would fare worse in Sweden is a load of horse shit.
Second of all, no European state has any extradition treaties that permit the death penalty. Regardless of whether he was extradited from either the UK or Sweden to the US there's no death penalty.
No, not exactly. What a country will extradite and will not extradite somebody for is spelled out in the treaty itself, and varies from treaty to treaty.
As a rule though (and this is spelled out in treaties the US has with other nations,) the US will not extradite somebody for doing something that is protected by the constitution. If it isn't protected by the constition but is legal in the US and not legal elsewhere, then the US will extradite.
There are some very rare exceptions to this rule though. For example, if somebody does something outside the US that is protected by the constitution but while they're here they commit some kind of crime that makes them eligible for deportation, then they'll be extradited.
Other countries have other rules as well. For example China won't extradite one of their own citizens under any circumstances.
Economics is the imperfect and messy business of observing how goods and services are exchanged, and manipulating the system to improve things for the greater good of society. While the government screws it up from time to time, the net result is much better than doing nothing at all.
We've seen the government screw up royally. Smoot-Hawley is a perfect examle; it's analogous to cutting off the patient's head to cure cancer.
Economics is better compared to psychology, which seems like pseudo-science at best. Both deal with unimaginably complex systems that would seem to be deterministic, but yet can be very unpredictable. Economics doesn't deserve to be called a science (in a strict dictionary sense of the word), but that doesn't mean that it isn't worth of serious study.
I'm inclined to say the same about climate science.
IMO what really triggered the depression was the Smoot-Hawley tariff act. There have been stock market crashes worse than 1929 a few times before and since, and yet none of them resulted in anything like that.
The thing is, domestic production and imports rise and fall with one another. If you try to slow one down, you'll slow down the other. Naturally, when Smoot-Hawley hit, imports went way down, and likewise domestic production took a shit. When domestic production took a shit, the unemployment rate climbed to 20%.
No, actually economies never grew to the scale of what we had today until people were able to borrow. What it comes down to is this: You as an individual likely have a very difficult time securing the capital needed to, for example, start a new business. So how do you do that? Simple, you borrow. Most businesses that exist today, even the most profitable ones, started out borrowing.
Prior to that, the method of securing capital was by waging war on your neighbor and keeping the spoils of war, and then using those spoils to build yet another more powerful army to do the same again to an even more powerful rival. That was called feudalism.
I think most people on slashdot support Bernie, so I'm probably going to get modded down, but I think he's just another one of those "hey, let's be more like Europe" politicians. And honestly, I think that would be a disaster. Income inequality isn't necessarily a bad thing so long as it's easy to get the bare essentials, which in the US it is.
The thing is, our "struggle to the top" culture is the reason why all of the world's best tech firms are here, and why all of the world's best new scientific (especially medical) breakthroughs come from here.
Furthermore, we've already seen what happens when you suddenly thrust everybody into making the same amount of money, and if Bernie had things his way, we'd see a lot of this:
And when you apply that on a national scale, it turns into a brain drain. Right now we're the opposite; the best and the brightest tend to want to work in the US, and I'd hate to see that go away.
Furthermore, we've already seen what happens when people like Bernie get elected, namely that of Francoise Hollande, who did most of the stuff that Bernie advocates, and not only did France see a resulting massive drop in tax revenue, but a lot of wealthy people flat out left France, and the unemployment rate went way up.
"The 1%" was a phrase popularized by the Occupy Wall Street movement, and refers almost exclusively to wealth inequity in America.
So an article about a product in China means I'm supposed to automatically assume this is in America? And are we talking about both Americas or just North America?
The median income for the cohort to which the phrase "The 1%" refers is $400,000.
The top 1% in New Mexico make about $214,000. But...doesn't it seem kind of arbitrary? Why does it have to be the 1%, and furthermore, why just the US? Why not the 3.14156%? Why are the other 2.14156% exempt from OWS's rage?
This times a million... Economics is much more akin to religion the science. Economist are like the high priests of ancient times.
If this is the case, (economics being religious in nature) then the government would have no business setting rules and regulations that impact the US economy. Church and state first amendment issues aside, if the economy is really so unpredictable, then nothing they do can reliably influence it in the ways that they intend.
deflation is bad (its bad for some actors but its a huge boon for the majority)
Not at all. One thing that is constant in most economies is that the majority of people are borrowers.
Suppose you borrow some money to start a new business or buy a house, then suppose right afterwards that money you owe is now worth more than it was when you borrowed it. If it's worth more, then suddenly you're going to find that you're earning less (because after all, people value their money more so they pay less for the same service, whereas in the past they would have paid more for it.) Now guess what happens? You effectively owe more money than you originally borrowed, and we're not even counting interest yet. When we count interest, things get worse, because now the interest rate you've agreed to is suddenly more burdensome. Deflation is also bad for the lenders as well in many cases, because they often have borrowed money themselves.
In fact, the last time the US saw deflation was a period we now refer to as The Great Depression.
No, we really aren't. If anything, basic necessities in the western world are getting more expensive.
And you base this on what? Adjusted for inflation, food is cheaper than it's ever been. Luxury items (for example, smartphones, computers, big screen televisions) are affordable by basically everybody now. 100 years ago, poverty meant you were starving because you couldn't afford to eat.
Today poverty means you have a house, plenty of food, and can afford your own means of transportation (in less urbanized areas, that means owning your own car) and probably a few (though not necessarily many) luxury items. The biggest thing separating poor from rich these days is how expensive your house and/or your car is.
Slashdot Mirror
I think what a lot of art snobs fail to realize (and lament every time creative talent doesn't go in a direction that they unilaterally deem "correct") is that nobody wants to listen to the same 100+ year old piece of work over and over again. Tastes inevitably change, people inevitably want something new. That said, any artist that always clings on to the old ways of doing anything and/or insists that older art is better than what we have today is inevitably never going to make it anywhere.
Contrary to what Roger Ebert claims, video games are indeed art, and very good art at that. That, combined with their popularity, inevitably is going to influence other art forms.
Why would you assume that the presence of press decals is proof that they're in the press?
Probably because, as they mentioned, the press had already done that before. Not only that, but RGJ even admitted that it was their employees, mentioning that one of them has been working with them since 1998.
Do you think a simple number plate capture is a challenge for security operations at this level?
I'm going to break debate etiquette and answer that with a question: Would you just assume that your technology is going to be foolproof and work 100% of the time, and not bother to write down the plate number when the car is right in front of you?
Another question: If you read the blog, you can notice that both employees had RGJ press ID badges, and their car also had RGJ decals prominently displayed on it. For what reason are they to assume that press people are going to take hostile action against them?
Keep in mind that the blog also notes that this isn't the first break in by press people, rather this is simply the first time that the press people assaulted them when they noted the incident. And by the way, they were assaulted twice, the second time happened later when the safety management were driving to the scene on an ATV that the press vehicle deliberately collided into. The driver was charged with two counts of felony assault and criminal trespass, whereas the other person was just charged with criminal trespass.
They think every person that pirated their product would have bought it instead, that's definitely not the case. Some people are just looking for free content, they would otherwise have no bothered purchasing it.
The term you're looking for there is price elasticity. When the price goes down, the demand rises.
The reason DRM is being implemented is not to prevent all piracy ever - simply put, that's impossible - but rather to prevent common, casual piracy among low-skilled users. And to that end DRM works very well.
That depends on who is implementing the DRM. The MPAA always seems convinced that they've got something new right around the corner that is unbreakable. Their goal is to prevent piracy completely. The same can be said for Intel and HDCP, which would instantly become pointless once broken.
Also DirecTV's crypto is more intended to be conditional access rather than DRM.
Last I checked, Playboy is supposed to be focused on eroticism, or at least somewhat dealing with eroticism. What is erotic about an abortion? In fact, a lot of their articles are just highly politically charged and more remind me of those poorly xeroxed propaganda newsletters that left wing demonstrators like to pass around but they're so uninteresting that you can't help but toss them into the nearest trash can.
Classy softcore pornography is good, along with commentary on related subjects. Not this crap. Furthermore, I think in a few of the issues there were more ads that featured guys without shirts than there were any women, or at least, they were always featured on those thick cardstock pages that make you flip to them when you skip pages...isn't this supposed to be a gentlemen's magazine? What kind of gentleman wants to see that?
At any rate, I had a free year of Playboy and only really opened the first 6 issues. The rest I just threw away without even opening.
I think what you guys are missing is that most security cameras have an elevated vantage point so that they can see what people are doing. Often times when cars are around in such a situation, the license plate isn't within proper view of the camera.
This is in contrast to traffic cameras which are positioned to best photograph license plates. They can do that better in those situations because it's a roadway and you can generally predict where a vehicle is going to be, and thus the proper placement to get a good plate ID.
But mostly, and above all else, if I were a security guard, I wouldn't just assume that one of the cameras will capture it; I would do my best to see it for myself and write it down. Doing otherwise is flat out moronic.
Except that Bernie as President doesn't have the power to do most of that.
So what do you intend to elect him for then?
The right wing side of this country really wants to paint everything as if it was all black or white. It's not all or nothing.
Define right wing please.
Actually when I made that statement, I was just echoing something that a few European governments have lamented. More details here:
http://www.slate.com/articles/...
If you disagree, then go take it up to your own leadership who is now resorting to legal tactics to try to push out American competitors to local European firms for no reason other than they just can't manage to produce a good enough product to effectively compete on the global economy.
And in spite of all of that writing you just did, you failed to make a salient point.
IMO it's going to be hard to do any open network hardware going forward unless you start designing ASICs. Even gigabit routers (which are technically gigabit layer 3 switches) need an ASIC in order to fully saturate your WAN bandwidth if you are with a gig provider.
Their articles already suck. I remember reading one that had a huge article about...abortion...It's as if the editors deliberately intended for the reader to become flaccid.
Seriously, you Assange cult members just make up a lot of shit just to feed his gigantic narcissistic ego. I'll debunk two of the cult myths right here:
First of all, the US/UK treaty allows for a LOT more ways that somebody can get extradited than the US/Sweden treaty, so the whole notion that he would fare worse in Sweden is a load of horse shit.
Second of all, no European state has any extradition treaties that permit the death penalty. Regardless of whether he was extradited from either the UK or Sweden to the US there's no death penalty.
http://www.theguardian.com/med...
No, not exactly. What a country will extradite and will not extradite somebody for is spelled out in the treaty itself, and varies from treaty to treaty.
As a rule though (and this is spelled out in treaties the US has with other nations,) the US will not extradite somebody for doing something that is protected by the constitution. If it isn't protected by the constition but is legal in the US and not legal elsewhere, then the US will extradite.
There are some very rare exceptions to this rule though. For example, if somebody does something outside the US that is protected by the constitution but while they're here they commit some kind of crime that makes them eligible for deportation, then they'll be extradited.
Other countries have other rules as well. For example China won't extradite one of their own citizens under any circumstances.
Economics is the imperfect and messy business of observing how goods and services are exchanged, and manipulating the system to improve things for the greater good of society. While the government screws it up from time to time, the net result is much better than doing nothing at all.
We've seen the government screw up royally. Smoot-Hawley is a perfect examle; it's analogous to cutting off the patient's head to cure cancer.
Economics is better compared to psychology, which seems like pseudo-science at best. Both deal with unimaginably complex systems that would seem to be deterministic, but yet can be very unpredictable. Economics doesn't deserve to be called a science (in a strict dictionary sense of the word), but that doesn't mean that it isn't worth of serious study.
I'm inclined to say the same about climate science.
IMO what really triggered the depression was the Smoot-Hawley tariff act. There have been stock market crashes worse than 1929 a few times before and since, and yet none of them resulted in anything like that.
The thing is, domestic production and imports rise and fall with one another. If you try to slow one down, you'll slow down the other. Naturally, when Smoot-Hawley hit, imports went way down, and likewise domestic production took a shit. When domestic production took a shit, the unemployment rate climbed to 20%.
No, actually economies never grew to the scale of what we had today until people were able to borrow. What it comes down to is this: You as an individual likely have a very difficult time securing the capital needed to, for example, start a new business. So how do you do that? Simple, you borrow. Most businesses that exist today, even the most profitable ones, started out borrowing.
Prior to that, the method of securing capital was by waging war on your neighbor and keeping the spoils of war, and then using those spoils to build yet another more powerful army to do the same again to an even more powerful rival. That was called feudalism.
And you can't spell.
I think most people on slashdot support Bernie, so I'm probably going to get modded down, but I think he's just another one of those "hey, let's be more like Europe" politicians. And honestly, I think that would be a disaster. Income inequality isn't necessarily a bad thing so long as it's easy to get the bare essentials, which in the US it is.
The thing is, our "struggle to the top" culture is the reason why all of the world's best tech firms are here, and why all of the world's best new scientific (especially medical) breakthroughs come from here.
http://tech.slashdot.org/story...
Furthermore, we've already seen what happens when you suddenly thrust everybody into making the same amount of money, and if Bernie had things his way, we'd see a lot of this:
http://news.slashdot.org/story...
And when you apply that on a national scale, it turns into a brain drain. Right now we're the opposite; the best and the brightest tend to want to work in the US, and I'd hate to see that go away.
Furthermore, we've already seen what happens when people like Bernie get elected, namely that of Francoise Hollande, who did most of the stuff that Bernie advocates, and not only did France see a resulting massive drop in tax revenue, but a lot of wealthy people flat out left France, and the unemployment rate went way up.
"The 1%" was a phrase popularized by the Occupy Wall Street movement, and refers almost exclusively to wealth inequity in America.
So an article about a product in China means I'm supposed to automatically assume this is in America? And are we talking about both Americas or just North America?
The median income for the cohort to which the phrase "The 1%" refers is $400,000.
The top 1% in New Mexico make about $214,000. But...doesn't it seem kind of arbitrary? Why does it have to be the 1%, and furthermore, why just the US? Why not the 3.14156%? Why are the other 2.14156% exempt from OWS's rage?
Umm...where does the US come into play here? This article is about a product in China.
"In the 1%" means you make $32,400 a year.
Source: globalrichlist.com
I personally sit in the top 0.38%.
This times a million... Economics is much more akin to religion the science. Economist are like the high priests of ancient times.
If this is the case, (economics being religious in nature) then the government would have no business setting rules and regulations that impact the US economy. Church and state first amendment issues aside, if the economy is really so unpredictable, then nothing they do can reliably influence it in the ways that they intend.
deflation is bad (its bad for some actors but its a huge boon for the majority)
Not at all. One thing that is constant in most economies is that the majority of people are borrowers.
Suppose you borrow some money to start a new business or buy a house, then suppose right afterwards that money you owe is now worth more than it was when you borrowed it. If it's worth more, then suddenly you're going to find that you're earning less (because after all, people value their money more so they pay less for the same service, whereas in the past they would have paid more for it.) Now guess what happens? You effectively owe more money than you originally borrowed, and we're not even counting interest yet. When we count interest, things get worse, because now the interest rate you've agreed to is suddenly more burdensome. Deflation is also bad for the lenders as well in many cases, because they often have borrowed money themselves.
In fact, the last time the US saw deflation was a period we now refer to as The Great Depression.
There's a lot of psychology that is repeatable, like this for example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
No, we really aren't. If anything, basic necessities in the western world are getting more expensive.
And you base this on what? Adjusted for inflation, food is cheaper than it's ever been. Luxury items (for example, smartphones, computers, big screen televisions) are affordable by basically everybody now. 100 years ago, poverty meant you were starving because you couldn't afford to eat.
Today poverty means you have a house, plenty of food, and can afford your own means of transportation (in less urbanized areas, that means owning your own car) and probably a few (though not necessarily many) luxury items. The biggest thing separating poor from rich these days is how expensive your house and/or your car is.