You dodged my question: Why would Norway and the non-OPEC countries suddenly feel obligated to sell 100% of their oil to the US when they already have existing customers who they sell to?
You have assumed that this is the case, but these countries will sell it to whoever is paying the most (or more likely they will continue to supply their existing buyers at the increased price).
You trust a site.. on the internet. You are an idiot.
How is that tinfoil hat treating you? People quite a bit cleverer than either of us have gone to a lot of trouble to address 'trust' issues in on the internet.
By the by, when you patch your OS you're trusting a site on the internet. I hope I haven't shocked you.
The guy who clicks "yes" in less than 500 milliseconds + (2 * latency_between_You_and_Client) can be assumed to be pwn3d. He clicks "Yes" to everything.
As I said in my other post, it's all about trust. If I trust the website, and it offers me extra security it requires no thought at all to click yes.
If I don't trust the site, I'm going to click no to installing anything regardless of features offered. (Although if you get me curious enough I might poke around and see if I can figure out what it wanted to do.)
If a reputable site is offering me 'extra security' and I accept it, that doesn't demonstrate anything about my willingness to accept malware. It just shows that I trust that reputable site.
The reason why OPEC gets to set the price of oil is that they represent the majority of the world's oil. If you like Norway can cover your countries needs (which have already been described as the largest in the world) you'd certainly be able to call your bluff.
That is, of course, assuming that Norway doesn't already have all of their oil supply committed to other countries.
Naw, I'm almost certain they're holding onto it in case the US stops by for a few million barrels a day.
For further examples of when the 'a superpower collapses under it's own grotesque weight', please review the fall of the Soviet Union. I'm not convinced you really want that at a local level.
I'm not sure what kind of crazy backwards world you're living in, but over here in reality land it's the sellers who dictate what kind of currency they get paid in.
If OPEC decided tomorrow that they were only going to accept Vietnamese Dongs as payment, your options would pretty much dwindle to:
1) Invade enough oil producing currencies to guarantee continued supply. 2) Start buying all the dong you can handle.
Not using oil certainly isn't an option for you guys, at least not for very long.
Food supply is absolutely a strategic resource, but there are multiple countries that can supply someone with food so it's not as critical as say.. the single provider owning your sea and airports.
Piss off a country and they might stop selling you food, but you can buy food elsewhere. Where are you going to find an alternate airport?
Ports, Airlines, etc ARE strategic resource. Imagine if China presses for some trade advantage from the US and is rebuffed. If they had the ability to go close some of your major ports, you'd be feeling the pain really quickly.
You sound jaded. Perhaps you should try working for a company that doesn't suck. I've worked in companies where managers actually earn their pay and have skills beyond 'not being good enough to do tech work' and it sounds like a much better place to be in than your company.
I dunno, why would you leave your 100K team leader job to get a tech job unless it pays more?
If you're asking this question here, I think you might have stumbled across slashdot on your way to teamleaderdot. Technical jobs are generally more enjoyable with far less responsibilities outside of your control. ie: In a tech job your responsibility might be: "Write a function that does X", or "Fix this broken server". In a manager job your responsibility might be "Find a way to lower your rework rate for your team of 150 staff by 7% by the end of the quarter."
If they both paid the same amount, why would you take the job with the harder goals?
By definition, the CEO has to pay more than the job below it, otherwise there is no motivation to get people to take the job.
ie: Why would I leave my 100K tech job, to become a team leader unless it pays more.
Why would I leave my cushy team leader job to take a managers job with additional responsibility?
Why would I take HIS managers job, with even more responsibility (including legal responsibility for company performance if you go high enough) if it doesn't pay more money than what I could earn for doing the easy no-risk tech job.
Secrecy of telecommunications? Are you telling me when Germans got their phone lines hooked up in say.. 1970.. they didn't need to provide billing details? Your 'secrecy of telecommuncations' that you've been prizing is nothing more than 'monitoring technology' lapsing behind communications technology (which it's only done for about the last 10-15 years or so in any case). It was always naive to think that 'the law' wasn't going to catch up.
PS: It's not 'anti-terror' lobbyists who are driving this legislation, it's commercial all the way baby. (Regardless of the way they spin it.)
Yes, but getting pissed off while playing Halo 3 is still better than getting 5 more minutes of.. oh, I dunno whatever game the PS3 has out these days. Kids won't choose a console based on anything but the games.
At EB Chatswood I watched an EB Sales dude swear to a customer that he needed the wireless network adapter to use xbox live. I probably should have said something, but.. eh.
Now that's a load of crap. I'd expect anyone going to the trouble of breaking in to a system illegally to install a root kit or create another admin account, just in case their existing method of access gets patched/reset/whatever out of existence.
After all, there's no guarantee they won't need another grade changed in 6 months time.
May I know how exactly they are going to get through my OpenBSD firewall and implant a trojan on my FreeBSD desktop? I'm a bit confused...
They broke into your house and installed it while you were out shopping? And if for whatever reason the relevant investigative organ is unable to compile a trojan for your specific OS, they'll just install a hardware keylogger or just make an image of your hard disk.
That's what Valve -want- though. They've already told these people to seek refunds through their suppliers, who in turn will get money back from Valve. They can't make it any more clear than this.
Slashdot Mirror
You dodged my question: Why would Norway and the non-OPEC countries suddenly feel obligated to sell 100% of their oil to the US when they already have existing customers who they sell to?
You have assumed that this is the case, but these countries will sell it to whoever is paying the most (or more likely they will continue to supply their existing buyers at the increased price).
How is that tinfoil hat treating you? People quite a bit cleverer than either of us have gone to a lot of trouble to address 'trust' issues in on the internet.
By the by, when you patch your OS you're trusting a site on the internet. I hope I haven't shocked you.
As I said in my other post, it's all about trust. If I trust the website, and it offers me extra security it requires no thought at all to click yes.
If I don't trust the site, I'm going to click no to installing anything regardless of features offered. (Although if you get me curious enough I might poke around and see if I can figure out what it wanted to do.)
If a reputable site is offering me 'extra security' and I accept it, that doesn't demonstrate anything about my willingness to accept malware. It just shows that I trust that reputable site.
The reason why OPEC gets to set the price of oil is that they represent the majority of the world's oil. If you like Norway can cover your countries needs (which have already been described as the largest in the world) you'd certainly be able to call your bluff.
That is, of course, assuming that Norway doesn't already have all of their oil supply committed to other countries.
Naw, I'm almost certain they're holding onto it in case the US stops by for a few million barrels a day.
The premise is flawed. Just because someone wants extra security doesn't mean they always click yes to questions. Maybe they just want extra security.
A better test would be to popup 'would you like a free ipod'. Having pointed this out, I do have to add: this is a retarded idea.
For further examples of when the 'a superpower collapses under it's own grotesque weight', please review the fall of the Soviet Union. I'm not convinced you really want that at a local level.
That was of course 'oil producing countries'. I was too busy thinking about the US people handling all that dong to correctly outline my argument.
I'm not sure what kind of crazy backwards world you're living in, but over here in reality land it's the sellers who dictate what kind of currency they get paid in.
If OPEC decided tomorrow that they were only going to accept Vietnamese Dongs as payment, your options would pretty much dwindle to:
1) Invade enough oil producing currencies to guarantee continued supply.
2) Start buying all the dong you can handle.
Not using oil certainly isn't an option for you guys, at least not for very long.
Put your money where your mouth is and stop paying ALL your taxes. Fight the power!
Food supply is absolutely a strategic resource, but there are multiple countries that can supply someone with food so it's not as critical as say.. the single provider owning your sea and airports.
Piss off a country and they might stop selling you food, but you can buy food elsewhere. Where are you going to find an alternate airport?
Yes, but those things inconvenience me. This wouldn't inconvenience me.
Ports, Airlines, etc ARE strategic resource. Imagine if China presses for some trade advantage from the US and is rebuffed. If they had the ability to go close some of your major ports, you'd be feeling the pain really quickly.
Here is your answer. The 'supply' of these people is much smaller than the 'demand'. Capitalism dictates that they will cost more.
You sound jaded. Perhaps you should try working for a company that doesn't suck. I've worked in companies where managers actually earn their pay and have skills beyond 'not being good enough to do tech work' and it sounds like a much better place to be in than your company.
If you're asking this question here, I think you might have stumbled across slashdot on your way to teamleaderdot. Technical jobs are generally more enjoyable with far less responsibilities outside of your control. ie: In a tech job your responsibility might be: "Write a function that does X", or "Fix this broken server". In a manager job your responsibility might be "Find a way to lower your rework rate for your team of 150 staff by 7% by the end of the quarter."
If they both paid the same amount, why would you take the job with the harder goals?
By definition, the CEO has to pay more than the job below it, otherwise there is no motivation to get people to take the job.
ie: Why would I leave my 100K tech job, to become a team leader unless it pays more.
Why would I leave my cushy team leader job to take a managers job with additional responsibility?
Why would I take HIS managers job, with even more responsibility (including legal responsibility for company performance if you go high enough) if it doesn't pay more money than what I could earn for doing the easy no-risk tech job.
PS: It's not 'anti-terror' lobbyists who are driving this legislation, it's commercial all the way baby. (Regardless of the way they spin it.)
Involved in Iraq? World Trade Centre?
Yes, but getting pissed off while playing Halo 3 is still better than getting 5 more minutes of .. oh, I dunno whatever game the PS3 has out these days. Kids won't choose a console based on anything but the games.
At EB Chatswood I watched an EB Sales dude swear to a customer that he needed the wireless network adapter to use xbox live. I probably should have said something, but.. eh.
Now that's a load of crap. I'd expect anyone going to the trouble of breaking in to a system illegally to install a root kit or create another admin account, just in case their existing method of access gets patched/reset/whatever out of existence.
After all, there's no guarantee they won't need another grade changed in 6 months time.
They broke into your house and installed it while you were out shopping? And if for whatever reason the relevant investigative organ is unable to compile a trojan for your specific OS, they'll just install a hardware keylogger or just make an image of your hard disk.
That's what Valve -want- though. They've already told these people to seek refunds through their suppliers, who in turn will get money back from Valve. They can't make it any more clear than this.
Can you actually quote a specific law that they're breaking? Plenty of products can be disabled at the will of the vendor.