They understand that people are generally lazy, willfully ignorant, and self interested, which is 90% of what it takes to be successful. The other 10% is either adding value to society by helping people overcome their weaknesses, or else being a dick enough to use people's weaknesses against them. (Not actually mutually exclusive in some cases -- art adds value to society, but the way art is typically marketed probably does not.)
At any rate, it's a business decision. Auto makers could sell EVs at a loss until economies of scale kick in and make them profitable, but "success" in selling EVs would actually be a problem: The power grid is in no way capable of supporting mass adoption of EVs. Where tiered pricing is possible or existent, prices for daytime power would necessarily skyrocket and people could only afford to charge at night. In other areas, there would be blackouts or brownouts under the demand. Suddenly nobody would want to be stuck with the limitations of their EV, the market would fall out, and they'd be right back where they started. For successful deployment, we need to build out our electrical infrastructure in conjunction with EV adoption. But in some of the most populous areas, where EVs hold the most potential, new plants are barely keeping up with existing demand, let alone future demand. And since it takes years to get plants online and powering the grid, the time to start was 5-10 years ago, so we're already way behind.
Really, flamebait? The only wait it would invite flaming is if people are reacting emotionally rather than rationally. Read beyond the first paragraph and get to the point of my post, and the point of the problem with ethics in public service. I don't care about Chris Dodd in any way whatsoever, but whether or not he goes to jail has 0 impact on the influence of moneyed interests in politics. It's the wrong thing to focus on.
If you're referring to interaction (which is really the only thing lacking from a properly produced video), well lectures, by definition, are not Q&A sessions. It's only a poor lecture that requires questions form the audience, usually because the lecturer glossed over a point or made a mistake. Video allows these weaknesses to be corrected in editing, and with feedback they can get *better* over time rather than requiring a perfect delivery every time.
It's a pretty safe bet that the class wouldn't have 100k people in it if it cost $100. These courses are most useful for people without the means to obtain traditional education, and of course the audience will diminish after initial demand is met.
First of all, threatening violence is NOT constitutionally protected speech. If the other person has a reasonable belief that the words represent a likelihood of violence, then it's assault. And that's an entirely reasonable belief when dealing with groups of adolescents who have not yet learned the boundaries of acceptable behavior (some of whom may never learn).
That said, I don't think this is a symptom of "Christian lynch mobs," but of high school bullying and the social pressure to go along with what peers are saying and doing. Not that that excuses anything, obviously, but it's a somewhat different problem that's particular to the microcosm of high school.
Seriously, he's just a symptom, not the cause. The only thing that prosecuting or censuring him will do is remind other elected representatives to be more clandestine in their dealings. It's like saying "it's ok to peddle your loyalty to the highest bidders, just don't be open about it."
What we should be outraged at is that we allow a system where this can and does happen. And what we need is an overhaul of the legislative process so that it *can't* happen, or at least not in enough quantity to matter.
One possibility is a system similar to the White House petitions, where proposed legislation be posted for everyone to see for 30 days before it could be voted on, and any legislation which reaches a critical threshold of public interest could only be passed by referendum. True, some legislation would fail to generate interest until after it was passed, but if repeals could be publicly submitted and subjected to the same thresholds of public interest, it would be relatively easy to abolish laws that aren't working (as it should be).
combat the really bad stuff that the evolution of these virii WILL produce at some point.
May produce at some point.
In all likelihood all of the combinations that these scientists come up with already exist somewhere.
Not necessarily. Just because they can achieve given results in a laboratory setting doesn't mean it would ever occur in nature on a reasonable timescale.
And moreover, what are the benefits of producing such a pathogen? It's completely reasonable to discuss the risk/reward involved, and very small risks with very large consequences should not be ignored.
If you're using file storage/replication services as a backup, then you have the originals. The point of a backup is that you can lose either of the copies and still have another. That's relevant whether it's the original that goes up in flames, or the backup.
If you're these services as the sole-source for storage, then you're doing it just as wrongly as if you used a single local storage device, or else the data isn't important enough to worry about losing.
"I don't care about the question of a god's existence" (atheism).
No, it's not.
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
At best there is explicit atheism (intentional rejection of theism) and implicit atheism (having no knowledge of theism), but not caring about the question is not the definition. A consequence, perhaps, but not the defining characteristic. Whether or not you care about the question is orthogonal to whether or not you believe the question can be answered, which is to say it exists regardless of what the answer is. I'm sure there are theists who also don't care about the question, for example, but for very different reasons.
A) If God exists, and is omniscient, then he knows some people won't be convinced without indisputable evidence. B) If he's omnipotent, then he has the power to provide that evidence. C) And if he's benevolent, then he would provide that evidence.
The fact that he doesn't provide such evidence means that he's lacking in one of those three traits. It doesn't matter which one really: he either can't change things, or doesn't care enough to do so.
And why perform cheap parlor tricks anyway? Fully populate Mars with macroscopic life overnight (or hey, 7 days would be impressive too). Make rain fall up. Factor the product of large primes. Provide a time-limited trial version of Heaven for people to explore. Something...
That's the reality of streetwalkers; not so much anything outside of that, or in areas where it's legalized. Anyway, my point was that there's no unanimous agreement that we should dedicate ever more resources to combating piracy.
today's action by the DoJ was basically a big "fuck you" to due process and working within the system.
How so? They convened a grand jury to look at the evidence, then got warrants, and now they're filing charges. That IS due process. I'm suspect about whether or not the evidence is genuine, but I haven't seen it and neither have you, so it's way too early to say whether or not this was a legitimate action.
It's like protesting the TSA by putting bombs in your luggage.
Not really. I think this behavior is counterproductive, but it's not like they're replicating the behavior meant to be stopped by SOPA/PIPA by any means.
Megaupload profited from work that was not their own.
By that logic, download.com and sourceforge should be shut down too. Of course they actually profited by providing a service, not by selling a work as their own.
I'd like to know how they speak for everybody. Piracy might be illegal and immoral (the same could be said of prostitution), but I can state unequivocally that not everybody thinks we need to wage a war against it.
Slashdot Mirror
Nonsense. If it was incompatible with physics, cars would flip end over end during hard braking.
Normal ride: ||
Braking: \\
Slippery road: =
The 1% do not understand the 99%.
They understand that people are generally lazy, willfully ignorant, and self interested, which is 90% of what it takes to be successful. The other 10% is either adding value to society by helping people overcome their weaknesses, or else being a dick enough to use people's weaknesses against them. (Not actually mutually exclusive in some cases -- art adds value to society, but the way art is typically marketed probably does not.)
At any rate, it's a business decision. Auto makers could sell EVs at a loss until economies of scale kick in and make them profitable, but "success" in selling EVs would actually be a problem: The power grid is in no way capable of supporting mass adoption of EVs. Where tiered pricing is possible or existent, prices for daytime power would necessarily skyrocket and people could only afford to charge at night. In other areas, there would be blackouts or brownouts under the demand. Suddenly nobody would want to be stuck with the limitations of their EV, the market would fall out, and they'd be right back where they started. For successful deployment, we need to build out our electrical infrastructure in conjunction with EV adoption. But in some of the most populous areas, where EVs hold the most potential, new plants are barely keeping up with existing demand, let alone future demand. And since it takes years to get plants online and powering the grid, the time to start was 5-10 years ago, so we're already way behind.
Really, flamebait? The only wait it would invite flaming is if people are reacting emotionally rather than rationally. Read beyond the first paragraph and get to the point of my post, and the point of the problem with ethics in public service. I don't care about Chris Dodd in any way whatsoever, but whether or not he goes to jail has 0 impact on the influence of moneyed interests in politics. It's the wrong thing to focus on.
If you're referring to interaction (which is really the only thing lacking from a properly produced video), well lectures, by definition, are not Q&A sessions. It's only a poor lecture that requires questions form the audience, usually because the lecturer glossed over a point or made a mistake. Video allows these weaknesses to be corrected in editing, and with feedback they can get *better* over time rather than requiring a perfect delivery every time.
It's a pretty safe bet that the class wouldn't have 100k people in it if it cost $100. These courses are most useful for people without the means to obtain traditional education, and of course the audience will diminish after initial demand is met.
That post went from coherent to rambling nonsense faster than a sorority girl on 10 cent pitcher night.
there are lots of fine atheist countries whose population is against gay marriage.
Citation needed.
First of all, threatening violence is NOT constitutionally protected speech. If the other person has a reasonable belief that the words represent a likelihood of violence, then it's assault. And that's an entirely reasonable belief when dealing with groups of adolescents who have not yet learned the boundaries of acceptable behavior (some of whom may never learn).
That said, I don't think this is a symptom of "Christian lynch mobs," but of high school bullying and the social pressure to go along with what peers are saying and doing. Not that that excuses anything, obviously, but it's a somewhat different problem that's particular to the microcosm of high school.
Seriously, he's just a symptom, not the cause. The only thing that prosecuting or censuring him will do is remind other elected representatives to be more clandestine in their dealings. It's like saying "it's ok to peddle your loyalty to the highest bidders, just don't be open about it."
What we should be outraged at is that we allow a system where this can and does happen. And what we need is an overhaul of the legislative process so that it *can't* happen, or at least not in enough quantity to matter.
One possibility is a system similar to the White House petitions, where proposed legislation be posted for everyone to see for 30 days before it could be voted on, and any legislation which reaches a critical threshold of public interest could only be passed by referendum. True, some legislation would fail to generate interest until after it was passed, but if repeals could be publicly submitted and subjected to the same thresholds of public interest, it would be relatively easy to abolish laws that aren't working (as it should be).
combat the really bad stuff that the evolution of these virii WILL produce at some point.
May produce at some point.
In all likelihood all of the combinations that these scientists come up with already exist somewhere.
Not necessarily. Just because they can achieve given results in a laboratory setting doesn't mean it would ever occur in nature on a reasonable timescale.
And moreover, what are the benefits of producing such a pathogen? It's completely reasonable to discuss the risk/reward involved, and very small risks with very large consequences should not be ignored.
If you're using file storage/replication services as a backup, then you have the originals. The point of a backup is that you can lose either of the copies and still have another. That's relevant whether it's the original that goes up in flames, or the backup.
If you're these services as the sole-source for storage, then you're doing it just as wrongly as if you used a single local storage device, or else the data isn't important enough to worry about losing.
"I don't care about the question of a god's existence" (atheism).
No, it's not.
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
At best there is explicit atheism (intentional rejection of theism) and implicit atheism (having no knowledge of theism), but not caring about the question is not the definition. A consequence, perhaps, but not the defining characteristic. Whether or not you care about the question is orthogonal to whether or not you believe the question can be answered, which is to say it exists regardless of what the answer is. I'm sure there are theists who also don't care about the question, for example, but for very different reasons.
A) If God exists, and is omniscient, then he knows some people won't be convinced without indisputable evidence.
B) If he's omnipotent, then he has the power to provide that evidence.
C) And if he's benevolent, then he would provide that evidence.
The fact that he doesn't provide such evidence means that he's lacking in one of those three traits. It doesn't matter which one really: he either can't change things, or doesn't care enough to do so.
And why perform cheap parlor tricks anyway? Fully populate Mars with macroscopic life overnight (or hey, 7 days would be impressive too). Make rain fall up. Factor the product of large primes. Provide a time-limited trial version of Heaven for people to explore. Something...
Atheism isn't a NOP, that's agnosticism. Atheists actually assert that there is no God, which is frankly as ridiculous as arguing that there is a God.
That's the reality of streetwalkers; not so much anything outside of that, or in areas where it's legalized. Anyway, my point was that there's no unanimous agreement that we should dedicate ever more resources to combating piracy.
today's action by the DoJ was basically a big "fuck you" to due process and working within the system.
How so? They convened a grand jury to look at the evidence, then got warrants, and now they're filing charges. That IS due process. I'm suspect about whether or not the evidence is genuine, but I haven't seen it and neither have you, so it's way too early to say whether or not this was a legitimate action.
Mainly because you can't boycott their closest friend, the DoJ.
It's like protesting the TSA by putting bombs in your luggage.
Not really. I think this behavior is counterproductive, but it's not like they're replicating the behavior meant to be stopped by SOPA/PIPA by any means.
I wonder if you really could write it off?
Income: $1B
Loss from piracy: $2B
Tax incentives please!
Anonymous claims to have taken down DOJ and MPAA sites in response.
http://www.theverge.com/2012/1/19/2719527/anonymous-claims-doj-and-record-label-site-takedowns-in-response-to
Megaupload profited from work that was not their own.
By that logic, download.com and sourceforge should be shut down too. Of course they actually profited by providing a service, not by selling a work as their own.
It's the top story on Google News, at least for me.
I'd like to know how they speak for everybody. Piracy might be illegal and immoral (the same could be said of prostitution), but I can state unequivocally that not everybody thinks we need to wage a war against it.
Sure, except then you get to experience extraordinary rendition instead of extradition.