How about the award for the Media for about the past decade?
They didn't start to give crappy, over-hyped reports on Katrina -- they actually somewhat improved reporting for a brief moment. But News Reporters follow "stories" not truth, not justice, not anything but what makes the best "story."
And don't feel left out that they didn't report White Misery -- yes, In know there are other place besides New Orleans -- but you are talking about a media that spent about 3 months in Aruba chasing down one white girl. If you had wanted coverage, you would have had to run around in large, naked groups with funny hats. Just getting killed doesn't count.
So, insipid, useless infotainment driven by PR flacks is the norm in News today. Screaming about the travails of a minority occasionally does nothing to upset the status quo.
And it is pretty obvious to me that the Weathermen over hype any bad weather. That's why it's so hard for people to decide whether to evacuate or not -- because any Hurricane will admonishments about the last group who didn't heed the weathermen. Nothing makes a weather persons day than to interrupt regularly scheduled programming with a weather alert. The only News here is that the News Service has been dead for some time.
Re:Here's a really good foot in mouth story...
on
2005 Foot In Mouth Awards
·
· Score: 2, Informative
The interesting thing was not that the FBI "visited a student" but that they COULD visit a student. The provisions of the Patriot Acts allow for this scenario. Citizens who are Pro-Liberty somehow have to get everything right when every act by Homeland Security can be made secret? All we can do is speculate because much of the real news of this day is not covered by the Main Stream Media.
So, a story was debunked and we can all rest our little heads -- nothing to see. I don't even know if this student existed -- how can any of us do anything but speculate?
You may be all gung ho about giving up our Constitution, but I'm not. No, people will not be "disappeared" -- not until all the rights of the citizen are gone. Proof of the abuse of the Patriot Act is not the reason it should be shredded. The Possibility of this Abuse is the reason the Patriot Act should be shredded and any politician who votes for such a power grab again should be looking for other areas of employment.
I've always suspected that Microsoft has often "borrowed" from others when it came to programming. That's why I don't think they'd ever release the code for some of their "legacy" applications -- too many skeletons in the closet.
Njyoder, Why would you need an RFID to help with a recall? You could use a plain old bar code. Plus, this design seems to be more robust for "distance" reading.
I don't like the moves towards making dissent impossible. What can we do to change a crooked government after there is no more anonymous action? Think about that. If you know everything I do, you can make my life miserable, without me being able to prove it. You can extort and intimidate everyone.
I like the idea of Gamma ray detectors. But I would prefer real and open investigations into 9/11. Planes flying around at their whim for an Hour and a half waiting to hit a building is a bit much for me to swallow. It all comes back to that for me--sorry to ruin my post with a conspiracy theory--but we are talking about real conspiracy data here. You cannot trust the government NOT to abuse a capability. If the RFID tags can be used to track people the WILL be used to track people.
I was reading about a new requirement that all cell phones made after January, 2006 must have a GPS chip in them -- ostensibly to provide 911 service, but I'm sure, mostly to provide location of the user. The chip is not required to provide GPS service usage to the user.
In Gulf War I, I was watching a news program that talked about how the Laser Printers had chips in them that, when hit by a satellite signal, would identify the location of the device. This was used to target "command centers" -- but probably, just places where someone had some computers. My more cynical nature now wonders how everyone getting killed is an insurgent.
Anyway, the efforts to track everything are coming along nicely. I am somehow more troubled by the ability to halt all crime than I am by crime itself. I suppose I'd feel differently after I was blown up -- but you see how difficult it would be for me to learn that lesson?
I think google was saying they were using this to survey or respond in an automated manner. They are just saying; "User 171 likes gadgets, score them +3 for our Google adwords on "Gadgets" " and things like that.
It depends upon if they create a "firewall" between collected data and targeted data and how anonymous they keep the user. That does require a bit of trust -- but it also can provide a better service. So far, I think Google has been walking this line well.
Evil would be using a dominant market position or money and lawyers to quell the innovation of a competitor -- rather than just out-innovating and competing on merit.
Lobbying congress to create barriers to entry, or to create undue privileges that only benefit your own company.
Destroying, harming or slandering others.
Selling information about people to third parties -- or using gathered information in a way that the user would not want (meaning, ask, and allow people to opt out at any time).
So far, I haven't seen anything overtly evil from Google. Compare this to (obvious example coming up...) Microsoft. Oh, and that reminds me, announcing vaporware products that resemble competitors and using your dominant position to then undermine the competitor and then buying the stock of company at a discount. Obviously, the vaporware then disappears.
Well, Free speech applies to government -- not private institutions. I agree, with some qualifications.
But the question I have that is not clear in the story, is; was Mr. Blogger operating in an anonymous way, or in a way where he was representing himself and not the University. Did he have a reasonable expectation of independence?"
While, if he were on campus and behaved in an unruly manner -- that is effecting the campus. If he were at a function and said; "I represent Marquette, and they suck." That's another issue of damaging the University. Or he could have slandered people -- which I'm not clear on the law with regard to Blogs.
People are still private citizens and not owned by the companies or organizations they join. If they are using the property or in the "domain" of the institution, I think those institutions have a right to censure or dictate conduct standards as long as they are consistent.
However, if Mr. Blogger had told somebody this information and they had made these comments that "so and so told me this dirt about the Marquette" -- the University could do nothing. The same effect either way. If the required privileged information on Mr. Blogger in order to invade his expectation of privacy, then they have also violated his civil rights. If Marquette found out about this by easily obtained public knowledge, then they have not violated his right to privacy.
I think it is vital that whistle blowers and public discourse be maintained. Institutions do not have rights. They can only operate in such a manner to build a reputation and they can hire PR people to make them look good. There is no damage or slander in my mind -- even though this concept has been established in the courts. The courts though, are out of whack with the concept of personally liberty -- so screw 'em. I don't want business running government anyway.
Whether they find the comments good or bad is not material. They can only have influence over things in their province; on their campus or equipment. I think it is dangerous to say that someone can own the "mind" of anyone. An employee cannot shout obscenities while at their business. On their own time, they can act badly as long as their is no connection to the company. If they criticize a company, they cannot appear as an official and they should try to remain anonymous, unless they want to expose themselves to the prerogatives of the institution.
Of course, I'm just looking at what is good for America -- not necessarily at the mess our Oligarchic Judiciary is becoming.
--Oh, one more thing. Due to the Government money that is now streaming in to many religious organizations, the separation of church and state has been broken in many cases. This University must forgo ALL GOVERNMENT MONEY OR SUBSIDIES if they want the privilege of censuring this student. It is the exact same thing. They are giving money to a student (a scholarship) based upon merit. The government probably does give money to Marquette based on some criteria of Merit. Even though this is, on the bare face of it, totally against anything the constitution provided for, even with the flimsy justifications for government money to religious institutions, the government cannot choose a Catholic institution in favor of one that is Protestant. Or choose a behavior it doesn't like, like asking parishioners to vote Democratic if it allows other church's to urge members to vote Republican (as has happened recently).
You can't get government money without representing the government -- just as Marquette is claiming that their subsidy of Mr. Blogger means that he is representing them.
Well, Free speech applies to government -- not private institutions.
But the question I have that is not clear in the story, is; was Mr. Blogger operating in an anonymous way, or in a way where he was representing himself and not the University. Did he have a reasonable expectation of independence?"
While, if he were on campus and behaved in an unruly manner -- that is effecting the campus. If he were at a function and said; "I represent Marquette, and they suck." That's another issue of damaging the University. Or he could have slandered people -- which I'm not clear on the law with regard to Blogs.
People are still private citizens and not owned by the companies or organizations they join. If they are using the property or in the "domain" of the institution, I think those institutions have a right to censure or dictate conduct standards as long as they are consistent.
However, if Mr. Blogger had told somebody this information and they had made these comments that "so and so told me this dirt about the Marquette" -- the University could do nothing. The same effect either way. If the required privileged information on Mr. Blogger in order to invade his expectation of privacy, then they have also violated his civil rights. If Marquette found out about this by easily obtained public knowledge, then they have not violated his right to privacy.
I think it is vital that whistle blowers and public discourse be maintained. Institutions do not have rights. They can only operate in such a manner to build a reputation and they can hire PR people to make them look good. There is no damage or slander in my mind -- even though this concept has been established in the courts. The courts though, are out of whack with the concept of personally liberty -- so screw 'em. I don't want business running government anyway.
Whether they find the comments good or bad is not material. They can only have influence over things in their province; on their campus or equipment. I think it is dangerous to say that someone can own the "mind" of anyone. An employee cannot shout obscenities while at their business. On their own time, they can act badly as long as their is no connection to the company. If they criticize a company, they cannot appear as an official and they should try to remain anonymous, unless they want to expose themselves to the prerogatives of the institution.
Of course, I'm just looking at what is good for America -- not necessarily at the mess our Oligarchic Judiciary is becoming.
I don't this will sell out to Studios -- but it will sell to enthusiasts and entertainers. The effects of this sub-subwoofer could really add some thrills.
Even if music isn't shipped with audio below 20Hz, you can still add in a simple "bass assist" that looks at the frequencies between 40Hz and 20Hz and then "assists them" by pumping a complementary sound at 20Hz to.1Hz.
I would be concerned, however, about the health effects. I thought I read that the Germans has experimented with a sound weapon during WWII. A steady 8Hz frequency could cause human brains to rattle in our heads -- much the same way as yodeling splatters Martian brains.
I'm sure a lot of "entrepreneurial thieves" buy whole lists of Social Security Numbers. I've had a con call up about once every year for three years, pretending to be from a collection agency "trying to clear up a matter". He tells me my wife's social security number and wants me to verify it, with an old address. I tell him, that the number is almost right, but the address is wrong. Of course, he tries a few more veiled threats and calls every time to get more info -- this just leads me to believe that he is looking for a home address so that he can open an account in her name. He probably has a SSN and a name, but the name is pretty common so he is trying to place her with a list of about 10 addresses in the state-- you get the idea.
Think about how many people have had access to your SSN -- at school, medical, financial, anywhere you got credit, utility and phone companies, even video stores... etc. So, of all those places, there is at least one or more minimum wage/disgruntled workers who have access to a gold mine in accounts (not that low pay makes it more likely -- just the relative value). I've heard so many stories of really big companies losing databases of customer data -- and those are what you've heard about. I would think, that like 90% of everyone has their SSN available to crooks by now. They are just cherry-picking and using the data at their whim. Identity theft for any of us just depends on when our Name + SSN + Residence is most easy for the crook. So, I don't think this whole issue of "what can people do without the SSN" is what you should worry about. It is; when will they get around to using yours.
My suggestion is that we make the SSN a relatively public ID -- but with a private key available only to the person and a government ID agency. The Government Identification Agency would merely verify to any vender, service or institution, that you are who you say you are.
Anyway, this problem won't go away until a few Senators have the problem or the Financial Institutions lose too much money.
I was thinking similar thoughts -- that creating the Non-"oxidized" metal would take more energy than the system was worth. What we want are systems that take LESS energy and are more efficient-- just taking oil out of the equation or burning a lot more of it at another location for a non-optimal solution doesn't really help us.
However, could it be possible that they REPLACE oxygen with Hydrogen -- and this is why they use combustion rather than an electric/battery process like Air-Metal? Perhaps in pressurized, or cold, or in the presence of a noble gas, 8 hydrogen atoms could substitute for One Oxygen? That might be a useful breakthrough--though I don't have the background to know if that were feasible.
But more than likely, it is more snake oil. When you have a population where over 60% think the earth is less than 10,000 years old -- you have a population you can convince of a lot of things.
By the way, the theory I thought made sense with the Hindenburg, was that it was a static discharge that caused the ignition of the Hydrogen. The metal blades on the propellers pushing through the moist air can create a helluva static buildup. This is why Coast Guard Helicopters will often drop a metal cable to the water first before attempting a rescue (especially during rainy conditions), because the blades churning in the rain can create a tremendous charge (at least, I think that's what I saw in a movie once...). Your point is made about Hydrogen, however, because as bad as the accident looked, only about 16 people (if memory serves) actually died -- and most due to falling. Hydrogen burns fast and "UP" -- i'd feel safer with that than a Sodium or Magnesium fire (think about underwater flares).
This concerns me a bit more than the obvious humor. Either the administration can't take a joke (hint; they can't take a joke) or the are muzzling free expression by applying VALUES to icons. The only issue with the Seal is when it is used to show endorsement -- i.e., the Presidential Seal means it has some official status of the president. But the Seal is not an entity and has no value in and of itself.
This is sort of similar, to another ridiculous use of Police power; The Wall Street Journal has a recent article about the arrest of a man wearing and Elmo outfit. There had been some issue of the past of "entrepreneurs" in Hollywood dressing up as various famous characters and "harassing" citizens for photos. Maybe they were harassing, or maybe it was like the "astro turf" grass roots campaign that got all excited about the wardrobe incident with Ms. Jackson (like 99% of the letters to the FCC came from a bought and paid for organization with two members, who have done nothing but similar complaint letters so that the FCC could come down on unwholesome events (read not corporate) -- I digress).
The problem I have with the "Elmo" arrest. Is that it might have had a point if it was just based on harassment. But this was based on abusing the "Elmo copyright". This man paid for the suit -- or made the suit. Now, somebody owns the "Elmo Image". But I also see this as a slippery slope. What is next, a person gets arrested for crushing a soda can because the "abused the Coke trademark"?
Similar, are all the bills at many states that want the language of the "fetus" to be changed to un-born Baby.
It sure is nice that "person-hood" is such an aspiration these days. We have "rights" for businesses, that somehow translate to taxpayers bailing out oil companies to rebuild refineries (that hadn't been upgraded for 30 years) in the gulf states -- nice charity to guarantee profits for the most profitable of industries. We are calling cells and tissue people. We are going to give values status to presidential seals and flags.
Just keep adding to that list; if objects and corporations and the anthropomorphism du jour all get "person" status -- doesn't that dilute the rights and the value towards actual people? Is the Presidential Seal getting its feeling hurt? Or is that the President getting his feeling hurt and using the power of his office to enact restitution? Or is it following the theme of a Police State where people are sharing rights or even secondary to profits and PR?
I wouldn't be so worried if it didn't come from the Pro-Police State crooks in Washington.
Hey, I never said Arnold couldn't say anything -- just that repenting might make him less of a hypocrite.
By all means, talk all you like. But, there isn't much history or statistics to support this course. Removing violent video games will have a close to ZERO effect of violence. Violence is done mostly by kids who are out on the streets being ignored by adults, not kiddies shooting aliens on a PSP. Societies that display far less violence and have far less restriction on sex and violence than the US. You have a better correlation between the percentage of religious people in a society and violence than you do with video games -- we don't hear anyone suggesting we get rid of churches, do we?
I wasn't being coy about diets in schools. There is a huge relationship with sugar and violence. I seen studies on diets in prisons and in schools that show at least an 80% drop in aggressive actions when sugar is restricted. If people want to argue this nonsense while ignoring proven sources of violence -- then it is just an opportunity to pose for those who get all hot and bothered when someone says "family values".
Arnold Swazeneggar got the Macho vote, now he wants to pretend to have morals. Is it that quick and easy to get credentials? Just whine about the same old beaten dead horse nonsense?
If you weren't so ignorant about psycology you would know...
Psycology is a science now?
The tests I've seen have shown that heart rate and testosterone levels increase right after seeing violent images. People at these elevated rates of excitement are more likely to respond violently.
The effect reduces quickly, however, and it's inconclusive if the overall level of violent behavior increases or decreases.
Little kids will start hitting you -- quite often, after seeing fighting in a cartoon. If you can explain it to them and get them to not do it -- you can get them to be more responsible about it.
But, I'm not really arguing with you-- just with your statement that "psychology" had any definitive position on the issue.
Heck, I hope in twenty years, we still have kids healthy enough to get in fights -- instead of overweight, asthmatic wimps.
If there is any big issue, it would be with gang violence. Often these kids come from single parent or two over-worked parent homes where their is little parental involvement. I was just talking to a police officer who deals mainly with gang violence. But, we can't just change these parents by making lofty moral comments or more severe criminal punishments. Realisticly, these kids are societies problem.
Society has chosen to ignore these kids. There aren't many places for kids to hang out and be kids that isn't going to cost parents time and money. Since we already know these parents won't or can't be part of the solution, we need to find something (and pay for it) for these kids to do. Otherwise they are going to be hanging out in prisons and costing us a lot more.
The problems with gangs goes beyond the statistics we might see. This is creating a new culture not part of society and disenfranchisement. I also would be concerned about statistics. There is a built in political incentive to "reduce the number" of crimes reported. So, where I don't "feel" teen violence is getting worse -- I don't know if the reported rate is in line with the real rate of crime.
Wait, is this Arnold Swarzennegar we are talking too?
Unless he repents all his movies -- which were mostly aimed at the same kids this bill is designed to "protect" -- isn't there a mental disconnect?
I saw "Collateral Damage" -- and it was "sorta fun". But this violence filled fantasy has nothing practical about solving societies ills, other than the timeless virtue of killing a few innocent bystanders as long as you "get the bad guy".
Anyway, I'll agree with everyone saying "parents".... but we can't control everything a kid comes in contact with. The current games are labelled (which just means they sell better). But I just look back on how violent people were before TV and video games and have to wonder why the world wasn't cured of all evil back then.
If people really want to reduce violence, then they'd be better off improving kids diets in the schools. Perhaps giving courses on conflict resolution. And, paradoxically, martial arts or fight training. People who feel threatened, angry, or weak will get more violent. I don't see how a video game would change this other than in the most empty life.
I remember when I hit bottom. This lady was trying to cheer me up, she said something like; "don't feel bad, things will get better, it isn't something so important to worry about."
I told her off in the harshest way. Which I don't ever remember having done before. I realized later, that part of the reason I was afraid to let go of my depression, was that it was also part of my identity. I thought in terms of my scars and the stories they told. It's no wonder in religion they talk about being re-born. But really, it is like death. Are we the same people that we were as ten? Would we recognize that person? If we are or aren't the same person -- which is the bigger trajedy.
It was like, this lady was calling me stupid. That I would choose to be down. I don't think I chose, anything -- my dad was depressed and hyper-critical (not anything earth-shattering, but still, how does a kid overcome how his parents make him feel?).
The only thing you take with you today, from what was yesterday, is your memories and some chemistry. If you "know" what you should do, and understand and are OK with who you are...... then the rest isn't a matter to be "figured out".
But, we still have bad habits. If you were your own dad -- would you be proud of you? I think so. Make that kid happy -- he deserves to be. What you may find a flaw, someone else can describe as personality. That's about the best thing I can leave you with.
"starfishsystems" That is the main problem with Monopoly power -- it can become indistinguishable from Extortion.
Try being a startup by providing computer solutions OTHER than Microsoft. It used to be a pretty hard-sell. I don't know about the current market. But as much as I was trying to be funny, I think I hit on what was really bothering me about "Microsoft" charging for "protection". Of course, other platforms build it in -- so they have to charge.
But, at least the consumer needs to factor in a better idea of "real costs" in owning a computer. Windows PCs have a low cost of entry. However, it ends up being about $220 a month per employee at my company when you add up the network license, exchange client access, support, proxy and virus protection. Possibly a lot more than that figure that I don't know about. On the Macs, there aren't any of those fees -- except the exorbitant exchange client fee, and the MS software charge for every computer -- whether it uses MS software or not.
The concept of taxing labor wages I would imagine, would be about the biggest economic sin to the Founding Fathers.
When you work, you are trading your labor in exchange for money/goods/whatever; you are engaging in trade, and so your income is susceptible to excise/tarrif whatever you want to call it.
See if you can spot where the topic was changed? Government can do and justify whatever the hell it wants to do -- as long as we let them. If they want to tie you over a barrel and cornhole you, I'm sure an advocate can find a passage to make it legal. What, in Neptunes seven seas, has this got to do with Ownership vs. Labor?
If businesses have no right to profit, then niether do individuals. Obviously, I'm being mistaken for a Commi-Hippy absolutist because I suggest a change in what we tax. Can anyone actually read a sentence and comprehend it, or do we just talk to ourselves? Don't answer that, it was an internal dialog...;-)
I wasn't arguing if the government had the right to tax -- if you have a gun and the courts, it's the golden rule. I was referring to the concept of taxes on ownership verses taxes on labor. I am saying that we should move the taxes on work, to re-balance towards taxes on wealth.
Supply-side economics is wrong, because it assumes the world is supply-limited. I made this point in an earlier post -- more than 50% of our economy is comprised of services, information, and financing (whether insurance or credit care, etc.,). So, supply-side is a theory based upon the industrial age -- about 50 years or more out of date.
The battle between mercantilists and capitalists was one of the first big debates of the early US. Its pretty moot now since much of the logic espoused by you (and mercantilists), is based on there being a gold standard (one finite amount of wealth). Luckily, our currency is no longer backed by a finite natural resource. Its backed by human labor. The more people working whether manufacturing or providing services, the more money can be printed without lessening the value of the pool of money. I did not base my debate on the gold standard. We went off the Gold standard to pay for a war we couldn't afford (what else is new) that was unpopular -- rather than raise taxes to pay for it. Whether the fantasy figures we use now to keep score are valid or not is up for debate -- however, with a gold standard, they aren't up for debate -- so what could I say? I'd rather not get into this aspect of it. Suffice to say, that a dollar's value is effected by trade balances and how much currency is printed. When the government prints money, it is effectively taxing you without your knowledge by diminishing the value of the dollar you have. Talk to me in two years if you still think this is a good idea -- me, I'm buying gold and silver (may come in handy pretty soon).
It's backed by human labor. No, money is backed by a line of credit, which could have been factored from a deposit, based on an investment, or invented out of thin air. When the government decides to print money -- what is that based on?
But I'm not talking about fiscal policy -- I'm talking about what we should be taxing. Quit trying to define my argument. I don't know if you are obtuse or just switching to a more comfortable subject. The point I'm making doesn't need to be historical or religious or fiscal... it is what it is. I am simply saying that anyone who works, should have a decent living FIRST, and then we should let people with a lot of assets build wealth. The system we have now protects or in some cases guarantees wealth building, and the common good of the worker is the first thing it is OK to sacrifice.
The current economic situation is unsustainable. Money begets money, and work will beget debt. "Erixxxx" made this comment; In a village full of lazy fat people who all own widgets, the man carrying people accross the street on his back is creating more value (wealth) than the man who makes widgets. Why the "village of fat, laxy people?" The guy carrying everybody is only getting "wealth" if he gets paid. Everyone who works creates some value -- wheather that results in wealth (money) is a different issue. Let's not get into the "people are poor by choice" discussion. Yes, people make choices good and bad -- but I could choose to buy gold and someone else 100 shares of WalMart. In America, a "choice" like that can mean the difference between retiring or working at WalMart. So, the person who doesn't make the right choice is always lazy? I make more money than you do, does that mean I add more value and I am smarter? Please, I don't want an answer to that -- let's stay off that topic.
That's like saying Tom DeLays proof of innocence based on how many times he has been indicted.
The repeated accusations are only a sign of repetition. Or frustration. Or a conspiracy to accuse.
So the fact that Microsoft has most of the viruses and trojans and security failures and Tom DeLay has most of the benefits of corporate donations that somehow fell into his hands is not necessarily proof of guilt.
But it isn't completely lame. Completely lame is saying "how could this be significant if people have been saying it for ten years" as if you were making a point. Now that, is completely lame.
I'm not bashing MS by comparisons to DeLay -- just the absurdity of the comment.
I think it would be more honest for Microsoft to make a secure, reliable OS, and then send you notices every month to sent them $10 or you operating system will self-destruct. This would end some of the confusion and people would know what they were spending their money on. It would also save taxpayers from having to hire FBI agents to track down hackers. Just pay Microsoft their protection money, and nothing bad will happen.
The big expense is in all this wasteful pretense... We have the best OS and you must buy it. Customer purchases "the best OS that you just gotta have if you want the slightest chance of being employed or not made fun of at parties." Customer gets online, gets info stolen, computer breaks and needs repair and files need to be recovered --lost work and productivity ensues. Virus company product purchased. Virus company bounty pays hacker to produce new variant. Spam company pays hacker for new zombie trojan. Customer gets online, gets info stolen, computer breaks and needs repair and files need to be recovered --lost work and productivity ensues. Customer upgrades Virus software to "professional version" and installs firewall product/service based on the advice of an expensive consultant. Customer has spent two weeks becoming painfully educated and feels stupid and ashamed. Full employment is promoted.
Often, because we are squeamish about just accepting protection rackets, extortion, and graft, we waste a lot of money and energy trying to put the beard of legitimacy to the knuckles of the business entrepreneurs.
I approve of Microsoft putting virus protection companies out of business. They just shouldn't sell this product without the OS. In fact, they should sell this product as PART OF THE OS -- just like Apple. Of course, if people had to pay $300 up front for every Windows PC just to keep it protected, they might think it wasn't as cheap a product as they were lead to believe. And if every speed test were based on computers after they were owned for 6 months and had acquired 12.3 viruses/trojans with 2.4 security packages running (or not) then people might understand about the "actual, real life" speed of computers.
I was also sucking in the entire set of 24 encyclopedias as a kid.
Now that I'm older, I take fewer "facts" for granted. Technology, and science, at least has a basis for how it is proved so you can rely more on science than, say, history.
Wikipedia is great information but you should also know that it could be wrong -- that is a healthier approach that you should apply to other sources of supposed "fact" like the Wall Street Journal (for instance).
I just wish there were more things that you could really rely on. As me become more and more of an information economy, it becomes more and more of a battle ground what you can get in people's heads. For instance, the economic benefit for Oil companies to get people to believe we have to drive cars that are inefficient and not to believe in global warming is huge -- so there is a built-in incentive for them to try to push information that would help their profits.
Slashdot Mirror
How about the award for the Media for about the past decade?
They didn't start to give crappy, over-hyped reports on Katrina -- they actually somewhat improved reporting for a brief moment. But News Reporters follow "stories" not truth, not justice, not anything but what makes the best "story."
And don't feel left out that they didn't report White Misery -- yes, In know there are other place besides New Orleans -- but you are talking about a media that spent about 3 months in Aruba chasing down one white girl. If you had wanted coverage, you would have had to run around in large, naked groups with funny hats. Just getting killed doesn't count.
So, insipid, useless infotainment driven by PR flacks is the norm in News today. Screaming about the travails of a minority occasionally does nothing to upset the status quo.
And it is pretty obvious to me that the Weathermen over hype any bad weather. That's why it's so hard for people to decide whether to evacuate or not -- because any Hurricane will admonishments about the last group who didn't heed the weathermen. Nothing makes a weather persons day than to interrupt regularly scheduled programming with a weather alert. The only News here is that the News Service has been dead for some time.
The interesting thing was not that the FBI "visited a student" but that they COULD visit a student. The provisions of the Patriot Acts allow for this scenario. Citizens who are Pro-Liberty somehow have to get everything right when every act by Homeland Security can be made secret? All we can do is speculate because much of the real news of this day is not covered by the Main Stream Media.
So, a story was debunked and we can all rest our little heads -- nothing to see. I don't even know if this student existed -- how can any of us do anything but speculate?
You may be all gung ho about giving up our Constitution, but I'm not. No, people will not be "disappeared" -- not until all the rights of the citizen are gone. Proof of the abuse of the Patriot Act is not the reason it should be shredded. The Possibility of this Abuse is the reason the Patriot Act should be shredded and any politician who votes for such a power grab again should be looking for other areas of employment.
I've always suspected that Microsoft has often "borrowed" from others when it came to programming.
That's why I don't think they'd ever release the code for some of their "legacy" applications -- too many skeletons in the closet.
Njyoder,
Why would you need an RFID to help with a recall? You could use a plain old bar code. Plus, this design seems to be more robust for "distance" reading.
I don't like the moves towards making dissent impossible. What can we do to change a crooked government after there is no more anonymous action? Think about that. If you know everything I do, you can make my life miserable, without me being able to prove it. You can extort and intimidate everyone.
I like the idea of Gamma ray detectors. But I would prefer real and open investigations into 9/11. Planes flying around at their whim for an Hour and a half waiting to hit a building is a bit much for me to swallow. It all comes back to that for me--sorry to ruin my post with a conspiracy theory--but we are talking about real conspiracy data here. You cannot trust the government NOT to abuse a capability. If the RFID tags can be used to track people the WILL be used to track people.
I was reading about a new requirement that all cell phones made after January, 2006 must have a GPS chip in them -- ostensibly to provide 911 service, but I'm sure, mostly to provide location of the user. The chip is not required to provide GPS service usage to the user.
In Gulf War I, I was watching a news program that talked about how the Laser Printers had chips in them that, when hit by a satellite signal, would identify the location of the device. This was used to target "command centers" -- but probably, just places where someone had some computers. My more cynical nature now wonders how everyone getting killed is an insurgent.
Anyway, the efforts to track everything are coming along nicely. I am somehow more troubled by the ability to halt all crime than I am by crime itself. I suppose I'd feel differently after I was blown up -- but you see how difficult it would be for me to learn that lesson?
Just more grist for the mill.
I think google was saying they were using this to survey or respond in an automated manner. They are just saying; "User 171 likes gadgets, score them +3 for our Google adwords on "Gadgets" " and things like that.
It depends upon if they create a "firewall" between collected data and targeted data and how anonymous they keep the user. That does require a bit of trust -- but it also can provide a better service. So far, I think Google has been walking this line well.
For me it would be kind of obvious.
Evil would be using a dominant market position or money and lawyers to quell the innovation of a competitor -- rather than just out-innovating and competing on merit.
Lobbying congress to create barriers to entry, or to create undue privileges that only benefit your own company.
Destroying, harming or slandering others.
Selling information about people to third parties -- or using gathered information in a way that the user would not want (meaning, ask, and allow people to opt out at any time).
So far, I haven't seen anything overtly evil from Google. Compare this to (obvious example coming up...) Microsoft.
Oh, and that reminds me, announcing vaporware products that resemble competitors and using your dominant position to then undermine the competitor and then buying the stock of company at a discount. Obviously, the vaporware then disappears.
Well, Free speech applies to government -- not private institutions. I agree, with some qualifications.
But the question I have that is not clear in the story, is; was Mr. Blogger operating in an anonymous way, or in a way where he was representing himself and not the University. Did he have a reasonable expectation of independence?"
While, if he were on campus and behaved in an unruly manner -- that is effecting the campus.
If he were at a function and said; "I represent Marquette, and they suck." That's another issue of damaging the University.
Or he could have slandered people -- which I'm not clear on the law with regard to Blogs.
People are still private citizens and not owned by the companies or organizations they join. If they are using the property or in the "domain" of the institution, I think those institutions have a right to censure or dictate conduct standards as long as they are consistent.
However, if Mr. Blogger had told somebody this information and they had made these comments that "so and so told me this dirt about the Marquette" -- the University could do nothing. The same effect either way. If the required privileged information on Mr. Blogger in order to invade his expectation of privacy, then they have also violated his civil rights. If Marquette found out about this by easily obtained public knowledge, then they have not violated his right to privacy.
I think it is vital that whistle blowers and public discourse be maintained. Institutions do not have rights. They can only operate in such a manner to build a reputation and they can hire PR people to make them look good. There is no damage or slander in my mind -- even though this concept has been established in the courts. The courts though, are out of whack with the concept of personally liberty -- so screw 'em. I don't want business running government anyway.
Whether they find the comments good or bad is not material. They can only have influence over things in their province; on their campus or equipment. I think it is dangerous to say that someone can own the "mind" of anyone. An employee cannot shout obscenities while at their business. On their own time, they can act badly as long as their is no connection to the company. If they criticize a company, they cannot appear as an official and they should try to remain anonymous, unless they want to expose themselves to the prerogatives of the institution.
Of course, I'm just looking at what is good for America -- not necessarily at the mess our Oligarchic Judiciary is becoming.
--Oh, one more thing.
Due to the Government money that is now streaming in to many religious organizations, the separation of church and state has been broken in many cases. This University must forgo ALL GOVERNMENT MONEY OR SUBSIDIES if they want the privilege of censuring this student. It is the exact same thing. They are giving money to a student (a scholarship) based upon merit. The government probably does give money to Marquette based on some criteria of Merit. Even though this is, on the bare face of it, totally against anything the constitution provided for, even with the flimsy justifications for government money to religious institutions, the government cannot choose a Catholic institution in favor of one that is Protestant. Or choose a behavior it doesn't like, like asking parishioners to vote Democratic if it allows other church's to urge members to vote Republican (as has happened recently).
You can't get government money without representing the government -- just as Marquette is claiming that their subsidy of Mr. Blogger means that he is representing them.
Well, Free speech applies to government -- not private institutions.
But the question I have that is not clear in the story, is; was Mr. Blogger operating in an anonymous way, or in a way where he was representing himself and not the University. Did he have a reasonable expectation of independence?"
While, if he were on campus and behaved in an unruly manner -- that is effecting the campus.
If he were at a function and said; "I represent Marquette, and they suck." That's another issue of damaging the University.
Or he could have slandered people -- which I'm not clear on the law with regard to Blogs.
People are still private citizens and not owned by the companies or organizations they join. If they are using the property or in the "domain" of the institution, I think those institutions have a right to censure or dictate conduct standards as long as they are consistent.
However, if Mr. Blogger had told somebody this information and they had made these comments that "so and so told me this dirt about the Marquette" -- the University could do nothing. The same effect either way. If the required privileged information on Mr. Blogger in order to invade his expectation of privacy, then they have also violated his civil rights. If Marquette found out about this by easily obtained public knowledge, then they have not violated his right to privacy.
I think it is vital that whistle blowers and public discourse be maintained. Institutions do not have rights. They can only operate in such a manner to build a reputation and they can hire PR people to make them look good. There is no damage or slander in my mind -- even though this concept has been established in the courts. The courts though, are out of whack with the concept of personally liberty -- so screw 'em. I don't want business running government anyway.
Whether they find the comments good or bad is not material. They can only have influence over things in their province; on their campus or equipment. I think it is dangerous to say that someone can own the "mind" of anyone. An employee cannot shout obscenities while at their business. On their own time, they can act badly as long as their is no connection to the company. If they criticize a company, they cannot appear as an official and they should try to remain anonymous, unless they want to expose themselves to the prerogatives of the institution.
Of course, I'm just looking at what is good for America -- not necessarily at the mess our Oligarchic Judiciary is becoming.
I don't this will sell out to Studios -- but it will sell to enthusiasts and entertainers.
.1Hz.
The effects of this sub-subwoofer could really add some thrills.
Even if music isn't shipped with audio below 20Hz, you can still add in a simple "bass assist" that looks at the frequencies between 40Hz and 20Hz and then "assists them" by pumping a complementary sound at 20Hz to
I would be concerned, however, about the health effects. I thought I read that the Germans has experimented with a sound weapon during WWII. A steady 8Hz frequency could cause human brains to rattle in our heads -- much the same way as yodeling splatters Martian brains.
I'm sure a lot of "entrepreneurial thieves" buy whole lists of Social Security Numbers. I've had a con call up about once every year for three years, pretending to be from a collection agency "trying to clear up a matter". He tells me my wife's social security number and wants me to verify it, with an old address. I tell him, that the number is almost right, but the address is wrong. Of course, he tries a few more veiled threats and calls every time to get more info -- this just leads me to believe that he is looking for a home address so that he can open an account in her name. He probably has a SSN and a name, but the name is pretty common so he is trying to place her with a list of about 10 addresses in the state-- you get the idea.
Think about how many people have had access to your SSN -- at school, medical, financial, anywhere you got credit, utility and phone companies, even video stores... etc. So, of all those places, there is at least one or more minimum wage/disgruntled workers who have access to a gold mine in accounts (not that low pay makes it more likely -- just the relative value). I've heard so many stories of really big companies losing databases of customer data -- and those are what you've heard about. I would think, that like 90% of everyone has their SSN available to crooks by now. They are just cherry-picking and using the data at their whim. Identity theft for any of us just depends on when our Name + SSN + Residence is most easy for the crook. So, I don't think this whole issue of "what can people do without the SSN" is what you should worry about. It is; when will they get around to using yours.
My suggestion is that we make the SSN a relatively public ID -- but with a private key available only to the person and a government ID agency. The Government Identification Agency would merely verify to any vender, service or institution, that you are who you say you are.
Anyway, this problem won't go away until a few Senators have the problem or the Financial Institutions lose too much money.
Brilliant post.
I was thinking similar thoughts -- that creating the Non-"oxidized" metal would take more energy than the system was worth. What we want are systems that take LESS energy and are more efficient-- just taking oil out of the equation or burning a lot more of it at another location for a non-optimal solution doesn't really help us.
However, could it be possible that they REPLACE oxygen with Hydrogen -- and this is why they use combustion rather than an electric/battery process like Air-Metal? Perhaps in pressurized, or cold, or in the presence of a noble gas, 8 hydrogen atoms could substitute for One Oxygen? That might be a useful breakthrough--though I don't have the background to know if that were feasible.
But more than likely, it is more snake oil. When you have a population where over 60% think the earth is less than 10,000 years old -- you have a population you can convince of a lot of things.
By the way, the theory I thought made sense with the Hindenburg, was that it was a static discharge that caused the ignition of the Hydrogen. The metal blades on the propellers pushing through the moist air can create a helluva static buildup. This is why Coast Guard Helicopters will often drop a metal cable to the water first before attempting a rescue (especially during rainy conditions), because the blades churning in the rain can create a tremendous charge (at least, I think that's what I saw in a movie once...). Your point is made about Hydrogen, however, because as bad as the accident looked, only about 16 people (if memory serves) actually died -- and most due to falling. Hydrogen burns fast and "UP" -- i'd feel safer with that than a Sodium or Magnesium fire (think about underwater flares).
This concerns me a bit more than the obvious humor.
Either the administration can't take a joke (hint; they can't take a joke) or the are muzzling free expression by applying VALUES to icons. The only issue with the Seal is when it is used to show endorsement -- i.e., the Presidential Seal means it has some official status of the president. But the Seal is not an entity and has no value in and of itself.
This is sort of similar, to another ridiculous use of Police power; The Wall Street Journal has a recent article about the arrest of a man wearing and Elmo outfit. There had been some issue of the past of "entrepreneurs" in Hollywood dressing up as various famous characters and "harassing" citizens for photos. Maybe they were harassing, or maybe it was like the "astro turf" grass roots campaign that got all excited about the wardrobe incident with Ms. Jackson (like 99% of the letters to the FCC came from a bought and paid for organization with two members, who have done nothing but similar complaint letters so that the FCC could come down on unwholesome events (read not corporate) -- I digress).
The problem I have with the "Elmo" arrest. Is that it might have had a point if it was just based on harassment. But this was based on abusing the "Elmo copyright". This man paid for the suit -- or made the suit. Now, somebody owns the "Elmo Image". But I also see this as a slippery slope. What is next, a person gets arrested for crushing a soda can because the "abused the Coke trademark"?
Similar, are all the bills at many states that want the language of the "fetus" to be changed to un-born Baby.
It sure is nice that "person-hood" is such an aspiration these days. We have "rights" for businesses, that somehow translate to taxpayers bailing out oil companies to rebuild refineries (that hadn't been upgraded for 30 years) in the gulf states -- nice charity to guarantee profits for the most profitable of industries. We are calling cells and tissue people. We are going to give values status to presidential seals and flags.
Just keep adding to that list; if objects and corporations and the anthropomorphism du jour all get "person" status -- doesn't that dilute the rights and the value towards actual people? Is the Presidential Seal getting its feeling hurt? Or is that the President getting his feeling hurt and using the power of his office to enact restitution? Or is it following the theme of a Police State where people are sharing rights or even secondary to profits and PR?
I wouldn't be so worried if it didn't come from the Pro-Police State crooks in Washington.
Hey, I never said Arnold couldn't say anything -- just that repenting might make him less of a hypocrite.
By all means, talk all you like. But, there isn't much history or statistics to support this course. Removing violent video games will have a close to ZERO effect of violence. Violence is done mostly by kids who are out on the streets being ignored by adults, not kiddies shooting aliens on a PSP. Societies that display far less violence and have far less restriction on sex and violence than the US. You have a better correlation between the percentage of religious people in a society and violence than you do with video games -- we don't hear anyone suggesting we get rid of churches, do we?
I wasn't being coy about diets in schools. There is a huge relationship with sugar and violence. I seen studies on diets in prisons and in schools that show at least an 80% drop in aggressive actions when sugar is restricted. If people want to argue this nonsense while ignoring proven sources of violence -- then it is just an opportunity to pose for those who get all hot and bothered when someone says "family values".
Arnold Swazeneggar got the Macho vote, now he wants to pretend to have morals. Is it that quick and easy to get credentials? Just whine about the same old beaten dead horse nonsense?
If you weren't so ignorant about psycology you would know...
Psycology is a science now?
The tests I've seen have shown that heart rate and testosterone levels increase right after seeing violent images. People at these elevated rates of excitement are more likely to respond violently.
The effect reduces quickly, however, and it's inconclusive if the overall level of violent behavior increases or decreases.
Little kids will start hitting you -- quite often, after seeing fighting in a cartoon. If you can explain it to them and get them to not do it -- you can get them to be more responsible about it.
But, I'm not really arguing with you-- just with your statement that "psychology" had any definitive position on the issue.
I agree that violent crime has gone down.
Heck, I hope in twenty years, we still have kids healthy enough to get in fights -- instead of overweight, asthmatic wimps.
If there is any big issue, it would be with gang violence. Often these kids come from single parent or two over-worked parent homes where their is little parental involvement. I was just talking to a police officer who deals mainly with gang violence. But, we can't just change these parents by making lofty moral comments or more severe criminal punishments. Realisticly, these kids are societies problem.
Society has chosen to ignore these kids. There aren't many places for kids to hang out and be kids that isn't going to cost parents time and money. Since we already know these parents won't or can't be part of the solution, we need to find something (and pay for it) for these kids to do. Otherwise they are going to be hanging out in prisons and costing us a lot more.
The problems with gangs goes beyond the statistics we might see. This is creating a new culture not part of society and disenfranchisement. I also would be concerned about statistics. There is a built in political incentive to "reduce the number" of crimes reported. So, where I don't "feel" teen violence is getting worse -- I don't know if the reported rate is in line with the real rate of crime.
Wait, is this Arnold Swarzennegar we are talking too?
.... but we can't control everything a kid comes in contact with. The current games are labelled (which just means they sell better). But I just look back on how violent people were before TV and video games and have to wonder why the world wasn't cured of all evil back then.
Unless he repents all his movies -- which were mostly aimed at the same kids this bill is designed to "protect" -- isn't there a mental disconnect?
I saw "Collateral Damage" -- and it was "sorta fun". But this violence filled fantasy has nothing practical about solving societies ills, other than the timeless virtue of killing a few innocent bystanders as long as you "get the bad guy".
Anyway, I'll agree with everyone saying "parents"
If people really want to reduce violence, then they'd be better off improving kids diets in the schools. Perhaps giving courses on conflict resolution. And, paradoxically, martial arts or fight training. People who feel threatened, angry, or weak will get more violent. I don't see how a video game would change this other than in the most empty life.
I remember when I hit bottom. This lady was trying to cheer me up, she said something like; "don't feel bad, things will get better, it isn't something so important to worry about."
... then the rest isn't a matter to be "figured out".
I told her off in the harshest way. Which I don't ever remember having done before. I realized later, that part of the reason I was afraid to let go of my depression, was that it was also part of my identity. I thought in terms of my scars and the stories they told. It's no wonder in religion they talk about being re-born. But really, it is like death. Are we the same people that we were as ten? Would we recognize that person? If we are or aren't the same person -- which is the bigger trajedy.
It was like, this lady was calling me stupid. That I would choose to be down. I don't think I chose, anything -- my dad was depressed and hyper-critical (not anything earth-shattering, but still, how does a kid overcome how his parents make him feel?).
The only thing you take with you today, from what was yesterday, is your memories and some chemistry. If you "know" what you should do, and understand and are OK with who you are...
But, we still have bad habits. If you were your own dad -- would you be proud of you? I think so. Make that kid happy -- he deserves to be. What you may find a flaw, someone else can describe as personality. That's about the best thing I can leave you with.
"starfishsystems"
That is the main problem with Monopoly power -- it can become indistinguishable from Extortion.
Try being a startup by providing computer solutions OTHER than Microsoft. It used to be a pretty hard-sell. I don't know about the current market. But as much as I was trying to be funny, I think I hit on what was really bothering me about "Microsoft" charging for "protection". Of course, other platforms build it in -- so they have to charge.
But, at least the consumer needs to factor in a better idea of "real costs" in owning a computer. Windows PCs have a low cost of entry. However, it ends up being about $220 a month per employee at my company when you add up the network license, exchange client access, support, proxy and virus protection. Possibly a lot more than that figure that I don't know about. On the Macs, there aren't any of those fees -- except the exorbitant exchange client fee, and the MS software charge for every computer -- whether it uses MS software or not.
The concept of taxing labor wages I would imagine, would be about the biggest economic sin to the Founding Fathers.
;-)
When you work, you are trading your labor in exchange for money/goods/whatever; you are engaging in trade, and so your income is susceptible to excise/tarrif whatever you want to call it.
See if you can spot where the topic was changed? Government can do and justify whatever the hell it wants to do -- as long as we let them. If they want to tie you over a barrel and cornhole you, I'm sure an advocate can find a passage to make it legal. What, in Neptunes seven seas, has this got to do with Ownership vs. Labor?
If businesses have no right to profit, then niether do individuals.
Obviously, I'm being mistaken for a Commi-Hippy absolutist because I suggest a change in what we tax. Can anyone actually read a sentence and comprehend it, or do we just talk to ourselves? Don't answer that, it was an internal dialog...
So basically, are you folks agreeing with me?
I wasn't arguing if the government had the right to tax -- if you have a gun and the courts, it's the golden rule. I was referring to the concept of taxes on ownership verses taxes on labor. I am saying that we should move the taxes on work, to re-balance towards taxes on wealth.
Supply-side economics is wrong, because it assumes the world is supply-limited. I made this point in an earlier post -- more than 50% of our economy is comprised of services, information, and financing (whether insurance or credit care, etc.,). So, supply-side is a theory based upon the industrial age -- about 50 years or more out of date.
The battle between mercantilists and capitalists was one of the first big debates of the early US. Its pretty moot now since much of the logic espoused by you (and mercantilists), is based on there being a gold standard (one finite amount of wealth). Luckily, our currency is no longer backed by a finite natural resource. Its backed by human labor. The more people working whether manufacturing or providing services, the more money can be printed without lessening the value of the pool of money.
I did not base my debate on the gold standard. We went off the Gold standard to pay for a war we couldn't afford (what else is new) that was unpopular -- rather than raise taxes to pay for it. Whether the fantasy figures we use now to keep score are valid or not is up for debate -- however, with a gold standard, they aren't up for debate -- so what could I say? I'd rather not get into this aspect of it. Suffice to say, that a dollar's value is effected by trade balances and how much currency is printed. When the government prints money, it is effectively taxing you without your knowledge by diminishing the value of the dollar you have. Talk to me in two years if you still think this is a good idea -- me, I'm buying gold and silver (may come in handy pretty soon).
It's backed by human labor.
No, money is backed by a line of credit, which could have been factored from a deposit, based on an investment, or invented out of thin air. When the government decides to print money -- what is that based on?
But I'm not talking about fiscal policy -- I'm talking about what we should be taxing. Quit trying to define my argument. I don't know if you are obtuse or just switching to a more comfortable subject. The point I'm making doesn't need to be historical or religious or fiscal... it is what it is. I am simply saying that anyone who works, should have a decent living FIRST, and then we should let people with a lot of assets build wealth. The system we have now protects or in some cases guarantees wealth building, and the common good of the worker is the first thing it is OK to sacrifice.
The current economic situation is unsustainable. Money begets money, and work will beget debt. "Erixxxx" made this comment; In a village full of lazy fat people who all own widgets, the man carrying people accross the street on his back is creating more value (wealth) than the man who makes widgets.
Why the "village of fat, laxy people?" The guy carrying everybody is only getting "wealth" if he gets paid. Everyone who works creates some value -- wheather that results in wealth (money) is a different issue. Let's not get into the "people are poor by choice" discussion. Yes, people make choices good and bad -- but I could choose to buy gold and someone else 100 shares of WalMart. In America, a "choice" like that can mean the difference between retiring or working at WalMart. So, the person who doesn't make the right choice is always lazy? I make more money than you do, does that mean I add more value and I am smarter? Please, I don't want an answer to that -- let's stay off that topic.
That's like saying Tom DeLays proof of innocence based on how many times he has been indicted.
The repeated accusations are only a sign of repetition. Or frustration. Or a conspiracy to accuse.
So the fact that Microsoft has most of the viruses and trojans and security failures and Tom DeLay has most of the benefits of corporate donations that somehow fell into his hands is not necessarily proof of guilt.
But it isn't completely lame. Completely lame is saying "how could this be significant if people have been saying it for ten years" as if you were making a point. Now that, is completely lame.
I'm not bashing MS by comparisons to DeLay -- just the absurdity of the comment.
I think it would be more honest for Microsoft to make a secure, reliable OS, and then send you notices every month to sent them $10 or you operating system will self-destruct. This would end some of the confusion and people would know what they were spending their money on. It would also save taxpayers from having to hire FBI agents to track down hackers. Just pay Microsoft their protection money, and nothing bad will happen.
The big expense is in all this wasteful pretense...
We have the best OS and you must buy it.
Customer purchases "the best OS that you just gotta have if you want the slightest chance of being employed or not made fun of at parties."
Customer gets online, gets info stolen, computer breaks and needs repair and files need to be recovered --lost work and productivity ensues.
Virus company product purchased.
Virus company bounty pays hacker to produce new variant.
Spam company pays hacker for new zombie trojan.
Customer gets online, gets info stolen, computer breaks and needs repair and files need to be recovered --lost work and productivity ensues.
Customer upgrades Virus software to "professional version" and installs firewall product/service based on the advice of an expensive consultant.
Customer has spent two weeks becoming painfully educated and feels stupid and ashamed.
Full employment is promoted.
Often, because we are squeamish about just accepting protection rackets, extortion, and graft, we waste a lot of money and energy trying to put the beard of legitimacy to the knuckles of the business entrepreneurs.
I approve of Microsoft putting virus protection companies out of business. They just shouldn't sell this product without the OS. In fact, they should sell this product as PART OF THE OS -- just like Apple.
Of course, if people had to pay $300 up front for every Windows PC just to keep it protected, they might think it wasn't as cheap a product as they were lead to believe. And if every speed test were based on computers after they were owned for 6 months and had acquired 12.3 viruses/trojans with 2.4 security packages running (or not) then people might understand about the "actual, real life" speed of computers.
I was also sucking in the entire set of 24 encyclopedias as a kid.
Now that I'm older, I take fewer "facts" for granted. Technology, and science, at least has a basis for how it is proved so you can rely more on science than, say, history.
Wikipedia is great information but you should also know that it could be wrong -- that is a healthier approach that you should apply to other sources of supposed "fact" like the Wall Street Journal (for instance).
I just wish there were more things that you could really rely on. As me become more and more of an information economy, it becomes more and more of a battle ground what you can get in people's heads. For instance, the economic benefit for Oil companies to get people to believe we have to drive cars that are inefficient and not to believe in global warming is huge -- so there is a built-in incentive for them to try to push information that would help their profits.
This is what the "ownership society" is all about.