There's no reason for the Democrats to impeach Bush, since Bush makes the Republicans look bad. If Bush suddenly manages to make himself look good, the Democrats can drag out the impeachment stick and drag him forcibly through the mud.
The presidential race is already tight enough, so any Republicans with a conscience won't bring up impeachment, since they would risk jeopardizing their own re-election bids.
Most importantly, if Bush and Cheney were impeached, then Pelosi, a Democrat, would take over and inherit a huge mess of unsolvable problems. Which would make the Democrats look bad before the election. Better to let a Republican president stew in a bad economy and an unpopular war.
And no other country is going to start an all-out war with the US, because they know they'll lose. Being able to obliterate any country in the world doesn't matter if there's no way you'd ever do that.
It's the politician's job to win wars before they start.
Being able to kick the "bad people" out of a country like Iraq while allowing the rest of the population to enjoy the economic and social benefits of capitalist democracies is absolutely something the US wants to be able to do. It appears that, as mighty and all-powerful as your military is, they're unable to achieve the actual objectives required of them.
Meh. winning the peace is a political game. The military wasn't trained and designed to build countries, so there's no reason to fault the military in Iraq. I personally find it distasteful that General Pratraeus is seen as the leading man responsible for the rebuilding of Iraq. There should be a politician or diplomat in charge, not a military general. It is apparent that no politician or diplomat was willing to risk their name and career on success in Iraq, so the politicians had to order a general to fill the role, thus creating an instant scapegoat and easy target for the political lightning strikes.
Note to self: modern CEOs make for lousy Presidents.
Think about it from Monty's point of view and not yours. The trick is that Monty is forced to pick a door with a goat, as opposed to picking a door at random. That is what skews the odds in favor of switching.
Here's a Perl script to run the simulation (enough with the conceptual thinking. =) ) It shows that switching gives you a 2/3rd chance of winning and staying gives you a 1/3rd chance.
[code] use strict;
my $total = 10000; my $switch_total_wins = 0; my $switch_total_lose = 0; my $noswitch_total_wins = 0; my $noswitch_total_lose = 0; for(my $i=0; $i$total; $i++) {
my $car = int(rand(3));
# Our first pick
my $pick = int(rand(3));
# Time for Monty to open a goat door
my $goat_door;
if ( $car == $pick ) {
# Two goat doors available, pick one
if ( rand() 0.5 ) {
$goat_door = ($car + 1) % 3;
} else {
#$goat_door = ($car + 2) % 3;
$goat_door = abs(($car - 1) % 3);
}
} else {
# player picked a goat door, open other goat door
if ( $car != 0 && $pick != 0) {
$goat_door = 0;
} elsif ( $car != 1 && $pick != 1) {
$goat_door = 1;
} else {
$goat_door = 2;
}
}
# Now switch from original pick to new pick
my $new_pick;
if ( $pick != 0 && $goat_door != 0) {
$new_pick = 0;
} elsif ( $pick != 1 && $goat_door != 1) {
$new_pick = 1;
} else {
$new_pick = 2;
}
Microsoft has been punished already. Time to move on. Microsoft is already facing serious competitions and its dominant position looks less invicible than it used to be. Technically/Financially Open Source is the way forward for public services. But if Microsoft can prove that their products are objectively better for an administration, then I see no reason why it shouldn't be used.
You're forgetting that by corrupting the ISO in order to get OOXML approved as a standard, MS has the opportunity to lock out the competition.
Since the ISO OOXML spec can only be implemented by MS, all they have to do is get the procurement people to add ISO-29500 as a purchasing requirement. *poof* Instant contract win for MS. MS can claim the moral high ground by appearing competitive ("It's not our fault that no one else has the technical competence to implement ISO-29500...")
MS Windows and Office have gone from useful tools to a burdensome tax on organizations. Money that you could spend on improving your business now has to be sent away to Redmond with no return on investment or benefit. (Vista requires more powerful hardware and is slower than XP. Vista has no meaningful new features. Office 2007 is just a reskinned interface.)
If MS was competing by building a better mousetrap, there wouldn't be an issue. Nowadays, MS is using lawyers and lobbying/bribes to sell their products. How sad is it when lawyers and lobbyists have replaced marketing? How pathetic is it that MS has found lawyers and lobbyists to be cheaper than development teams?
If the car is in #3, the _four_ possibilities are: Pick #1, Monty opens #2 (switch = win) Pick #2, Monty opens #1 (switch = win) Pick #3, Monty opens #1 (switch = lose) Pick #3, Monty opens #2 (switch = lose) 50/50 Pick #1, Monty must open #2. (switch = win)
[2:goat] 100% chance of Monty picking
[3:car] 0% chance of Monty Picking 100% chance of a single door being picked.
Pick #2, Monty must open #1. (switch = win)
[1:goat] 100% chance of Monty picking
[3:car] 0% chance of Monty Picking 100% chance of a single door being picked.
Pick #3, Monty can pick #1 or #2. (switch = lose)
[1:goat] 50% chance of Monty picking
[2:goat] 50% chance of Monty Picking 100% chance of a single door being picked, but with a 50% chance of whether the door is #1 or #2.
Back to the nukes. To comment on your point, what's even worse is that the US official foriegn policy is MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction). Not only does this contradict our species effort to surive, but it's like saying, since you punched me, I will punch you back just as hard.
Removing the 'Mutual' from Mutually Assured Destruction greatly increases the chances of nuclear war. If your enemy has no defense against your nukes, then the temptation for you to use your nukes increases dramatically. Meanwhile, your enemy isn't stupid and realizes that he will be at your mercy once your defense is implemented.
You need to open your mind and think about it from the enemy's point of view. Your enemy can: a) build his own missile shield before you finish yours b) figure out how to defeat the missile shield before it goes live, c) attack before the missile shield is live, d) trust that you'll be nice enough to not attack, bully, or force political and economic concessions from your position of superiority.
A is too expensive for the Russians.
B is either too expensive, or inherently destabilizing. Russia could put subs closer to the US but that would reduce an already short warning time, thus increasing the chances of a mistake triggering nuclear annihilation. Or they could develop stealth missiles/bombers. Or they figure out how to smuggle nukes into the country, which cuts the warning time to zero.
C, attack now, is very tempting. You simply state that you will launch before the missile shield goes live. Under MAD, bluffing is not a winning strategy. If the US backs down, we lose face but nobody loses. If we don't back down, then Russia has to do _something_ or it loses. Which means they must launch.
D, trust your enemy, isn't likely. Even if you're 99% sure that the US wouldn't launch, can you guarantee that the US won't use its advantage to rape you economically and politically? Can you guarantee that the US government will remain stable long enough to not nuke you until you can achieve parity again? (civil war? economic collapse? coup? police sate? religious fundamentalism? pride? stupidity?)
A counter argument is that the longer we have nukes pointed at each other, the chances of a mistake occurring approach near certainty. However, if the US is immune to Russian nukes, then we're likely to become less concerned about making mistakes ourselves, thereby increasing the chances of mistakes. (Why continue to put a lot of money and attention into something that won't affect you?)
Thus, taking the Mutual out of Mutually Assured Destruction is almost guaranteed to start a nuclear war.
So the only practical solution is to build a small scale missile defense shield designed to stop a small number of launches, while you figure out a safer way to defeat your enemies or otherwise provide security for your nation. The economic collapse of the USSR is one example. Converting your former enemies is another way (such as extending NATO membership to former Warsaw Pact countries.) But a full scale missile defense right now is just asking for MAD.
This is our defense strategy as opposed to focusing on efforts to block or dodge a punch.
The problem with defense is that defense cannot win. It can only lose or not lose.
MAD is the worst policy ever, we could have developed a force field if we didn't have to spend all of our resources on offense;)
MAD is an all or nothing policy. Either we have peace or everyone dies. Simple and to the point. MAD put the 'Cold' in the Cold War.
If we didn't have nukes and MAD, then world wars are less 'risky' and thus would have happened more often. Without nukes and MAD, we would have needed a HUGE conventional army stationed in Europe to keep the Red Army in check. Which means most
Shareholders are supposed to sell when they receive an advantageous offer. Advantageous being a return that is more likely greater than holding the stock. What do you think shareholders are, some sort of fanboys? Er.. I think you mean that the officers of the corporation are supposed to act in the best interests of the shareholders.
The shareholders can be as rational or emotional with their shares as they want.
A viable alternative to Windows has to run popular Windows software. The problems are a) MS owns (or can buy) the most popular Windows software and can modify it to be incompatible with an alternative OS, or b) MS can push the next release of Windows before the alternative can gather momentum. This makes creating a viable Windows alternative a very risky, expensive, and exceptionally time sensitive gamble.
Which is why ODF scares the hell out of MS. ODF would make it much easier to develop an alternative to Office. As it stands, Office's price is pretty inelastic since there is no real competitor. We've been paying five dollar a gallon prices for Office for a long time now. ODF would make it possible for people to switch to a wallet friendly and just as effective Office alternative. And unlike Ma Bell, once the office productivity market is broken up, there won't be a way to put it back together again.
Once people no longer have to rely on the Microsoft Office software suite, their need to run Windows diminishes greatly. If Office falls, Windows OS falls, and MS goes from Kraken to being just another fish in the pond.
End result: you don't need to create an alternative Windows compatible OS. You just need to develop an Office alternative. Which is why MS is using every ethically challenged legal and business strategy to shut down ODF.
Even if MS stops ODF, if they keep pushing out underwhelming and much delayed Vista-like versions of Windows, or if MS cannot keep people on the software upgrade/subscription path, then they might really be vulnerable to an actual alternative Windows compatible OS (which at the moment is XP. Go figure.) Given that an operating system isn't useful in and of itself (applications make a computer useful,) it is a double hit to see MS having a great difficulty in coming up with and implementing must-have features or improvements to Windows. They're also scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of Office improvements. It's becoming apparent that MS has has lost the agility needed to create and implement innovations in a cost and time-effective manner.
So until MS figures out how to compete by producing a quality product, it's going find itself in the same position that IBM did in the early 90s (where IBM almost went bankrupt.) It will be interesting to see if MS can pull an IBM and re-invent itself from a clumsy dinosaur into a fleet footed mammal.
If the camera wasn't transmitting back to Comcast, then this should be "ok", where "ok" means they'll think it's a good feature to implement.
However, if the camera is sending video back to the office, then the first time it gets hacked, Comcast would get sued into oblivion. Imagine if a million customers suddenly found themselves on youtube? If an employee abuses the system, then Comcast would probably survive the lawsuit. Either way, Congress would be quick to ban the practice after the first public incident.
As more nations develop missile technology, they're going to want/need to test their anti-satellite capability. So is there any possible way to do it safely?
As yes, continued anti-satellite missile testing will happen, since any rational nation will have no desire to be under the thumb of someone else's satellites.
Talk about your exhorbitant markup... How many businesses outside of medecine get a 170% markup on ther products to end consumers?
Phone. Cable. Military contractors. Things bought with your Tax money. Any domestic product that can only compete against the equivalent foreign import via government subsidies and trade tariffs.
Besides, I imagine that the 170% markup has to cover thorough training and medical insurance. If you make a single mistake while using the wand and miss a RFID for any reason, then you can cause great harm to a person and get sued for millions.
In many countries people under the age of 18 can have student loans, drive cars, drink, have sex, but now we won't let them put their contact information on the net? Teenagers are people too, and they should have the right to make contact with whomever they choose.
Teenagers don't have (full) rights for a couple of reasons:
When teenagers screw up, who foots the bill? The parents. Until someone is fully on their own and fully responsible for their own mistakes, they're not free of parental oversight.
Everyone 20+ has been through the awkward teenage years. We've been there, we remember just how screwed up being a teen can be, and we damn well believe, in our _experienced_ opinions, that teens should go through that particular phase of life with adult supervision.
As for your point about educating teens, teens aren't rational. Their brains are still developing (which doesn't stop until about 20 years of age,) hormones are running rampant, peer pressure is insanely powerful, and they are extremely sensitive to self-image and social status.
As for your point about censorship, given how alcohol is glamorized on TV, in movies, and on billboards, do you really think that a rational discussion on why teens shouldn't drink is going to work? At some point you will have to censor what they're exposed to (no alcohol ads during prime time, movies and video games with alcohol abuse get more restrictive ratings, etc..)
Then there's the problem that if the adults don't understand the technology, then how to you educate them about the risks? Plus nowadays, both parents work, so it's difficult to continually keep tabs on teens, especially given their damnable source of infinite energy. It's a balancing act to let teens be free enough to learn, but not so uncontrolled that they harm themselves. You can't let them be 100% free, nor can you lock them up in a nunnery or monastery. So while this 'do-it-for-the-kids' law may be flawed, it demonstrates that people do consider it an important issue, that they really do want to protect our kids, and that there is no perfect solution, but instead of giving up because perfection isn't achievable, we'll try different things until we figure out something that works a little better.
Reminds me of Battlestar Galactica and how the Cyclons hacked into a squadron of Vipers via their sensor arrays and shut them down. Granted they had placed a backdoor in the software (or found a security gap.)
Then there was that power generator that could be "hacked" and given commands to tear itself apart.
And then there's war driving where you drive around looking for wireless networks to access/hack/piggyback on.
And then there are those huge zombie networks containing hundreds of thousands of compromised computers worldwide.
And the there was Vietnam. If you can't fight them directly, then use guerilla warfare. If it's easier to knock out a tank by hacking it's computer than it is to fight it directly...
The sorry state of affairs today in that our boys on the field rely TOO MUCH on TECHNOLOGY is reflected in what happens when that technology FAILS. People DIE.
a) Technology can give you a huge advantage over The Enemy(tm). Which is why the US led coalition was able to dominate in Desert Storm.
b) Because technology acts as a "force multiplier," meaning you can do a lot more with less people/tanks/planes/etc.. Without high technology we would need many more real live people in the military. So you either pay the cost in technology or you pay the cost with a larger percentage of your population in uniform and/or in harm's way.
c) Technology requires "less skill" to use. Having infrared sensors, laser range findings, and a computerized fire control system makes the M-1's main gun very deadly. How long would it take for a gunner to get that good using just the Mark I Eyeball and human skill? People in the military should be focused on winning, and not on frantically having to look up wind speed on paper firing tables before taking a shot.
So, why do we impose the heaviest sentences for murder, regardless of circumstance, heavier than those crimes that indicate a far more sociopathic personality, if the justice system is first and foremost about protecting society and its interests?
Eh? "Regardless of circumstance?" Circumstances are why we have 1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree murder, manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide, not guilty by reason of mental defect, and so on. Even then, the state can decline to bring charges, a plea bargain can be made, immunity given for help in prosecuting other crimes, a jury of our peers can choose to give a 'not guilty' verdict, and the governor/president can issue a pardon or commute the sentence. Society can even ignore murder if it chooses to (such as lynchings.)
On the long list of crimes ranked by recidivism rates, murder ranks very near the bottom. Except for the few sociopaths who see murder as acceptable means for financial or personal gain, and the even fewer number who kill to indulge a predatory instinct or because it's just fun for them, the vast majority of murders are very obviously one-time affairs.
It sounds more like rapists and other predators should be given life sentences, or otherwise removed from society in much the same way that murderers are. However, if the penalty for rape and murder are the same, then rapists might as well kill their victims.
How do you determine if a murderer won't murder again? If/when you're wrong, then that's another life lost. Society isn't in the mood to trust someone who committed the ultimate crime of taking a life.
And as others have stated, there's no way to undo, fix, or survive a murder, hence the harsh punishment.
(Bracing for the bitchslaps...)
Criticism and/or civilized debate are not equivalent to being bitch slapped, so don't play the martyr. Justice systems have been evolving for thousands of years and their workings have been analyzed, discussed, and debated by many minds greater than you or I.
Think of the potential abuse by insurance companies. They hire private companies to steer the hurricanes to consistently hit a certain area, and then refuse to insure that area. The insurance companies get "free money" from everyone else for storm/hurricane insurance on the off chance the hurricane cannot be redirected.
Anyone remember how the seat belt laws did the same thing? "They are for your safety"..
And they're there for other people's safety. If you're not behind the wheel, then you're not in control of your car, which is dangerous to everyone else around you. So for moderate to minor accidents, you won't get bounced out of your seat, lose control and make the accident worse.
After reading the ingredients on a frozen pizza box, I would have to agree. The biggest thing I noticed was that the meat only contained 11% meat... The salt was an insanely high percentage (40% or so?) of the FDA recommended daily allowance. There were several brands of pepperoni pizza that stated that the pepperoni was partially made from chicken.
And does anyone else consider Domino's Oreo Dessert Pizza to be an abomination against humanity? (Funny commercials though.)
Did you even read the article? You cannot do _anything_ with the code except to look at it. Heck, you can't even download the code for reference. Instead, MS Dev Studio's debugger will fetch the source code section from a Microsoft MSDN server as you step into it.
No one is going to use this "open source" code for anything without MS's explicit permission. I'll bet that the MSDN server will log your IP and product activation information. Thus anyone who uses the "open source" code will be tainted and unable to work on anything even remotely.net related without Microsoft's approval.
Slashdot Mirror
Look on the bright side. If loading software in memory to run it is now illegal, then it's now illegal to run Windows.
There's no reason for the Democrats to impeach Bush, since Bush makes the Republicans look bad. If Bush suddenly manages to make himself look good, the Democrats can drag out the impeachment stick and drag him forcibly through the mud.
The presidential race is already tight enough, so any Republicans with a conscience won't bring up impeachment, since they would risk jeopardizing their own re-election bids.
Most importantly, if Bush and Cheney were impeached, then Pelosi, a Democrat, would take over and inherit a huge mess of unsolvable problems. Which would make the Democrats look bad before the election. Better to let a Republican president stew in a bad economy and an unpopular war.
And no other country is going to start an all-out war with the US, because they know they'll lose. Being able to obliterate any country in the world doesn't matter if there's no way you'd ever do that.
It's the politician's job to win wars before they start.Being able to kick the "bad people" out of a country like Iraq while allowing the rest of the population to enjoy the economic and social benefits of capitalist democracies is absolutely something the US wants to be able to do. It appears that, as mighty and all-powerful as your military is, they're unable to achieve the actual objectives required of them.
Meh. winning the peace is a political game. The military wasn't trained and designed to build countries, so there's no reason to fault the military in Iraq. I personally find it distasteful that General Pratraeus is seen as the leading man responsible for the rebuilding of Iraq. There should be a politician or diplomat in charge, not a military general. It is apparent that no politician or diplomat was willing to risk their name and career on success in Iraq, so the politicians had to order a general to fill the role, thus creating an instant scapegoat and easy target for the political lightning strikes.Note to self: modern CEOs make for lousy Presidents.
Think about it from Monty's point of view and not yours. The trick is that Monty is forced to pick a door with a goat, as opposed to picking a door at random. That is what skews the odds in favor of switching.
Here's a Perl script to run the simulation (enough with the conceptual thinking. =) ) It shows that switching gives you a 2/3rd chance of winning and staying gives you a 1/3rd chance.
[code]
use strict;
my $total = 10000;
my $switch_total_wins = 0;
my $switch_total_lose = 0;
my $noswitch_total_wins = 0;
my $noswitch_total_lose = 0;
for(my $i=0; $i$total; $i++) {
my $car = int(rand(3));
# Our first pick
my $pick = int(rand(3));
# Time for Monty to open a goat door
my $goat_door;
if ( $car == $pick ) {
# Two goat doors available, pick one
if ( rand() 0.5 ) {
$goat_door = ($car + 1) % 3;
} else {
#$goat_door = ($car + 2) % 3;
$goat_door = abs(($car - 1) % 3);
}
} else {
# player picked a goat door, open other goat door
if ( $car != 0 && $pick != 0) {
$goat_door = 0;
} elsif ( $car != 1 && $pick != 1) {
$goat_door = 1;
} else {
$goat_door = 2;
}
}
# Now switch from original pick to new pick
my $new_pick;
if ( $pick != 0 && $goat_door != 0) {
$new_pick = 0;
} elsif ( $pick != 1 && $goat_door != 1) {
$new_pick = 1;
} else {
$new_pick = 2;
}
print "car: $car pick: $pick goat: $goat_door final: $new_pick\n";
## make sure logic is good
die if $pick == $goat_door; # cannot open door we picked
die if $car == $goat_door; # cannot open door with car
if ( $new_pick == $car ) {
$switch_total_wins++;
} else {
$switch_total_lose++;
}
if ( $pick == $car ) {
$noswitch_total_wins++;
} else {
$noswitch_total_lose++;
}
}
print sprintf " switch wins: %5.2f%% losses: %5.2f%%\n", 100.0 * $switch_total_wins / $total, 100.0 * $switch_total_lose / $total;
print sprintf "noswitch wins: %5.2f%% losses: %5.2f%%\n", 100.0 * $noswitch_total_wins / $total, 100.0 * $noswitch_total_lose / $total;
[code]
Microsoft has been punished already. Time to move on. Microsoft is already facing serious competitions and its dominant position looks less invicible than it used to be.
You're forgetting that by corrupting the ISO in order to get OOXML approved as a standard, MS has the opportunity to lock out the competition.Technically/Financially Open Source is the way forward for public services. But if Microsoft can prove that their products are objectively better for an administration, then I see no reason why it shouldn't be used.
Since the ISO OOXML spec can only be implemented by MS, all they have to do is get the procurement people to add ISO-29500 as a purchasing requirement. *poof* Instant contract win for MS. MS can claim the moral high ground by appearing competitive ("It's not our fault that no one else has the technical competence to implement ISO-29500...")
MS Windows and Office have gone from useful tools to a burdensome tax on organizations. Money that you could spend on improving your business now has to be sent away to Redmond with no return on investment or benefit. (Vista requires more powerful hardware and is slower than XP. Vista has no meaningful new features. Office 2007 is just a reskinned interface.)
If MS was competing by building a better mousetrap, there wouldn't be an issue. Nowadays, MS is using lawyers and lobbying/bribes to sell their products. How sad is it when lawyers and lobbyists have replaced marketing? How pathetic is it that MS has found lawyers and lobbyists to be cheaper than development teams?
Pick #1, Monty opens #2 (switch = win)
Pick #2, Monty opens #1 (switch = win)
Pick #3, Monty opens #1 (switch = lose)
Pick #3, Monty opens #2 (switch = lose)
50/50 Pick #1, Monty must open #2. (switch = win)
[2:goat] 100% chance of Monty picking
[3:car] 0% chance of Monty Picking
100% chance of a single door being picked.
Pick #2, Monty must open #1. (switch = win)
[1:goat] 100% chance of Monty picking
[3:car] 0% chance of Monty Picking
100% chance of a single door being picked.
Pick #3, Monty can pick #1 or #2. (switch = lose)
[1:goat] 50% chance of Monty picking
[2:goat] 50% chance of Monty Picking
100% chance of a single door being picked, but with a 50% chance of whether the door is #1 or #2.
Excellent example.
So it's less about your choice of doors, and more about narrowing down Monty's choice of doors.
Relativity can be such a bear sometimes.
Back to the nukes. To comment on your point, what's even worse is that the US official foriegn policy is MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction). Not only does this contradict our species effort to surive, but it's like saying, since you punched me, I will punch you back just as hard.
Removing the 'Mutual' from Mutually Assured Destruction greatly increases the chances of nuclear war. If your enemy has no defense against your nukes, then the temptation for you to use your nukes increases dramatically. Meanwhile, your enemy isn't stupid and realizes that he will be at your mercy once your defense is implemented.
You need to open your mind and think about it from the enemy's point of view. Your enemy can:
a) build his own missile shield before you finish yours
b) figure out how to defeat the missile shield before it goes live,
c) attack before the missile shield is live,
d) trust that you'll be nice enough to not attack, bully, or force political and economic concessions from your position of superiority.
A is too expensive for the Russians.
B is either too expensive, or inherently destabilizing. Russia could put subs closer to the US but that would reduce an already short warning time, thus increasing the chances of a mistake triggering nuclear annihilation. Or they could develop stealth missiles/bombers. Or they figure out how to smuggle nukes into the country, which cuts the warning time to zero.
C, attack now, is very tempting. You simply state that you will launch before the missile shield goes live. Under MAD, bluffing is not a winning strategy. If the US backs down, we lose face but nobody loses. If we don't back down, then Russia has to do _something_ or it loses. Which means they must launch.
D, trust your enemy, isn't likely. Even if you're 99% sure that the US wouldn't launch, can you guarantee that the US won't use its advantage to rape you economically and politically? Can you guarantee that the US government will remain stable long enough to not nuke you until you can achieve parity again? (civil war? economic collapse? coup? police sate? religious fundamentalism? pride? stupidity?)
A counter argument is that the longer we have nukes pointed at each other, the chances of a mistake occurring approach near certainty. However, if the US is immune to Russian nukes, then we're likely to become less concerned about making mistakes ourselves, thereby increasing the chances of mistakes. (Why continue to put a lot of money and attention into something that won't affect you?)
Thus, taking the Mutual out of Mutually Assured Destruction is almost guaranteed to start a nuclear war.
So the only practical solution is to build a small scale missile defense shield designed to stop a small number of launches, while you figure out a safer way to defeat your enemies or otherwise provide security for your nation. The economic collapse of the USSR is one example. Converting your former enemies is another way (such as extending NATO membership to former Warsaw Pact countries.) But a full scale missile defense right now is just asking for MAD.
This is our defense strategy as opposed to focusing on efforts to block or dodge a punch.
The problem with defense is that defense cannot win. It can only lose or not lose.
MAD is the worst policy ever, we could have developed a force field if we didn't have to spend all of our resources on offense ;)
MAD is an all or nothing policy. Either we have peace or everyone dies. Simple and to the point. MAD put the 'Cold' in the Cold War.
If we didn't have nukes and MAD, then world wars are less 'risky' and thus would have happened more often. Without nukes and MAD, we would have needed a HUGE conventional army stationed in Europe to keep the Red Army in check. Which means most
The shareholders can be as rational or emotional with their shares as they want.
funding a really viable alternative to Windows
A viable alternative to Windows has to run popular Windows software. The problems are a) MS owns (or can buy) the most popular Windows software and can modify it to be incompatible with an alternative OS, or b) MS can push the next release of Windows before the alternative can gather momentum. This makes creating a viable Windows alternative a very risky, expensive, and exceptionally time sensitive gamble.
Which is why ODF scares the hell out of MS. ODF would make it much easier to develop an alternative to Office. As it stands, Office's price is pretty inelastic since there is no real competitor. We've been paying five dollar a gallon prices for Office for a long time now. ODF would make it possible for people to switch to a wallet friendly and just as effective Office alternative. And unlike Ma Bell, once the office productivity market is broken up, there won't be a way to put it back together again.
Once people no longer have to rely on the Microsoft Office software suite, their need to run Windows diminishes greatly. If Office falls, Windows OS falls, and MS goes from Kraken to being just another fish in the pond.
End result: you don't need to create an alternative Windows compatible OS. You just need to develop an Office alternative. Which is why MS is using every ethically challenged legal and business strategy to shut down ODF.
Even if MS stops ODF, if they keep pushing out underwhelming and much delayed Vista-like versions of Windows, or if MS cannot keep people on the software upgrade/subscription path, then they might really be vulnerable to an actual alternative Windows compatible OS (which at the moment is XP. Go figure.) Given that an operating system isn't useful in and of itself (applications make a computer useful,) it is a double hit to see MS having a great difficulty in coming up with and implementing must-have features or improvements to Windows. They're also scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of Office improvements. It's becoming apparent that MS has has lost the agility needed to create and implement innovations in a cost and time-effective manner.
So until MS figures out how to compete by producing a quality product, it's going find itself in the same position that IBM did in the early 90s (where IBM almost went bankrupt.) It will be interesting to see if MS can pull an IBM and re-invent itself from a clumsy dinosaur into a fleet footed mammal.
If the camera wasn't transmitting back to Comcast, then this should be "ok", where "ok" means they'll think it's a good feature to implement.
However, if the camera is sending video back to the office, then the first time it gets hacked, Comcast would get sued into oblivion. Imagine if a million customers suddenly found themselves on youtube? If an employee abuses the system, then Comcast would probably survive the lawsuit. Either way, Congress would be quick to ban the practice after the first public incident.
As more nations develop missile technology, they're going to want/need to test their anti-satellite capability. So is there any possible way to do it safely?
As yes, continued anti-satellite missile testing will happen, since any rational nation will have no desire to be under the thumb of someone else's satellites.
Talk about your exhorbitant markup... How many businesses outside of medecine get a 170% markup on ther products to end consumers?
Phone. Cable. Military contractors. Things bought with your Tax money. Any domestic product that can only compete against the equivalent foreign import via government subsidies and trade tariffs.
Besides, I imagine that the 170% markup has to cover thorough training and medical insurance. If you make a single mistake while using the wand and miss a RFID for any reason, then you can cause great harm to a person and get sued for millions.
I don't understand the reference. When has Bush killed lots of people who have a fetish for performing cunnilingus on menstruating women?
In many countries people under the age of 18 can have student loans, drive cars, drink, have sex, but now we won't let them put their contact information on the net? Teenagers are people too, and they should have the right to make contact with whomever they choose.
Teenagers don't have (full) rights for a couple of reasons:
When teenagers screw up, who foots the bill? The parents. Until someone is fully on their own and fully responsible for their own mistakes, they're not free of parental oversight.
Everyone 20+ has been through the awkward teenage years. We've been there, we remember just how screwed up being a teen can be, and we damn well believe, in our _experienced_ opinions, that teens should go through that particular phase of life with adult supervision.
As for your point about educating teens, teens aren't rational. Their brains are still developing (which doesn't stop until about 20 years of age,) hormones are running rampant, peer pressure is insanely powerful, and they are extremely sensitive to self-image and social status.
As for your point about censorship, given how alcohol is glamorized on TV, in movies, and on billboards, do you really think that a rational discussion on why teens shouldn't drink is going to work? At some point you will have to censor what they're exposed to (no alcohol ads during prime time, movies and video games with alcohol abuse get more restrictive ratings, etc..)
Then there's the problem that if the adults don't understand the technology, then how to you educate them about the risks? Plus nowadays, both parents work, so it's difficult to continually keep tabs on teens, especially given their damnable source of infinite energy. It's a balancing act to let teens be free enough to learn, but not so uncontrolled that they harm themselves. You can't let them be 100% free, nor can you lock them up in a nunnery or monastery. So while this 'do-it-for-the-kids' law may be flawed, it demonstrates that people do consider it an important issue, that they really do want to protect our kids, and that there is no perfect solution, but instead of giving up because perfection isn't achievable, we'll try different things until we figure out something that works a little better.
What happens when someone shops at an adult store and there are minors on their friends list...?
Reminds me of Battlestar Galactica and how the Cyclons hacked into a squadron of Vipers via their sensor arrays and shut them down. Granted they had placed a backdoor in the software (or found a security gap.)
Then there was that power generator that could be "hacked" and given commands to tear itself apart.
And then there's war driving where you drive around looking for wireless networks to access/hack/piggyback on.
And then there are those huge zombie networks containing hundreds of thousands of compromised computers worldwide.
And the there was Vietnam. If you can't fight them directly, then use guerilla warfare. If it's easier to knock out a tank by hacking it's computer than it is to fight it directly...
The sorry state of affairs today in that our boys on the field rely TOO MUCH on TECHNOLOGY is reflected in what happens when that technology FAILS. People DIE.
a) Technology can give you a huge advantage over The Enemy(tm). Which is why the US led coalition was able to dominate in Desert Storm.
b) Because technology acts as a "force multiplier," meaning you can do a lot more with less people/tanks/planes/etc.. Without high technology we would need many more real live people in the military. So you either pay the cost in technology or you pay the cost with a larger percentage of your population in uniform and/or in harm's way.
c) Technology requires "less skill" to use. Having infrared sensors, laser range findings, and a computerized fire control system makes the M-1's main gun very deadly. How long would it take for a gunner to get that good using just the Mark I Eyeball and human skill? People in the military should be focused on winning, and not on frantically having to look up wind speed on paper firing tables before taking a shot.
So, why do we impose the heaviest sentences for murder, regardless of circumstance, heavier than those crimes that indicate a far more sociopathic personality, if the justice system is first and foremost about protecting society and its interests?
Eh? "Regardless of circumstance?" Circumstances are why we have 1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree murder, manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide, not guilty by reason of mental defect, and so on. Even then, the state can decline to bring charges, a plea bargain can be made, immunity given for help in prosecuting other crimes, a jury of our peers can choose to give a 'not guilty' verdict, and the governor/president can issue a pardon or commute the sentence. Society can even ignore murder if it chooses to (such as lynchings.)
On the long list of crimes ranked by recidivism rates, murder ranks very near the bottom. Except for the few sociopaths who see murder as acceptable means for financial or personal gain, and the even fewer number who kill to indulge a predatory instinct or because it's just fun for them, the vast majority of murders are very obviously one-time affairs.
It sounds more like rapists and other predators should be given life sentences, or otherwise removed from society in much the same way that murderers are. However, if the penalty for rape and murder are the same, then rapists might as well kill their victims.
How do you determine if a murderer won't murder again? If/when you're wrong, then that's another life lost. Society isn't in the mood to trust someone who committed the ultimate crime of taking a life.
And as others have stated, there's no way to undo, fix, or survive a murder, hence the harsh punishment.
(Bracing for the bitchslaps...)
Criticism and/or civilized debate are not equivalent to being bitch slapped, so don't play the martyr. Justice systems have been evolving for thousands of years and their workings have been analyzed, discussed, and debated by many minds greater than you or I.
Think of the potential abuse by insurance companies. They hire private companies to steer the hurricanes to consistently hit a certain area, and then refuse to insure that area. The insurance companies get "free money" from everyone else for storm/hurricane insurance on the off chance the hurricane cannot be redirected.
I'm guessing that the NSA/FBI/CIA/[insert TLA here] will be considered an affiliate?
Anyone remember how the seat belt laws did the same thing? "They are for your safety"..
And they're there for other people's safety. If you're not behind the wheel, then you're not in control of your car, which is dangerous to everyone else around you. So for moderate to minor accidents, you won't get bounced out of your seat, lose control and make the accident worse.
people eat like shit
After reading the ingredients on a frozen pizza box, I would have to agree. The biggest thing I noticed was that the meat only contained 11% meat... The salt was an insanely high percentage (40% or so?) of the FDA recommended daily allowance. There were several brands of pepperoni pizza that stated that the pepperoni was partially made from chicken.
And does anyone else consider Domino's Oreo Dessert Pizza to be an abomination against humanity? (Funny commercials though.)
Needless to say, I've learned to cook.
> no one in their right mind thinks a $220,000.00 judgment is fitting punishment for sharing a few songs
It wasn't a few songs. According to the article it was "1,702 digital files." That's almost $130 per file.
Did you even read the article? You cannot do _anything_ with the code except to look at it. Heck, you can't even download the code for reference. Instead, MS Dev Studio's debugger will fetch the source code section from a Microsoft MSDN server as you step into it.
No one is going to use this "open source" code for anything without MS's explicit permission. I'll bet that the MSDN server will log your IP and product activation information. Thus anyone who uses the "open source" code will be tainted and unable to work on anything even remotely .net related without Microsoft's approval.