Local phone service and a one-year contract are required.
$10/mo my ass. You have to sign up for a POTS line with them, and I'm willing to bet that's going to be at least another $10, not counting all the taxes, fees, and bullshit they attach on to that. ("Cost recovery fee" my ass. Do they still have that one?) And if you already have AT&T for your POTS line, then you're screwed! You're not eligible for the price anyway.
So let's review. It forces people who don't have a line with AT&T, and presumably don't want one, to get one -- upping the price. And people who already have service with them, can't get it.
Nice work, FCC, nice work. This is a 'concession'? What did you have to give them? (Besides your bank account numbers, to deposit the cash.)
Somewhere around there was a story about a guy who made it his personal obsession to get to L60 in WoW as quickly as possible. He got it down to somewhere around 24-48 hours, IIRC. Maybe even shorter than that. (I don't want to know how he spent that much time playing absolutely nonstop...)
Anyway, it was longer than you'd really want to watch a movie of, and if you time-lapsed it, it just wouldn't make any sense, but I've always wondered if there would be any way to see that done, without actually watching the whole thing.
Apparently the fastest way to level is by questing, not grinding, which I found interesting.
And, frankly, forgiving their debt will not compel them to manage their funds any better in the future.
On the contrary, it'll just encourage them to do the same thing in the future.
The only time anything changes in the U.S. is during or immediately after a major bloodletting. If you want stuff to change, heads have to roll. Sometimes figuratively (incarceration, financial ruination, humiliation), sometimes more literally. The town/city needs to be forced to pay this, they need to blow their budget, they need to go to the teacher's unions and beg for concessions and pay cuts (which is politically suicide, teachers unions are fairly powerful). Hopefully, they'll go find the asshats that mishandled the money 15 years ago and drag them out for a good, well-deserved media-flogging.
That's what they get for not putting a 57 Chevy in there. I mean, come on, a Plymouth Bevedere?!?!
Well, yeah, somebody probably *donated* that car to be locked up in a hole in the ground for 50 years. What did you think they were going to put in there?
I understand your point, but I think that your problem really ought to be less with the prohibitions on gold-purchase or other pay-to-advance schemes, but more with the fundamental design of the game itself. Most MMORPGs are designed to be time-intensive, such that your advancement is tied directly into how much time you can afford out of your day to sit in front of your PC and play them.
That may not be everyone's idea of a good time. It certainly is for some people, as the success of Everquest and WoW has demonstrated. But it's probably not yours, and it's not really mine, either. (I had fun playing WoW for a while, but it's just too damn slow to keep me interested.) But that's the game. That's how it's designed. And that's what a great many of the people who are playing it, are playing it for.
People play MMORPGs because they want to escape reality; they want a world that's disconnected from how much money they make in their day job (and, thus, how valuable their time might be). They want a place where the $12/hr UPS package handler can beat the shit out of the $650/hr attorney, if he can play the game enough, gather enough widgets, go on more quests, whatever. That's the whole point of the game. If you reintroduce a way to capitalize on real-life success within the context of the game, it stops being a game anymore, and instead just becomes a pastel-colored extension of real life.
There is room -- and probably, demand -- for 'games' that take different approaches on the amount of disconnection that they demand from the physical world. I think fantasy worlds like WoW are on the more disconnected end of the spectrum, and I'm not sure that there's any inherent unfairness in making it entirely meritocratic and letting people decide how much of their real-life time they're going to invest in advancement. On the other end, or more towards the other end anyway, you have Second Life type places, which have currency that's exchangable to real-life currencies on the open market. If you're rich in real life, you can be rich in Second Life, too -- from a certain point of view, you already are, in the same way that you'd be rich in any other country, subject to cost-of-living and exchange rates. There's no inherent unfairness in this, either, because it allows people to "play" SL more casually than WoW: if you have a successful RL occupation, you can spend your time doing that, and use the money you make there to buy nice stuff in SL, you don't have to spend 20-hour days questing to get mods.
Neither of these approaches is objectively better than either, at least in any way that I can really see or argue. (I suppose you could argue, depending on your feelings of the inherent fairness of our capitalist real-life economy and labor market, that the WoW one is a purer meritocracy, though.) They each have their strengths and weaknesses, and if you don't like the design of one, rather than trying to subvert the rules and "break the fourth wall" that's so carefully constructed (and desired, desperately, by many people who play them) in some online worlds, it's probably best to find an online world that's designed to be less disconnected from that giant MMORPG called Real Life.
Well in the case of something non-trivial, like the military, the reason why it's a Bad Thing is because then you end up with some rich incompetent running something that they have no business running. Which is not to say that the military is anything like a meritocracy in its current form, but it's a little better than cash-on-the-barrel-head.
That general point is true of more trivial activities, like games; if you destroy the meritocratic aspects in favor of pay-to-play (really, pay-to-advance; you already have to pay to play!) then you'll end up with a worse result, in most cases, overall. The difference due to putting people with either less skill, or less interest, in higher positions than they would otherwise occupy.
While the Victrola "EULA" described in TFA is a new one to me, damaging intellectual property disputes are definitely not something that's unique to our time.
Every time an article on IT patents comes up, I immediately think about the Selden Patent, and the effect that dispute had on the development of automobiles at the dawn of the 20th century. It's difficult to say how things would have turned out if the patent hadn't been granted, or if it had been invalidated earlier, but it certainly shaped the landscape dramatically. (Whether for the better or worse is arguable -- probably its biggest effect was the boost it gave one Henry Ford, who challenged the Selden-patent-backed oligopoly.)
But you can see many of the same legal arguments and constructs that occur in modern patent wars in the Selden conflict: the cartel of companies who had the patent tried to use it aggressively to stifle competition, first attacking other producers, then trying to end-run them and threatening customers directly to keep them away from competing products. In response, upstart producers (like Ford) who didn't license the patent agreed to indemnify their customers against the cartel's possible suits. It ground forward, both in the courts and in the public eye, for years, and eventually concluded itself when Ford won a around in court and the Selden/ALAM side couldn't afford to continue the fight. The actual utility of the patent to the public was basically never considered.
What is most interesting out of all this is that we really haven't changed anything. It's almost universally agreed that the Selden Patent was a debacle -- regardless of one's feelings of George Selden, his patent did nothing to encourage the development of automobiles, and it almost certainly resulted in a lot of wasted effort on the part of all concerned -- yet virtually no changes were made to the patent system in response. And now we have similar situations repeating themselves, over and over.
But I suppose that shouldn't really come as any surprise. It's been almost 155 years since Dickens published "Bleak House," and, legal details excepted, you could probably set that story -- its bankruptcy-inducing proceedings, with their grinding slowness and vulturous lawyers -- just as easily in 2007 Delaware as you could in 1842 England.
I tried to get some understanding of how the "Common Criteria" work, and read the wiki article on the subject, but I'm still not clear. Can anyone elucidate on how the whole process works, and what the various grades are? I understand that the 'Common Criteria' in their purest form aren't a set list of features that products need to have -- it's more of a framework for specifying and testing criteria -- but obviously the US Government has to have its own standards, tested using the Common Criteria, that it uses for approving systems. How does it work now? (Grumbles that the Rainbow Books were a fuckload simpler to understand...)
In particular, I really don't get this paragraph from the WP article:
So, if a product is Common Criteria certified, does that mean it is very secure? Let's look at an example.
Microsoft Windows 2000 is certified product at EAL4+, but regular security patches for security vulnerabilities are still published by Microsoft for Windows 2000. This is possible because the process of getting a Common Criteria certification allows a vendor to make certain assumptions about the operating environment and the strength of threats, if any, faced by the product in that environment. Based on these assumptions, the claimed security functions of the product are evaluated. Since Microsoft Windows 2000 has been EAL4+ certified, it should only be considered secure in the assumed, specified circumstances, also known as the evaluated configuration, specified by Microsoft.
Whether you run Microsoft Windows 2000 in the precise evaluated configuration or not, you should apply Microsoft's security patches for the vulnerabilities in Windows 2000 as they continue to appear. If any of these security vulnerabilities are exploitable in the product's evaluated configuration, the product's Common Criteria certification should be voluntarily withdrawn by the vendor. Alternatively, the vendor should re-evaluate the product to include application of the patches to fix the security vulnerabilities within the evaluated configuration. Failure by the vendor to take either of these steps would result in involuntary withdrawal of the product's certification by the certification body of the country in which the product was evaluated.
Microsoft Windows 2000 remains at EAL4+ without including the application of any Microsoft security vulnerability patches in its evaluated configuration. This shows both the limitation and strength of an evaluated configuration.
Yes, and it sucks. It's basically YouTube on 'roids; you have to watch it on a computer, and it's streamed (not really downloaded), and it's Windows-only. I've played around with it and found it interesting from a technical standpoint but otherwise totally uncompelling. And this is from someone who *does* have computers driving most of the TV monitors in their house.
How do you think Lincoln would have fared in the GOP of today? FIrst of all, he couldn't have raised 100mil, so he'd never have gotten the least bit of Republican attention. They'd also have had a problem with that whole "honest" business. Not a core GOP value.
Yeah but they've really have liked his suspension-of-habeas-corpus thing.
Yes, they're big in the U.S. Particularly at large universities, I'd wager that they are the dominant form of testing.
I went to a very small college for undergrad, so my experience is different, but I've had friends who went to huge state unis, and describe many classes where there was virtually no interaction with the professor besides multiple-choice tests. They are heavily used because they can be easily graded via automated systems. (Fill-in-the-bubble, aka "Scantron" forms, usually.) All quizzes, tests, and the final would be on Scantrons, all 4- or 5-question multiple choice.
For the professors, they're great. All they have to do is make up one exam, with the answers marked on it, and pass it off to a teaching assistant to make up the "master" sheet that has the correct responses. Then they have the students do their exams on ScanTrons, and have the TA feed them into the machine. The machine does the grading, marks the incorrect responses (some will even print the correct response next to it), and can produce a score report so the prof can re-jigger/curve grades as necessary. Most systems can even cope with multiple versions of a test (to deter shoulder-surfing in the exam room). The professor never even need to look at a student's work, and it doesn't require any infrastructure like computer-based testing does.
I wasn't putting it entirely on you. But you brought up the (American) Civil War [1], and while I said it's not a complete non sequitur, it's also probably the worst example of states' rights that can come up in a popular discussion. It's basically un-discussable. Just by bringing it up, because the Civil War is invariably taught as a conflict between pro- and anti-slavery forces, you put anyone arguing on the pro-states'-rights side in the uncomfortable position of seemingly defending slavery, even if that's not explicitly stated. It's a subtle rhetorical device but it pigeonholes your opponent pretty effectively.
It's analogous to discussing forms of government and bringing up World War Two as the prototypical conflict between fascism and democracy; it may be factually correct, but it's impossible to discuss rationally because it forces someone in the discussion to take the side of the Nazis.
[1] "Remember the (ahem) Civil War? Wasn't that a good case of states resisting what the federal government is doing?"
Following your logic - which is indeed a possibility - isn't it OK to assume that the USA will do the same with software made by US corporations and sold to Venezuela? And in that light, and not taking into account the liking or disliking of the respective governments, isn't it a matter of national security to stop using US made software in government computers?
To be honest, I've always wondered the same thing. Not so much recently, because I don't think the CIA and the NSA have the influence in big business that they used to have during the Cold War (IBM was notorious for being in bed with the NSA -- they got help designing some of their early crypto stuff from them, although there was never any sign of anything too untoward, admittedly), but if I was some paranoid dictatorial government on the USA's shit list, I'd probably be thinking twice about loading my PC up with some inscrutable binary objects procured from a company that's on very, very good terms with the USG.
There are supposedly a bunch of universities and other alleged "disinterested parties" who have, or have had over the years, access to the actual Windows and other MS products' source code, but of course you never really know what goes into the stuff that you're running. It seems like just too good an avenue for an intelligence agency to pass up -- all sorts of governments, all over the world, dropping software that they really don't have any idea of the inner workings of, onto their employees' computers? I really suspect that in the future, there won't ever be quite an opportunity like that again (at least, I'd hope not).
Yep. That was kind of my point -- in the same way that bringing up the Nazis ends all discussion about government or economics (or anything else that you link to Nazism), slavery does the same thing. So if you start even heading down that path, talking about states' rights vs Federalism, and you don't make a point of steering clear of the American Civil War, eventually someone is just going to drop the 'ol "you're pro-slavery!" bomb as a counterpoint to states' rights, and Game Over -- stick a fork in it, the discussion is done.
The point of Godwin's Law is that there are some issues that are just too emotionally laden to rationally discuss. The Holocaust is one, and I'd argue that slavery is another. I'm sure there are others beyond that; but generally, sometimes you just have to just ward off going down a particular path if you know it's just not going to go somewhere productive.
Agreed. I'm not sure if Maine necessarily has the clout to really affect anything directly, except maybe for preventing monkey business conducted at the head-ends by ISPs in Maine (thinking about it, I assume this is where you'd want to do the packet-shaping if you wanted to fudge service, so maybe it's not totally toothless). However, if they can encourage other states to do it -- particularly states where there are big peering points or other key infrastructure -- then it could, if the laws are drafted well, effectively regulate all traffic.
I think regulation like this can swing both ways: it shows the power of individual states' legislatures in potentially effecting great things. However, it can also show how a state law, if very poorly written, could adversely affect large swaths of the network, if it commanded the information-carriers to act in a certain way. (Although I think they'd be able to dodge some very onerous state laws on interstate-commerce grounds.)
It's a pity that the economy in Maine is so messed up, because they do seem to have a state government with an unusual amount of backbone. I moved south a few years ago, and while I partially regret it and would love to move back, the numbers are just dismal.
As a state is has one of the highest tax burdens (as percent of income). IIRC it's up close to 15% going to the state, and second only to Vermont. (Although looking at newer stats they may have cut it down some.) And that's on top of Federal taxes. That wouldn't be too bad if you could get a high paying job -- you can buy a lot of property, inland anyway, for the cost of a townhouse in other parts of the country -- but except for a meager high-tech area down around Portland (National Semi has what I think is their prototype fab there), the job market is in tough shape.
Leaving Northern New England was one of the saddest things I ever did, but by moving to the Mid-Atlantic region I got an almost 50% pay increase -- even factoring in the ridiculous cost-of-living and the necessity (as far as I'm concerned) of running the A/C most of the time. Still, every time I hear a story like this, I can't help but cheer a little. And then feel vaguely dirty for so blatantly selling out.
I won't speak for the GP, but I am not historically ignorant, and I don't think that his post should be blown off like you seem so keen on doing.
Throughout U.S. history there are identifiable patterns or periods when power has shifted between the States and the Federal government -- although the overwhelming theme has been from the former to the latter, there have been some periods where the reverse has occurred. I think it's entirely possible that the current uber-Federalism has reached the end of its rope with the public, and we're starting to see a loss of patience for highly centralized government, and a desire to decentralize some authority back out to the States. People want more accountability, and it's just not clear that the Federal government is in a position to provide it.
Although it's not a total non sequitur, I'm not sure that bringing up the Civil War is really relevant to the discussion; it's nearly impossible to have a rational discussion of the Civil War without getting wrapped up in the historically-related (and still partially unresolved) issues of agrarian-vs-industrial economies, slavery, and 19th century politics. (Particularly slavery -- it's hardly worth even trying to discuss the abstract issue of states' rights when anyone on the states' side of the argument is going to be called pro-slavery. It's like Nazism; it just stops the discussion.)
Yeah, I agree, that was an absolutely retarded statement (at least, to make without some sort of explanation or qualification) in TFA.
Apple could have made their product much more attractive to early-adopter buyers, and possibly even changed how cellphones are sold in the U.S., by selling it directly to consumers, unlocked. I know of a lot of people who are mildly intrigued by the iPhone -- enough that they'd at least consider it for their next phone, maybe even buy one if they had the option of returning it, if it doesn't meet the hype -- but aren't going to bend over and take it in the ass from AT&T in order to get one.
Not only is AT&T asking for the full price of the phone, they're going to demand that you lock yourself into a contract for 2 years. The hell with that; I know people who are AT&T users who wouldn't even re-contract if they got the iPhone for free. In addition to just being stuck with a carrier for a term of years, re-contracting also blows any good promotions you may have picked up in the past. It just makes the iPhone that much less attractive.
Because until very recently, most people weren't willing to pay extra for, or use as a selling point when choosing between vehicles, fuel economy.
It's really only since the price of gas has hit $3/gal(US) that anyone here in the 'States has started to care about fuel efficiency. At least in the mainstream market -- the VW Diesels have always been popular with some folks I know (and I used to own one, great car) who were really into fuel economy, but the price-premium you pay for the diesel engine doesn't pay for itself in gas savings for upwards of 150k miles in late-90s gas prices. That's longer than many Americans own cars for. (At least, it's longer than many Americans who buy new cars -- and consequently have the most direct effect on what auto makers produce -- keep their cars for.)
Personally I find the popularity of hybrids interesting, because it's mostly irrational, at least in the financial sense: when you factor in the upfront cost and eventual battery maintenance, a hybrid is an even slower payoff than a diesel (there was a good analysis of them in Consumer Reports fairly recently), yet they've become far more popular. I think it's because of the "green" cachet they have, and because some places give you nice bennys for driving them (drive in the HOV with one passenger, special parking, toll discounts, etc. I know a lot of people who bought hybrids just for the HOV privileges last year).
I think the reason that it seems like people are more safety-obsessed about the SmartCar is basically because the un-safety-conscious are already driving other vehicles.
If you are OK with the risk that driving a motorcycle entails, then you probably already have a motorcycle. They're fairly inexpensive, get great mileage, are easily available, and nobody will really look at you funny for driving one. Yeah, depending on the climate, there are some people who would be OK with the risk associated with commuting on a motorcycle, but don't do it for other reasons (e.g., it's too cold, they don't want to change in/out of riding gear at work, etc.), but I think the #1 issue is perceived risk.
With that in mind, I think 'nontraditional' vehicles like the SmartCar mainly appeal to people who would be interested in something like a motorcycle, but are put off because of the risk -- so in considering the SmartCar, that's going to be their first consideration.
Personally, and I say this as a person who is not normally all that risk-averse, I've been interested in getting a motorcycle for a while, but I'm just not sure that I trust the drivers around me enough to want to ride one in the traffic where I live (DC Metro area). I've been rear-ended, driving a big SUV, several times in traffic in the space of a few years (not enough to damage the car, and usually at very low speed, twice just because the driver behind me wasn't paying attention and just rolled their car into me in traffic)...I know I'm not going to live forever, but I really don't want to go out because some asshole on 495 didn't check their blind spot when they were changing lanes and splattered me all over the pavement. A SmartCar would be an interesting alternative, if it's somewhat safer, offers enough performance to make it at least not unpleasant to drive, and if it becomes popular enough to not be completely odd to be seen in one.
I can understand not sitting on a vulnerability -- there are some valid points both for and against full disclosure -- but not notifying the company at all? WTF.
This is the sort of stuff that just makes the whole IT security industry, and everyone involved in it, look dangerous and irresponsible.
Slashdot Mirror
So let's review. It forces people who don't have a line with AT&T, and presumably don't want one, to get one -- upping the price. And people who already have service with them, can't get it.
Nice work, FCC, nice work. This is a 'concession'? What did you have to give them? (Besides your bank account numbers, to deposit the cash.)
Somewhere around there was a story about a guy who made it his personal obsession to get to L60 in WoW as quickly as possible. He got it down to somewhere around 24-48 hours, IIRC. Maybe even shorter than that. (I don't want to know how he spent that much time playing absolutely nonstop...)
Anyway, it was longer than you'd really want to watch a movie of, and if you time-lapsed it, it just wouldn't make any sense, but I've always wondered if there would be any way to see that done, without actually watching the whole thing.
Apparently the fastest way to level is by questing, not grinding, which I found interesting.
And, frankly, forgiving their debt will not compel them to manage their funds any better in the future.
On the contrary, it'll just encourage them to do the same thing in the future.
The only time anything changes in the U.S. is during or immediately after a major bloodletting. If you want stuff to change, heads have to roll. Sometimes figuratively (incarceration, financial ruination, humiliation), sometimes more literally. The town/city needs to be forced to pay this, they need to blow their budget, they need to go to the teacher's unions and beg for concessions and pay cuts (which is politically suicide, teachers unions are fairly powerful). Hopefully, they'll go find the asshats that mishandled the money 15 years ago and drag them out for a good, well-deserved media-flogging.
That's what they get for not putting a 57 Chevy in there. I mean, come on, a Plymouth Bevedere?!?!
Well, yeah, somebody probably *donated* that car to be locked up in a hole in the ground for 50 years. What did you think they were going to put in there?
I understand your point, but I think that your problem really ought to be less with the prohibitions on gold-purchase or other pay-to-advance schemes, but more with the fundamental design of the game itself. Most MMORPGs are designed to be time-intensive, such that your advancement is tied directly into how much time you can afford out of your day to sit in front of your PC and play them.
That may not be everyone's idea of a good time. It certainly is for some people, as the success of Everquest and WoW has demonstrated. But it's probably not yours, and it's not really mine, either. (I had fun playing WoW for a while, but it's just too damn slow to keep me interested.) But that's the game. That's how it's designed. And that's what a great many of the people who are playing it, are playing it for.
People play MMORPGs because they want to escape reality; they want a world that's disconnected from how much money they make in their day job (and, thus, how valuable their time might be). They want a place where the $12/hr UPS package handler can beat the shit out of the $650/hr attorney, if he can play the game enough, gather enough widgets, go on more quests, whatever. That's the whole point of the game. If you reintroduce a way to capitalize on real-life success within the context of the game, it stops being a game anymore, and instead just becomes a pastel-colored extension of real life.
There is room -- and probably, demand -- for 'games' that take different approaches on the amount of disconnection that they demand from the physical world. I think fantasy worlds like WoW are on the more disconnected end of the spectrum, and I'm not sure that there's any inherent unfairness in making it entirely meritocratic and letting people decide how much of their real-life time they're going to invest in advancement. On the other end, or more towards the other end anyway, you have Second Life type places, which have currency that's exchangable to real-life currencies on the open market. If you're rich in real life, you can be rich in Second Life, too -- from a certain point of view, you already are, in the same way that you'd be rich in any other country, subject to cost-of-living and exchange rates. There's no inherent unfairness in this, either, because it allows people to "play" SL more casually than WoW: if you have a successful RL occupation, you can spend your time doing that, and use the money you make there to buy nice stuff in SL, you don't have to spend 20-hour days questing to get mods.
Neither of these approaches is objectively better than either, at least in any way that I can really see or argue. (I suppose you could argue, depending on your feelings of the inherent fairness of our capitalist real-life economy and labor market, that the WoW one is a purer meritocracy, though.) They each have their strengths and weaknesses, and if you don't like the design of one, rather than trying to subvert the rules and "break the fourth wall" that's so carefully constructed (and desired, desperately, by many people who play them) in some online worlds, it's probably best to find an online world that's designed to be less disconnected from that giant MMORPG called Real Life.
Well in the case of something non-trivial, like the military, the reason why it's a Bad Thing is because then you end up with some rich incompetent running something that they have no business running. Which is not to say that the military is anything like a meritocracy in its current form, but it's a little better than cash-on-the-barrel-head.
That general point is true of more trivial activities, like games; if you destroy the meritocratic aspects in favor of pay-to-play (really, pay-to-advance; you already have to pay to play!) then you'll end up with a worse result, in most cases, overall. The difference due to putting people with either less skill, or less interest, in higher positions than they would otherwise occupy.
No way! Everybody knows you're supposed to get your cat to click on those.
Getting the Friskies treats out from between the keys is a bitch, though.
While the Victrola "EULA" described in TFA is a new one to me, damaging intellectual property disputes are definitely not something that's unique to our time.
Every time an article on IT patents comes up, I immediately think about the Selden Patent, and the effect that dispute had on the development of automobiles at the dawn of the 20th century. It's difficult to say how things would have turned out if the patent hadn't been granted, or if it had been invalidated earlier, but it certainly shaped the landscape dramatically. (Whether for the better or worse is arguable -- probably its biggest effect was the boost it gave one Henry Ford, who challenged the Selden-patent-backed oligopoly.)
But you can see many of the same legal arguments and constructs that occur in modern patent wars in the Selden conflict: the cartel of companies who had the patent tried to use it aggressively to stifle competition, first attacking other producers, then trying to end-run them and threatening customers directly to keep them away from competing products. In response, upstart producers (like Ford) who didn't license the patent agreed to indemnify their customers against the cartel's possible suits. It ground forward, both in the courts and in the public eye, for years, and eventually concluded itself when Ford won a around in court and the Selden/ALAM side couldn't afford to continue the fight. The actual utility of the patent to the public was basically never considered.
What is most interesting out of all this is that we really haven't changed anything. It's almost universally agreed that the Selden Patent was a debacle -- regardless of one's feelings of George Selden, his patent did nothing to encourage the development of automobiles, and it almost certainly resulted in a lot of wasted effort on the part of all concerned -- yet virtually no changes were made to the patent system in response. And now we have similar situations repeating themselves, over and over.
But I suppose that shouldn't really come as any surprise. It's been almost 155 years since Dickens published "Bleak House," and, legal details excepted, you could probably set that story -- its bankruptcy-inducing proceedings, with their grinding slowness and vulturous lawyers -- just as easily in 2007 Delaware as you could in 1842 England.
In particular, I really don't get this paragraph from the WP article:
Isn't netflix already selling movie downloads?
Yes, and it sucks. It's basically YouTube on 'roids; you have to watch it on a computer, and it's streamed (not really downloaded), and it's Windows-only. I've played around with it and found it interesting from a technical standpoint but otherwise totally uncompelling. And this is from someone who *does* have computers driving most of the TV monitors in their house.
How do you think Lincoln would have fared in the GOP of today? FIrst of all, he couldn't have raised 100mil, so he'd never have gotten the least bit of Republican attention. They'd also have had a problem with that whole "honest" business. Not a core GOP value.
Yeah but they've really have liked his suspension-of-habeas-corpus thing.
Yes, they're big in the U.S. Particularly at large universities, I'd wager that they are the dominant form of testing.
I went to a very small college for undergrad, so my experience is different, but I've had friends who went to huge state unis, and describe many classes where there was virtually no interaction with the professor besides multiple-choice tests. They are heavily used because they can be easily graded via automated systems. (Fill-in-the-bubble, aka "Scantron" forms, usually.) All quizzes, tests, and the final would be on Scantrons, all 4- or 5-question multiple choice.
For the professors, they're great. All they have to do is make up one exam, with the answers marked on it, and pass it off to a teaching assistant to make up the "master" sheet that has the correct responses. Then they have the students do their exams on ScanTrons, and have the TA feed them into the machine. The machine does the grading, marks the incorrect responses (some will even print the correct response next to it), and can produce a score report so the prof can re-jigger/curve grades as necessary. Most systems can even cope with multiple versions of a test (to deter shoulder-surfing in the exam room). The professor never even need to look at a student's work, and it doesn't require any infrastructure like computer-based testing does.
I wasn't putting it entirely on you. But you brought up the (American) Civil War [1], and while I said it's not a complete non sequitur, it's also probably the worst example of states' rights that can come up in a popular discussion. It's basically un-discussable. Just by bringing it up, because the Civil War is invariably taught as a conflict between pro- and anti-slavery forces, you put anyone arguing on the pro-states'-rights side in the uncomfortable position of seemingly defending slavery, even if that's not explicitly stated. It's a subtle rhetorical device but it pigeonholes your opponent pretty effectively.
It's analogous to discussing forms of government and bringing up World War Two as the prototypical conflict between fascism and democracy; it may be factually correct, but it's impossible to discuss rationally because it forces someone in the discussion to take the side of the Nazis.
[1] "Remember the (ahem) Civil War? Wasn't that a good case of states resisting what the federal government is doing?"
Following your logic - which is indeed a possibility - isn't it OK to assume that the USA will do the same with software made by US corporations and sold to Venezuela? And in that light, and not taking into account the liking or disliking of the respective governments, isn't it a matter of national security to stop using US made software in government computers?
To be honest, I've always wondered the same thing. Not so much recently, because I don't think the CIA and the NSA have the influence in big business that they used to have during the Cold War (IBM was notorious for being in bed with the NSA -- they got help designing some of their early crypto stuff from them, although there was never any sign of anything too untoward, admittedly), but if I was some paranoid dictatorial government on the USA's shit list, I'd probably be thinking twice about loading my PC up with some inscrutable binary objects procured from a company that's on very, very good terms with the USG.
There are supposedly a bunch of universities and other alleged "disinterested parties" who have, or have had over the years, access to the actual Windows and other MS products' source code, but of course you never really know what goes into the stuff that you're running. It seems like just too good an avenue for an intelligence agency to pass up -- all sorts of governments, all over the world, dropping software that they really don't have any idea of the inner workings of, onto their employees' computers? I really suspect that in the future, there won't ever be quite an opportunity like that again (at least, I'd hope not).
Yep. That was kind of my point -- in the same way that bringing up the Nazis ends all discussion about government or economics (or anything else that you link to Nazism), slavery does the same thing. So if you start even heading down that path, talking about states' rights vs Federalism, and you don't make a point of steering clear of the American Civil War, eventually someone is just going to drop the 'ol "you're pro-slavery!" bomb as a counterpoint to states' rights, and Game Over -- stick a fork in it, the discussion is done.
The point of Godwin's Law is that there are some issues that are just too emotionally laden to rationally discuss. The Holocaust is one, and I'd argue that slavery is another. I'm sure there are others beyond that; but generally, sometimes you just have to just ward off going down a particular path if you know it's just not going to go somewhere productive.
Agreed. I'm not sure if Maine necessarily has the clout to really affect anything directly, except maybe for preventing monkey business conducted at the head-ends by ISPs in Maine (thinking about it, I assume this is where you'd want to do the packet-shaping if you wanted to fudge service, so maybe it's not totally toothless). However, if they can encourage other states to do it -- particularly states where there are big peering points or other key infrastructure -- then it could, if the laws are drafted well, effectively regulate all traffic.
I think regulation like this can swing both ways: it shows the power of individual states' legislatures in potentially effecting great things. However, it can also show how a state law, if very poorly written, could adversely affect large swaths of the network, if it commanded the information-carriers to act in a certain way. (Although I think they'd be able to dodge some very onerous state laws on interstate-commerce grounds.)
It's a pity that the economy in Maine is so messed up, because they do seem to have a state government with an unusual amount of backbone. I moved south a few years ago, and while I partially regret it and would love to move back, the numbers are just dismal.
As a state is has one of the highest tax burdens (as percent of income). IIRC it's up close to 15% going to the state, and second only to Vermont. (Although looking at newer stats they may have cut it down some.) And that's on top of Federal taxes. That wouldn't be too bad if you could get a high paying job -- you can buy a lot of property, inland anyway, for the cost of a townhouse in other parts of the country -- but except for a meager high-tech area down around Portland (National Semi has what I think is their prototype fab there), the job market is in tough shape.
Leaving Northern New England was one of the saddest things I ever did, but by moving to the Mid-Atlantic region I got an almost 50% pay increase -- even factoring in the ridiculous cost-of-living and the necessity (as far as I'm concerned) of running the A/C most of the time. Still, every time I hear a story like this, I can't help but cheer a little. And then feel vaguely dirty for so blatantly selling out.
I won't speak for the GP, but I am not historically ignorant, and I don't think that his post should be blown off like you seem so keen on doing.
Throughout U.S. history there are identifiable patterns or periods when power has shifted between the States and the Federal government -- although the overwhelming theme has been from the former to the latter, there have been some periods where the reverse has occurred. I think it's entirely possible that the current uber-Federalism has reached the end of its rope with the public, and we're starting to see a loss of patience for highly centralized government, and a desire to decentralize some authority back out to the States. People want more accountability, and it's just not clear that the Federal government is in a position to provide it.
Although it's not a total non sequitur, I'm not sure that bringing up the Civil War is really relevant to the discussion; it's nearly impossible to have a rational discussion of the Civil War without getting wrapped up in the historically-related (and still partially unresolved) issues of agrarian-vs-industrial economies, slavery, and 19th century politics. (Particularly slavery -- it's hardly worth even trying to discuss the abstract issue of states' rights when anyone on the states' side of the argument is going to be called pro-slavery. It's like Nazism; it just stops the discussion.)
We do, but it's not all the same ... order chowder in Rhode Island and you'll get a very different product than in Maine.
... those heathen RIers defile theirs with tomatoes.)
(For the record, Maine "chowdah" is the real thing
Yeah, I agree, that was an absolutely retarded statement (at least, to make without some sort of explanation or qualification) in TFA.
Apple could have made their product much more attractive to early-adopter buyers, and possibly even changed how cellphones are sold in the U.S., by selling it directly to consumers, unlocked. I know of a lot of people who are mildly intrigued by the iPhone -- enough that they'd at least consider it for their next phone, maybe even buy one if they had the option of returning it, if it doesn't meet the hype -- but aren't going to bend over and take it in the ass from AT&T in order to get one.
Not only is AT&T asking for the full price of the phone, they're going to demand that you lock yourself into a contract for 2 years. The hell with that; I know people who are AT&T users who wouldn't even re-contract if they got the iPhone for free. In addition to just being stuck with a carrier for a term of years, re-contracting also blows any good promotions you may have picked up in the past. It just makes the iPhone that much less attractive.
Because until very recently, most people weren't willing to pay extra for, or use as a selling point when choosing between vehicles, fuel economy.
It's really only since the price of gas has hit $3/gal(US) that anyone here in the 'States has started to care about fuel efficiency. At least in the mainstream market -- the VW Diesels have always been popular with some folks I know (and I used to own one, great car) who were really into fuel economy, but the price-premium you pay for the diesel engine doesn't pay for itself in gas savings for upwards of 150k miles in late-90s gas prices. That's longer than many Americans own cars for. (At least, it's longer than many Americans who buy new cars -- and consequently have the most direct effect on what auto makers produce -- keep their cars for.)
Personally I find the popularity of hybrids interesting, because it's mostly irrational, at least in the financial sense: when you factor in the upfront cost and eventual battery maintenance, a hybrid is an even slower payoff than a diesel (there was a good analysis of them in Consumer Reports fairly recently), yet they've become far more popular. I think it's because of the "green" cachet they have, and because some places give you nice bennys for driving them (drive in the HOV with one passenger, special parking, toll discounts, etc. I know a lot of people who bought hybrids just for the HOV privileges last year).
I think the reason that it seems like people are more safety-obsessed about the SmartCar is basically because the un-safety-conscious are already driving other vehicles.
If you are OK with the risk that driving a motorcycle entails, then you probably already have a motorcycle. They're fairly inexpensive, get great mileage, are easily available, and nobody will really look at you funny for driving one. Yeah, depending on the climate, there are some people who would be OK with the risk associated with commuting on a motorcycle, but don't do it for other reasons (e.g., it's too cold, they don't want to change in/out of riding gear at work, etc.), but I think the #1 issue is perceived risk.
With that in mind, I think 'nontraditional' vehicles like the SmartCar mainly appeal to people who would be interested in something like a motorcycle, but are put off because of the risk -- so in considering the SmartCar, that's going to be their first consideration.
Personally, and I say this as a person who is not normally all that risk-averse, I've been interested in getting a motorcycle for a while, but I'm just not sure that I trust the drivers around me enough to want to ride one in the traffic where I live (DC Metro area). I've been rear-ended, driving a big SUV, several times in traffic in the space of a few years (not enough to damage the car, and usually at very low speed, twice just because the driver behind me wasn't paying attention and just rolled their car into me in traffic)...I know I'm not going to live forever, but I really don't want to go out because some asshole on 495 didn't check their blind spot when they were changing lanes and splattered me all over the pavement. A SmartCar would be an interesting alternative, if it's somewhat safer, offers enough performance to make it at least not unpleasant to drive, and if it becomes popular enough to not be completely odd to be seen in one.
I thought it was common knowledge that motherboard were made in Anduril, Flame of the West, and forged from the shards of Narsil.
Well, the Elves were whispering about unionizing so it got outsourced.
So you are saying you would not rat out a neighbor that runs one of his two cars on dead babies and the other one on powdered plutonium?
Well, will he give me a ride to work sometimes? Because, I'm telling you, the cost of gas is just killer these days.
Yeah -- what the hell.
I can understand not sitting on a vulnerability -- there are some valid points both for and against full disclosure -- but not notifying the company at all? WTF.
This is the sort of stuff that just makes the whole IT security industry, and everyone involved in it, look dangerous and irresponsible.