Are you also against inter-state trade? Why not? If trade between 2 ppl in different countries is bad (that is what globalization is), why is trade between 2 ppl in 2 different state here is ok?
Did you not notice you used the word "trade"? Did you not actually "trade" with your friends as a child? Google opening shop in China is in no way "trade", not even similar concept no matter how you look at it.
How weird it must be, instead of saying "Hey John, I'll trade you my apple for your fruit cup." with "Hey John, let me live with you in your room, under governance of your mom and dad so I can get a fruit cup too. Alice, Bob, Jack and I will form a committee to arbitrate a 'agreement' between us, so you have to let me live in your house with you. Oh, and btw, I don't agree with your posters on the wall, you have to change them from Porsche's to Lamborghini's and that super model chick you have has mutilated her body which is against my principles so we'll have to bring legal action against you and question your compliance to the way I think things should be."
OK, first let's look at the F22 Raptor or the MiG-35. Arguably, the final word in modern aviation, these aircraft demonstrate a great deal of progress in aviation and all other relevant scientific application. A lot of technology, some of the technology is the very spear head of their relative fields.
Now, there are VAX/VMS systems still used in the military. I'm not talking about some old geek with one in his garage that he tinkers with, no, these archaic machines are still essential, still used, still certified, still needed. At some point in the development from paper to manufacturing, a old and busted VAX/VMS was called on for the development of the F22 Raptor. Likewise, for the Russians, something equivalent might have been used in the testing, verification and manufacturing of their MiG-35 no doubt.
Today, in the ship yards, the latest in maritime might is being constructed. Super carriers, massive beasts of the ocean capable of forward deployment anywhere in the world. These massive ships can push through the water fast enough to create a 35knot head wind for catapulting jet aircraft from a short distance, only about 60 feet above the water and make them airborne. 35knots is rather fast, and it's almost impossible to appreciate what a feat this is, even if you are physically standing on one of these ships in awe of it's size. I mean, the water displacement alone standing still is on an order of 90+ tons... it's unbelievable. Yet, right now, at the docks, someone is bringing a box of DDS-1 drives on board, real to real tape reals on board... even though no manufacturer makes that stuff anymore, but in spite of the billions of dollars to build that marvel, in spite of it being indicative of superior technology, some key technologies have yet to be changed (because they simply work).
One might ask, "shit, dds-1? jesus who uses dds-1? why can't the military use flash drives or something new?". Well, therein lies the problem, because why use the flash drives? Seriously, we aren't talking about your home box, that has no life or death responsibilities. We can't go to a Senator and say "this is the newest stuff, maybe a little buggy, but since it's new, let's have it replace old and established fire control systems on board submarines!". No one, is going to want to stand a chance of a misfire, whether it's an accidental launch or perhaps worse, a faulty launch when one is intended. At the same time, a department head will say "well, it costs x million dollars to have this new technology integrated... regression testing, certification... testing, verification... it takes years to do, by the time it's said and done, they'll surely have something new. We have to decide not to chase the Joneses and stick with what we already invested in."
It does make sense. Basically, the only way to introduce new technology into the military/government, is for it to be introduced as a new technology entry point, new implementation (which is costly as it requires testing against old systems, and certification). For example, want new fast CPUs installed on a jet fighter? Come up with some technology that the military buys from you, and the initial implementation have quad-zeon processors, but for the next twenty or thirty years that's what's going to be used... quad-zeon processors. Because the program office is going to certify the hardware, configuration and software to a 'T', and that combination and only that combination is going to be certified for that particular use in aviation. These guys don't play around, they can't afford to take chances, lives are at stake. In fact, some proprietary software sold to the government goes through bug fixes and revisions without actually incrementing version numbers, because for certain aspects of the program, if they do increment a version number then that requires re-certification, other aspects of the program might only require evaluation and approval from the program office (re: some regression te
First, the new CoD MW2 is nice. But there are some major issues with this game regarding multiplayer.
First, bring back dedicated servers. If I decide to join a server hosted in Bahrain, from San Diego, yeah... lag. Nothing is worse than blatant interruption of game play, I'd rather play throw lag than be interrupted for long periods of time waiting for host migration, connecting to new host, waiting for other players... 5, 4, 3, 2, 1.... just because someone decided to leave. The time wasted waiting to continue far exceeds even the time loss dealing with noticable lag from a dedicated server. Not to mention the heavy negative of being outright interrupted.
They have destroyed the community values of FPS games with this new system. With Unreal Tournament, there were a handful of servers I went to, constantly. Handles became familiar, even considering regulars as friends. Clans used to be stronger, more prevalent... a bit harder to do in CoD MW2. I can't help to notice a dramatic reduction in Clan Tags in CoD MW2, but this only reflects the total destruction of social aspect of the game as no social congregations can be made reliably and every round is full of strangers you haven't seen before, and may never see again. Yes, I know about friends list, I know you can try to jimmy the distribution and I have seen clan tags in CoD... just no where near as much.
Also, where are the custom maps? What was ridiculously boring about other CoDs was the lack of wide use of custom maps. Unreal Tournament, full of custom maps, anyone remember the giant maps... of like an office... chair was 100 feet tall? Man, those were the best.
Anyways, I couldn't care less for CoD MW2. If they die and never release another game I figure that's a good thing.
They need to bring back dedicated servers, what they are doing now sucks ass. There's no social glue with the game, so when I finally get bored of the maps why play anymore? On the other hand, Unreal Tournament some servers only had one map, but I continued to play because friends and familiar people played on that server too; some where considered 'home' for friendly clans... etc etc. Here, it's just pure insanity and stupidity, why play?
Some people like this new crap network arch they have going on. I think they haven't really thought about it thoroughly, maybe they are stupid, maybe they can't think further ahead than five minutes, maybe they are just dumb.
OK. If a country who decided, stupidly and unconventionally, to have Windows (any version) installed anywhere within the chain of firecontrol for nuclear weapons, or massive bio/chem weapons, and one accidentally launched or worse, didn't launch when needed. Microsoft needs to be held liable.
If a life support system, fails and it is found, beyond all doubt and as matter of fact, that the developer purposely put the bug in for shits and giggles. Yes, I would agree he is liable.
OK, everyone understands these extremes... but what about these?
If a software developer puts a back door sequence into a casino game machine, and they get out... I think he should be held liable.
The problem with liability, and why I think I would rather wait for case by case scenarios, as horrible as that may sound... wait for a nuclear disaster... the problem is the legal system and it's inaccessibility by laymen. The problem is, if you grant liability issues within the legal system for software development, how the hell are you to protect yourself from a lawyer who insists you knew of xyz bug that caused xyz damage? After all, you coded it, saw every line... perhaps you are a professional coder? It's the same things that plague reverse engineering, just because you saw the inside of a PS3, some lawyer in spite of all logic and rationale can make it sound like you have super human intelligence and vision like Superman to see into the chips and that the PS3 is such a simpleton device that merely viewing it once or twice somehow accounts for any and all success in reverse engineering a project like that. Which, *we* all know is bullshit.
And where does the liability train end? God forbid a lawyer actually understand any of this stuff, because it'll go from Microsoft, to the department, to the head engineer, to the underlying compiler, to the board of committee that governs the spec. Maybe no software designer accepts the liability, perhaps pass on the ball to those pesky hardware guys... the bug isn't a problem with software the software was just doing what the hardware allowed... now, square one, in a totally different ball field.
So they try to qualify it by "knowingly", but I just outlined the problem with this. These are ambiguous terms, nearly impossible to prove. Such concepts can result in long drawn out court battles, which due to no legal protection from the state, poor people can't afford. Which the whole thing will get abused by big business wishing to shut down an open source developer, or an upstart, or it's direct competition (we all remember Creative's use of legal battles to crush competition yes?).
Because of reliable prophecy of where this sort of stuff will result in, I'm willing to absolve any and all liability of even my worst enemy (Microsoft) should their software cause damage due to a bug. Besides, I don't know anyone who can write bug free code. I don't know anyone who can write a relatively useful, yet simple, program once and have no bugs, no gotchas without having to hit the backspace key at all. There is a great deal of trial and error in computer programming, there's a great deal of revisionism, bug fixing, updating and modification. Software development is as buggy as there are natural phenomena, it's as progressive and dynamic as nature itself. Attempting to hold someone liable is sheer stupidity.
Perhaps it's you who is living in a fantasy world? A world where you believe you have a freedom of speech? Never mind other freedoms. Have you ever tried to exercise this freedom of speech?
Let me do that for you, "THE US PRESIDENT IS AN ASSHOLE! ISRAEL IS KILLING PALESTINIAN BABIES!"
There, does that make you feel proud? Happy? Secure? Free? Is that an example of free speech, a posting on/. a couple of simple sentences? Boy, if that's all it takes to make you happy and believing you have a legally protected Right... then you, my dear friend is much the fool.
Let's take it up a step further. I walk down town, find a hill, raising 6 feet high, pull out a bull horn and announce controversial views to be heard around for blocks. The views must be controversial, because otherwise the concept of free speech is masked by conformance of what those in power want you to believe; this is called effective free speech, something you apparently know nothing of. Along with effective free speech comes the prospect of actually having people listen to you, and see your ways... you have to effect people, this is the part of free speech people do not understand, like you. If you can't get someone else to see your ways, free speech or not... you're just mumbling to yourself, effectively. And guess what? Rebels and resistance has always mumbled to themselves, regardless of whatever freedoms they are claimed to have.
So there I am, speaking of controversial views (any view that makes people see things differently is controversial, or will soon become controversial; this I hope you do understand).
No one stops by, maybe a few that wish to yell back, nothing more than displaying their obedience to their cruel overlords. Police see that my speech has no effect, so they elect to adhere to laws that best suits the situation (my controversial views aren't causing a ruckus), so by laws handed down, noise ordinance laws allows me to be as loud as I want till 10pm. So then, I'm just wasting breath.
People start forming up around me, listening. A few shy away, a few in the front start showing signs of comprehension and acceptance. Now, the police again has elect the best course of action for the situation. In this case, I'm enlightening the people, so the noise ordinance laws are ignored because I'm actually effecting people. Now comes laws from the other side of the spectrum, assembly laws. Do I have a permit to rally? Do I have a permit for public announcement? Noise ordinance laws are for private individuals with private interests, if I'm making a speech, then they do not apply to me in the same way. Speech being justified by the congregation before me that has been formed. Police aren't there to protect me, but those in power. So they step in, grab the bull horn, and ask for permits. If everyone disperses quietly and no lasting effect has been made on the sheep, then I get off with a warning. But if there's any resistance, showing maybe I opened some eyes, then I go to jail, and maybe some of them too for disrupting the peace; among other laws such as not having a hundred different permits to legally be allowed to do such a thing.
Depending on the speech, if I anger the wrong people. Then you have libel suits brought against me. Maybe I garner the wrath in all the many forms from those that I anger. The more effective my speech, the worse the wrath will be.
So, you see, you don't have freedom of speech. Just because you can whisper what you want amongst the crowd of yelling fanatics, doesn't mean your thoughts are going to have any effect therefore pose any real threat to those in power. You think you can change the world with your words, but you can't, and you won't even attempt to prove me wrong because you know I'm right. Do everything you can to justify this believe you so long for.
In China, you think they don't have freedom of speech. In China perhaps it's illegal to say the president is an
On one hand, Microsoft's bloat may lend some weight should they shift momentum of their extortion efforts into the direction of others in the industry.
On the other hand, perhaps this will stack within the mile high evidence showing how software patents are pure bullshit through and through.
Considering either way, is really a resistance or lashing out with something I believe in. Politicians had better get a clue, it's only sad that they only speak currency rather than logic. So, to play their game, I'm probably going to be upping my FSF membership status. Should I ever get my hands on any one of these politicians, who make stupid decisions regarding law and technology, perhaps I'll nickname him Marcus Crassus; I'm sure I have enough gold.
Well, the business economics can get more complicated I think. The article briefly mentions that eBay gets more power from it's five boxes than the acres of land it has allocated for solar power. The compact space of these units is rather valuable itself I think, considering now they can sell that land reserved for solar panels, maybe build a stripmall on it or something else that can make money. Or, outright sell the land, and count the savings on land taxes saved and contribute that savings to the boxes.
But, most importantly, this technology doesn't claim to defy thermodynamics, zero-point energy or any of the whacky stuff... so maybe it's actually legit. Price may go down. First time buyers always pay big.
The keys on the Optimus Maximus Keyboard are it's prime selling point. Though expensive, its keys are really awesome, desired and the concept can achieve high demand. Because of it's keys, it is, literally, the only real advancement in keyboard technology since the technology for the keyboard you're using today was developed upteen million years ago.
That's like advertising the wheels on a car
OZ Rims are classic performance rims found on rather expensive cars, like Porsche GTs et al. OZ advertisements in car magazines never seemed out of place.
Even in my earliest days, physical access to a box meant, my box. So to speak.
I'm not surprised that this system has been cracked. With sufficient knowledge of a system, with reasonable tools and physical access to a system, that system is likely to be compromised, plain and simple. This is a hardware hack, and I'm always fascinated with hardware hacks, bare metal hacks seem really cool; but I don't think they are "near impossible".
I applaud his hardware hack, but in light of the expectation of "near impossible", I'll be moving on to the next article.
I read the article, heart warming indeed. I am grateful of corporate assistance in Open Source, I render respect and appreciation for what has come as a result of combining capitalistic economics with social/community based efforts. A lot can happen put the two together.
But, the article seems to portray doom and utter failure if it weren't for paid sponsorship of a particular sliver of Open Source projects. This is where the confusion sets in, because while there is a lot to thank business and their contributions, a lot has been done the by the community at large. I think Accessibility Features will continue, but perhaps not with the same zeal (this I understand, not sure how many disabled hackers there are out there). Progress will continue.
It sure seems to me, that Open Source projects really started getting much better in the early 2000s. About the same time the dot-com bubble burst and put a lot of skilled programmers on the street looking for new career paths. I never saw any reports, no stats to back this up, but it did seem this way. Anyways, after 9/11 I was one of those out looking for a new job, and I just sat at home and did whatever; which included coding.
Now that's Capitalism in all it's irony if you ask me; try to save a little money by laying off high skilled people and using those 6 figure salaries to pay executive bonuses, only to later lose billions in market share because those ex-employees continued working on their own anyways in different areas and fields.
At some point, Psychology has dug itself into a hole. Or, perhaps the conspiracy theorist would love to jump on my belief below when it comes to their ideas of world domination. But, the facts are present to some degree the following:
1) It seems that with every pill from the pharmaceutical companies comes a new mentaldisorder
Now, granted if we all were to believe that most people are stupid, then by nature being smart would not be the norm and thus disorderly. But, when combined with the word 'mental', is such connotation really necessary without an assumed agenda?
Now, I prefer to cling onto the classics in regards to mental health, and yes I'm willing to disregard whatever numerical claim psychologists would like tag on to their years of clinical studies. First off, the only clinic like structures in mental health I might easily recognize is the traditional asylum, which brings me to my second point. Unless you are incapacitated, drooling and banging your head against the wall, you aren't "crazy". Just because some people might resist social etiquette doesn't mean they have a disorder beyond that of not being sheep.
Autism is no different, and it too has such classical definitions. So here it is. If you aren't a human calculator, you don't have autism. If you need a visual, Rain Main, rent it, watch it, observe it, cherish it as very few children are ever that gifted in such narrow subjects.
Psychology is still an art, not a science, and psychiatrist are nothing but licensed professional front-men to pawn off drugs to half-wits while charging the insurance companies that cover mental health. With all these categorical labels mental health, has more tools for lawyers to get the murderer off the hook from a capital punishment trial, but more disturbing can be used as a case to take away the rights of someone, who isn't banging their head against the wall, drooling and incapable of much anything else; never mind even aware of rights or able to competently voice an opinion regarding their own rights.
The most disturbing to me, is all the new autisms that are propounded about the psych industry and media. What ticks me off, than all the shades of insanity that might exist. Is now, people who are rather gifted and not Rain Man gifted, are claimed to have some sort of autism, a mental disorder. Perhaps if they weren't so smart they'd cease to be autistic? Maybe the autism wouldn't be detected? Seriously, I've seen the pretty dumb blond so stupid that her inability to do anything is shadowed by some of those I've seen who were officially committed. But productivity or capability may not be indicative to insanity or mental disorders some would suggest. So even if I accept this obvious contradiction, it can only be that damn near everyone has a mental disorder, and everyone who is dumb and docile must be the only sane and desirable people! And who decides this qualification of "disorder"? They never give examples of people who have no disorders. So what system are they using as a comparison?
It sure does seem to be an agenda. Make people want to be dumb, docile and conformant out of fear they'll be considered to have mental issues. Ultimately, make them feel they are in constant bombardment of this threat so they purchase more Zanax or Paxil, Prozac or any number of quality name brand seritonin re-uptake inhibitors on the market to boost their mood and keep a smile on their face even in the most dire circumstances.
I'm sorry, but astrology is more scientific than psychology. Makes me wanna go burn their books they put so much faith into.
It saddens me to see Australia pass such legislation. An idea is an idea regardless of name and postal code, some of those ideas are true honest sentiments that might contradict public perception; and thus either open eyes, be repulsive but true, and outright offense yet true still. Some times, the best way to change the world, is to get your idea out there, and while some might wish to hold you accountable, the time they waste searching for you your concept is sinking in to the rest of the people. On the other hand, if they immediately catch you, they can bash you on the media effectively diverting the public from the issue you might have raised.
Whistleblowers tend to come out in times like these. It's my philosophy that the truth only manifests in extreme situations. And no matter how much we might stomach the ignoble practices of one potential politician, the moment they stand to get elected into a seat of power is such an extreme that often compels an objector to speaking out. Sometimes these issues to be made known are offensive in nature, or of great concern... yet real enough warranting anonymity of the whistleblower not only from the accused but from public backlash.
Anonymity veils a persons inhibitions and permits more honest dialogue. Sometimes we dislike what we hear from anonymity, and challenge the person such as 'Oh, hiding behind a computer screen, I'd kick your ass you say that to my face' is really just... 'I can't convince you of irrational beliefs so I'll threaten pain for you to object to them, and if you rescind or silence, then morons around me will applaud me as if I'm correct'.
Requiring a name and postal code is attempting to achieve accountability, which is a detriment to free speech. With accountability comes liability, should your free speech anger the wrong person. With liability, there is no free speech. It should suffice alone, that the message be known to have originated within the jurisdiction of the topic. With the world being so small due to the Internet, perhaps originating IP address is to restricted for Australian political issues, perhaps an Australian is in Belgium when he rightfully voices his opinion. But, no politician might object to praise from any source, perhaps even from his enemy. International praise is coveted I assume, so if I compliment Vladimir Putin as an American, I think it's safe to assume he might accept the compliment, the International approval, the Global approval, even though I'm not a Russian constituent. If willing to accept praise, then be prepared to hear criticism as well; picking and choosing in this regard is simply foolish for every criticism simply provides the conditions for future praise.
I'm being fed information, tailored to an agenda (a.k.a propaganda) and they want me to pay for it? First of all, for example, the BBC News website, has so many grammatical errors it's infuriating and doesn't lend well to trying to squash the racism towards people from India (as it's probably knee jerk reaction to assume ENGLAND could only make such gross errors in ENGLISH that they must be outsourcing their translations/editorial processes... and India is often hand in hand with 'outsourcing'.) On BBC News website, it's so bad, no article on that site lacks a grotesque grammatical error, most of the articles have at least three; the larger the article, the more you'll find. Go take a look, actually read one from start to finish if you can muster it.
So, BBC... a large news outlet, probably getting most of their content from AP, and how might we respect their efforts when they care so little of it themselves to outsource their editorial process to someone who can't speak, read or write English? I've since stopped looking at BBC because I can't stomach the errors in their articles, and find it difficult to lend authority to their articles in light of their carelessness. But BBC News is not the only one at fault, in spite of their inability to write in English, they aren't as bad as say CNN or Fox News when it comes to blatant propaganda and slanted views. I stopped reading and respecting anything from Fox News over 10 years ago, their reports are so engineered and fabricated that only Jerry Springer could make them any more ridiculous and further from the truth.
Bottom line, the primary reason I endeavor to learn a foreign language is to gain access to non-English based news outlets. Something outside of News Corporation or APs reach. Something a bit more raw, truthful and as a result authoritative. Some of the Russian news seem to be much more accurate, but most importantly, I prefer a third world language... where their news sources are in now way in the stream of Western engineered crap.
So not only are the news outlets in America bullshit, fabricated much of the time (aka fibs, stories, lies, totally made up, filler), geared towards make people scared and pampering people from the realities and real horrors overseas (re, Isreal/Palestine)... They want us to pay for this shit? Might I remind the people that services like CBS/NBC/ABC were made free because Radio and Television was a means to have news freely available and ultimately accessible to EVERYONE. Television wasn't a goal to put Real World on the air, it was a means to network the entire nation with information.
I digress, it is today what it is. But I'm still not going to pay for propaganda, so any news outlet written in English or will get their money when they suck it from my ass (Thanks Paulie!).
I'm in total favor of reviewing and reestablishing older precedent. For example, my store/school/park/pub or bar, my property, my responsibility, my liability so therefore my choice on who I want to serve.
However, in this case, maybe it's not necessary. I think the champerty laws ultimately govern law processes, I think they can be abused to prevent you from opening a class action lawsuit, or as retribution for having successfully disrupted the system on account of a whistle blower.
Regarding law, Lawyers should be civil servants and paid accordingly. In America it's constitutionally guaranteed legal council, but who in America can really afford an lawyer? To draw up an interesting contrast here, let's pick a hot current affair regarding what the Average Joe has access too... Medicine. We all recognize the medical field is fucked up, average Joe can't get medical assistance, that surgery is too expensive this and that. But, what about compared to the legal system (of which, we are supposed to be constitutionally guaranteed access too)? I mean seriously, has anyone ever drawn up a comparison? Today I can effectively and safely tend to my minor wounds. I can buy some ibuprofen, some cough medicine, I know how to make a splint for a broken leg, I mean I can even get real medicine, the nerve in your tooth just died on a Sunday morning guy down the road has some cocaine to tide you over till Monday. Now, in the legal system you can represent yourself but that's called a fool and the cheapest retainer fee I could ever find was 500 dollars (pro bono you ask? HAH!). The legal system is so far out of reach of the average person it seems a damn waste of time even teaching words like "court", "lawyer/counsel/attorney", "Supreme Court" in our schools.
Now, we have all argued on the patents... my objections above lay on the perimeter of a basic sentiment. We should not rely on a broken and inaccessible system to fix another corrupted system. We should fix the systems, but regarding patents, the legal system and social laws are a totally different matter in themselves.
If RedHat is so bent on trying to provide legal arguments to bring back old stuff, then they should be trying to bring back the recently revised IP laws, specifically altering the legalities of reverse engineering. To me, RedHat's proposition only serves to fix a window pane of a house sitting on a shoddy foundation. I think we need a whole new house.
Look. I can not hold a grudge against any man who takes pride and preference in his own; family, kind, nation, company or foot ball team.
China actually has a good thing in my opinion. While Hollywood moves to feed crap to whoever will watch, they seem to also decide to give those same people something a little less media driven. I wish the United States did something like this, maybe people might gain a sense of patriotism or pride, maybe the United States could make theatres do a mandatory showing for two months out of the year, what Brittany Spears looks like before the plastic surgery, minus the choreography, minus special FX, plus everday cloths. But, men don't like looking at ugly girls is what Hollywood research has found... Point is, a lot of people actually believe something in each one of these movies, and to be reminded of reality isn't such a bad idea. However it might be done, exposure to Hollywood techniques to fabricate sex icons, or diversion into more historical and culturally relevant themes. I mean seriously, it's so bad in America that Americans actually watch "Reality TV Shows"... god forbid they knock on their neighbors door and say "Hi, I'm Jack, how are you?".
Guys, this really isn't a time to try to bash the commie here. China had these cultural integrity programs in place for a long time. Enter Avatar a film that Americans apparently love, slot it to be inevitably cut short by predefined schedules, well known in Hollywood... only to plaster the calculated results across American news outlets to garner a social reaction to the issue. Mean while China is like... what?
I saw Avatar... I thought it was OK. Who the hell am I to get angry because China decides not to show it's citizens something else? This anger steams from some fucked up idea that we have a right to business where ever. You're stealing my customers! This is going to result in potential loss! China has billions of people, I have a right to take a dollar from each of them! This is stupid fellas. It's their decision, and as far as I'm concerned, I applaud their willingness to use the theaters sometimes to give the people something of value, even if it's less "entertaining".
Off the cuff, the only series that had sufficient success with alternate actors playing key roles, I think is the Batman series. However, I propose a solution to this exception in the amazing match-ups each movie had regarding the villian, Danny Devito as the Pengiun, Jim Carrey as the Riddler etc. Also, it sorta helps when the blunder becomes the norm, Michael Keaton played the first and second, then Val Kilmer, then George Clooney, Christian Bale....
They did it with the Incredible Hulk, while the second release had good actors... Ed Norten, Tim Roth, Jennifer Connelly is hotter than the both of them, plus 'Hulk' also had Sam Elliott and Nick Nolte... ultimately, 'Hulk' came first and was of sufficient quality.
They can't go and muck with super heros, and I don't know why they try. If you attach a personality to a super hero, then in most cases that needs to stick (the exception most likely to refute this claim would be pointing out Jack Nicolson vs Heath Ledger, but you'll find that these people are not aware that Heath Ledger was technically playing a different character, Joker from the Dark Knight series rather than the classic Joker from the original Batman that Jack did so well doing.)
Spiderman has had too many movies to start swapping around actors. If Tobey Maguire isn't spiderman, if Kirsten Dunst isn't his squeeze, no matter how much money Sony throws at the problem, a new release is likely to receive more criticism than praise; things like this need a huge time buffer, a revision or remake 20 years later sort of thing. Sony needs to keep the key actors in a Spiderman 4, otherwise it's going to go straight to DVD and be forgotten... but maybe it'll become a cult film?
Very few were of a mind to buy a Mac I assure you.
I challenge this assertion. Some Windows based musicians claim Windows can be used in audio engineering on a professional level.
At Logic's level (You know, real professional studio quality work... Capital Records, Geffen et al), we have voices such as MOTU, Digital Performer and the like. BTW, Digital Performer or Audio Desk is yet to be ported to Windows so while there are *buggy and unreliable* Win32 drivers for MOTU equipment, much of MOTU flag ship software isn't available for Windows.
Most Windows software cited to support Windows role in audio engineering really is... good enough to cut a demo tape. Or, maybe there is one or two software packages that can give it a niche role in a real studio, but not be the computing beef that Macintosh has long traditionally held in this arena.
Inspite of all the craptastic consumer level sound applications like Sound Forge found on Best Buy shelves, when it comes to real audio work, the best analogy would be the gaming market in the late 90s. Linux had more games in the mid to late 90s than Windows ever had in regards to professional audio; not just harddisk recording software but including hardware support.
So, when I hear you say that very few were of a mind to buy a Mac, totally emersed within a culture and profession strongly dominated by Apple... well... such Windows users are indeed "very few" to begin with. But hardly ignorant of their handicap. And speaking of Linux... Linux has some decent software to cut a demo tape. Leaving me feeling rather competitive from a Linux point of view to the audio productivity capable with a Linux box to a Windows box. But, when I bought my MOTU equipment for my guitar work, though I love Linux, I knew that world is dominated by Apple and so I bought a Mac just to run my home studio.
Of course you haven't seen it. That's the point. Just because you personally haven't seen it--or, probably more accurately, didn't notice it--doesn't mean it's not there. But you think that just because you haven't seen something, it doesn't exist. That's the problem.
Oh this is crap. This sort of fabrication is the grounds for all the anti-racism propaganda and lies of the last 40 years.
First you seem supportive, in a condescending way that he hasn't seen sexism/racism/communism. Then you assume the person didn't "notice" sexism/racism/communism, as though they might not be aware of blatant examples. With this assumption, you attempt to shoot down his honest assertion that he hasn't witnessed any blatant sexism/racism/communism. After distracting the readers away from his factual and honest observation, and leave question to fantasy world of idiots you present by questioning his observations, you present your own agenda as reality and propose that sexism/racism/communism actually exists and one problem is that no one happens to see it.
We aren't dealing with microscopic issues here. If I wave my hand across the desk in front of me, looking for my pen, and I neither see it, smell it, touch it or hear it. IT'S NOT THERE! Perhaps it's in the drawer, but the pen, is not there where I directed my senses. But in the mind games played in sociology, we can convince a person that sexism/racism/communism pens are sitting there on the desk and the fact we didn't hear them, see them or come in contact with them while trying to look for them some how justifies claiming the pens are bigger than ever! It's an inverse rationale of homeopathy!
You're only tactic, is trying to put into question a persons ability to understand their own senses. While some things might be grey-area, it's only the blatant samples that are the active ingredients--meaning, the subtle episodes rarely sum to be a significant factor. Take rape for instance, a real rape victim, is a rape victim anywhere in the world looked at by any other person of any other culture. The slutty girl, wobbling about random bars hanging all over guys grabbing their privates with her breasts hanging out only to get worried about the one she finally woke up with.... well, not everyone thinks that's rape; I mean if we really want to put the cards face up on the table, tell me why it's my fault if I drink a beer and get into a car, but somehow it's somebody elses fault, regardless of their soberness, if I drink a beer and spread my legs?
Basically, if the man said he hasn't witnessed sexism/racism/communism... I think that more outlines the fact you have a personal agenda rather than a real life claim. Maybe it's not his apparently askewed and flawed perception of the world, all those girls he has seen weren't smiling or laughing... maybe he's psychotic and forgot to take medicine? Yeah, what he saw wasn't what happened.
This is an easy way out of having to rationalize, prove or otherwise demonstrate your claims. Maybe you are just making this all up, we all would like to change the world; some of us are willing to do or say anything to do it.
You are on the very edge of controversy with such a job. While people in Las Vegas might not think bad, try getting a job in Salt Lake City afterwards.
OK, suppose Playboy wanted to hire you? Would you go? Playboy being somewhat respected, how about Hustler? They all need IT gurus too. The fact is, they get them, and some of them stay in those industries forever. I also know VCs who will fund "pornographic" businesses, but they don't want as little public connection as possible. It's the whole image of an industry, that people will see in you and this is the issue. It's sorta like having a neck tattoo; only being associated with gambling maybe you can word your resume as far from fact as possible. (If I had a job at Playboy, I probably wouldn't say "Playboy" on my generic resume, but "Major Entertainment Company" and outline the technicalities of my job. At an interview, where they can read my personality and body expression, then I would mention Playboy, in hopes it doesn't sour my image. On the other hand, none of my work at Hustler would be on my generic resume, unless I was hoping to move to another adult entertainment company like Vivid or MetArt. You can get locked in quick.
Gambling is nowhere near as bad as adult entertainment. I personally wouldn't worry about it. The head IT guy at the Bellagio in Vegas is probably well respected by most he runs into; and he most certainly has that on his generic resume.
While a job at Playboy would have every male co-worker at your new job thinking you can get them inside the Playboy mansion. Having worked on code for slot machines would have every low-life gambler at your new job begging for information on some mysterious backdoor trick to rob Vegas with. This will probably be your biggest headache having such a job. Best not tell anyone.
I worked in a Print Shop for several years. Don't give me any of that dark room crap please. On one hand, you are right but you are intentionally blind to the exploitation that *will* take place giving *any* leniency to those in marketing and advertising. Their habitual lies resemble that of a heroin addiction in that, only a fool would suggest they might have any restraint.
I'm tired of looking at advertisements. Of all the hamburgers I have ever eaten, not on has every looked remotely close to any of the hamburger advertisements for their respected establishment. EVER! Yet, the laws aren't in-place or enforced to ensure their advertisements are somewhat *accurate*? The only restaurants that has ever had reasonable display advertisements for their food are the 24hr Mexican food shops in Southern California; where they literally pick a random plate for a customer and take a picture, print it out and post it on the board.
Is that what I want in advertisement, the grainy messy photos? YES! Because that's what you get at those establishments, and the images are damn accurate to what gets plopped in front of you! Bravo for the Roberto's of Southern California. If I want a artsy and obviously fake photo, I'll look for my computer's backdrop on deviantart.com.
There is a measurable bounds here somewhere. While the skinny girl in the Ralph Lauren is so grotesquely obvious, I think everyone finds it to be equally obvious that much of any printed advertisement, is too, faked/corrected/enhanced or otherwise some sort of visual trickery like a weird angle off-color lights, accents and hilights, or any single or combination of other stupid tricks on presentation and aesthetics.
It should all be banned from advertisement. If they want the burger to look good, then make the burger look good; it's a disservice to higher an artist to draw up a fantasy burger to pawn off as if it's an accurate representation.
For a Novel, Cryptonomicon. For a short, or movie... Pirates of Silicon Valley.
The problem with this sort of thing, and being part of a class curriculum, is the truth of history of technology and in particular IT and telecommunications will be highly controversial to many top figures in other industries. For example:
Show a bunch of kids Pirates of Silicon Valley. They see that those guys (Steve is still running the show) had done some rather "hackery" things in the past. The Blue Boxes (stealing phone service), the stealing and deceiving to acquire a OS (software piracy). How are the kids going to handle the reality of the birth of Microsoft and Apple, along with the flyers in the hallway by the RIAA/MPAA telling them that downloading music is bad? I think the reason most people are sympathetic to the idea that a Blue Box is "stealing", is the fact that it's always been a for-pay service. Kids (And I personally) don't see the difference in turning on the radio or downloading a song. I have never paid for radio, and this fact is the only reason I refuse satellite radio or other like wise radio services.
The IT industry, is historically bound and entrenched with the fact that someone did something they weren't supposed to do. To get a business edge (as in Microsoft), or to get a new product off the ground (Apple).
Over the years, these very exploits served a real purpose to improve the quality of the services exploited (and they still do). From the earliest days of hackers making their own games on the mainframes in secret of management, to Blizzard and their massive market success. From bare copper telecommunications equipment and mechanical clickedy click switching to superfast OC-xxx backbones and wicked sick solid state switches. Exploits became "bugs" that needed to be fixed, while before they were "features" or "those nosey kids had no business doing that, it broke because they did something they weren't supposed to do..." *I remember Microsoft blaming end-users and hackers on their security woes, don't you?*
Companies don't want people to use Blue Boxes. They don't want their admins to create some kind of game on their computers. They don't want to fix their problems, and blame inherent faults on those who discover and exploit them. They don't want kids in school, taught, shown or realizing that these very things drove the Technology Industry to the heights it currently sits.
If your endeavor ever gains broad acceptance, I think it'll result in another thing similar to teaching evolution in schools.
good. Otherwise the place would be 99% full of copied, stolen software.You would think that software developers here would see what a bad thing that would be for the entire industry.
Either you limit resale, or you limit copying. Or you all get jobs as bricklayers. Choose.
Let's see. Today, when I get off work I'm going to go home and program, hacking or whatever. It seems to me, the only part that's important in regards to your comment is the "when I get off work" part.
Because I never told you what I did for work. Maybe I do lay bricks, there are many construction workers who make the same as I do, no not managers workers. Farmers can make good money, how do you think they pay for their land, expensive John Deer machinery; you think your Alienware or Falcon laptop is expensive?
Or, maybe you base someones motivation not on their paycheck but the prestige of their job? Well, I do admit being a Navy SEAL would be worth a poor paycheck, but that level of prestige is at an extreme. Or, maybe you think the only people who program, program well, interested in programming, or want to hack, are those who also do it for a living? The same people are also, accidentally kicking off tidbits to the OSS community, disassociated from the bulk of their "work"; this is test code, nothing important you can have it?
I think, the reality is, if I were a mason I would strive to be a master mason or whatever. I would also probably be a little more motivated at home and on weekends on my personal computing endeavors as work would in no way tax my motivation.
So, the only thing I really need, is something that brings in an equivalent paycheck at least. There are many jobs that pay as well, even better, than IT related jobs. Owning my own janitorial business, using good business tactics would pay more. A adult film photographer would not only pay more, but probably be a far more exciting and erotic life style.
What is exactly is your point? Get a job as a bricklayer, might be better than you think.
I feel compelled to side with my fellow geeks on this matter of misguided tech-geek-salesmen... but... seriously I think we are taking stabs at a dead horse.
OK, let's morph this discussion to other fields of interests. Do you believe that Doctors and Lawyers lack in elaborate stories of sheer idiocy from their clients? "Doc, I think I have a pulmonary endema! Need helps!" And everyone has their own divine wisdom of the law... I don't need to remark on this. A real lawyer is probably chalk full of reasons to believe most people are complete idiots.
Now, we geeks are paid to do the geek thing. And we want to joke and giggle at the efforts of a salesman hired to sell computers; when really they are simply hired to sell merchandise. Different words, different meanings and to the owner of the store they really don't give a hoot if it's computers or socks; after all, if it were legal, they would have call-girls services in the back. On second thought, some establishments actually do... anyways.
The biggest tech-idiot with the most charming smile will make the most sales, and as a result be rewarded for it. Sorry, but don't toot the capitalism trumpet and then demand honesty *and* expertise. So, if the budding salesman can charm his victim into purchasing 1,500 dollars in added services for a 350 dollar LCD TV and then probably pay an additional 15-30% in interest due to using a credit card... well, that's capitalism, the very thing many of you endorse.
Regardless of our philosophies on capitalism or any other economic model. The fact is, well skilled people will be employed at places like NASA, and the rest will be distributed out and about all other fields and applications. And, remember it's not really their job to be computer savvy, it's their job to sell merchandise. Be honest with yourselves, if you did find a computer savvy salesman, he's really only using those skills on a *very small* portion of clients. Here's a twist, since it's harder to bullshit those informed, he might not want to talk to you anyways.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you also against inter-state trade? Why not? If trade between 2 ppl in different countries is bad (that is what globalization is), why is trade between 2 ppl in 2 different state here is ok?
Did you not notice you used the word "trade"? Did you not actually "trade" with your friends as a child? Google opening shop in China is in no way "trade", not even similar concept no matter how you look at it.
How weird it must be, instead of saying "Hey John, I'll trade you my apple for your fruit cup." with "Hey John, let me live with you in your room, under governance of your mom and dad so I can get a fruit cup too. Alice, Bob, Jack and I will form a committee to arbitrate a 'agreement' between us, so you have to let me live in your house with you. Oh, and btw, I don't agree with your posters on the wall, you have to change them from Porsche's to Lamborghini's and that super model chick you have has mutilated her body which is against my principles so we'll have to bring legal action against you and question your compliance to the way I think things should be."
There are consequences, some of them dire.
OK, first let's look at the F22 Raptor or the MiG-35. Arguably, the final word in modern aviation, these aircraft demonstrate a great deal of progress in aviation and all other relevant scientific application. A lot of technology, some of the technology is the very spear head of their relative fields.
Now, there are VAX/VMS systems still used in the military. I'm not talking about some old geek with one in his garage that he tinkers with, no, these archaic machines are still essential, still used, still certified, still needed. At some point in the development from paper to manufacturing, a old and busted VAX/VMS was called on for the development of the F22 Raptor. Likewise, for the Russians, something equivalent might have been used in the testing, verification and manufacturing of their MiG-35 no doubt.
Today, in the ship yards, the latest in maritime might is being constructed. Super carriers, massive beasts of the ocean capable of forward deployment anywhere in the world. These massive ships can push through the water fast enough to create a 35knot head wind for catapulting jet aircraft from a short distance, only about 60 feet above the water and make them airborne. 35knots is rather fast, and it's almost impossible to appreciate what a feat this is, even if you are physically standing on one of these ships in awe of it's size. I mean, the water displacement alone standing still is on an order of 90+ tons... it's unbelievable. Yet, right now, at the docks, someone is bringing a box of DDS-1 drives on board, real to real tape reals on board... even though no manufacturer makes that stuff anymore, but in spite of the billions of dollars to build that marvel, in spite of it being indicative of superior technology, some key technologies have yet to be changed (because they simply work).
One might ask, "shit, dds-1? jesus who uses dds-1? why can't the military use flash drives or something new?". Well, therein lies the problem, because why use the flash drives? Seriously, we aren't talking about your home box, that has no life or death responsibilities. We can't go to a Senator and say "this is the newest stuff, maybe a little buggy, but since it's new, let's have it replace old and established fire control systems on board submarines!". No one, is going to want to stand a chance of a misfire, whether it's an accidental launch or perhaps worse, a faulty launch when one is intended. At the same time, a department head will say "well, it costs x million dollars to have this new technology integrated... regression testing, certification... testing, verification... it takes years to do, by the time it's said and done, they'll surely have something new. We have to decide not to chase the Joneses and stick with what we already invested in."
It does make sense. Basically, the only way to introduce new technology into the military/government, is for it to be introduced as a new technology entry point, new implementation (which is costly as it requires testing against old systems, and certification). For example, want new fast CPUs installed on a jet fighter? Come up with some technology that the military buys from you, and the initial implementation have quad-zeon processors, but for the next twenty or thirty years that's what's going to be used... quad-zeon processors. Because the program office is going to certify the hardware, configuration and software to a 'T', and that combination and only that combination is going to be certified for that particular use in aviation. These guys don't play around, they can't afford to take chances, lives are at stake. In fact, some proprietary software sold to the government goes through bug fixes and revisions without actually incrementing version numbers, because for certain aspects of the program, if they do increment a version number then that requires re-certification, other aspects of the program might only require evaluation and approval from the program office (re: some regression te
First, the new CoD MW2 is nice. But there are some major issues with this game regarding multiplayer.
First, bring back dedicated servers. If I decide to join a server hosted in Bahrain, from San Diego, yeah... lag. Nothing is worse than blatant interruption of game play, I'd rather play throw lag than be interrupted for long periods of time waiting for host migration, connecting to new host, waiting for other players... 5, 4, 3, 2, 1.... just because someone decided to leave. The time wasted waiting to continue far exceeds even the time loss dealing with noticable lag from a dedicated server. Not to mention the heavy negative of being outright interrupted.
They have destroyed the community values of FPS games with this new system. With Unreal Tournament, there were a handful of servers I went to, constantly. Handles became familiar, even considering regulars as friends. Clans used to be stronger, more prevalent... a bit harder to do in CoD MW2. I can't help to notice a dramatic reduction in Clan Tags in CoD MW2, but this only reflects the total destruction of social aspect of the game as no social congregations can be made reliably and every round is full of strangers you haven't seen before, and may never see again. Yes, I know about friends list, I know you can try to jimmy the distribution and I have seen clan tags in CoD... just no where near as much.
Also, where are the custom maps? What was ridiculously boring about other CoDs was the lack of wide use of custom maps. Unreal Tournament, full of custom maps, anyone remember the giant maps... of like an office... chair was 100 feet tall? Man, those were the best.
Anyways, I couldn't care less for CoD MW2. If they die and never release another game I figure that's a good thing.
They need to bring back dedicated servers, what they are doing now sucks ass. There's no social glue with the game, so when I finally get bored of the maps why play anymore? On the other hand, Unreal Tournament some servers only had one map, but I continued to play because friends and familiar people played on that server too; some where considered 'home' for friendly clans... etc etc. Here, it's just pure insanity and stupidity, why play?
Some people like this new crap network arch they have going on. I think they haven't really thought about it thoroughly, maybe they are stupid, maybe they can't think further ahead than five minutes, maybe they are just dumb.
OK. If a country who decided, stupidly and unconventionally, to have Windows (any version) installed anywhere within the chain of firecontrol for nuclear weapons, or massive bio/chem weapons, and one accidentally launched or worse, didn't launch when needed. Microsoft needs to be held liable.
If a life support system, fails and it is found, beyond all doubt and as matter of fact, that the developer purposely put the bug in for shits and giggles. Yes, I would agree he is liable.
OK, everyone understands these extremes... but what about these?
If a software developer puts a back door sequence into a casino game machine, and they get out... I think he should be held liable.
The problem with liability, and why I think I would rather wait for case by case scenarios, as horrible as that may sound... wait for a nuclear disaster... the problem is the legal system and it's inaccessibility by laymen. The problem is, if you grant liability issues within the legal system for software development, how the hell are you to protect yourself from a lawyer who insists you knew of xyz bug that caused xyz damage? After all, you coded it, saw every line... perhaps you are a professional coder? It's the same things that plague reverse engineering, just because you saw the inside of a PS3, some lawyer in spite of all logic and rationale can make it sound like you have super human intelligence and vision like Superman to see into the chips and that the PS3 is such a simpleton device that merely viewing it once or twice somehow accounts for any and all success in reverse engineering a project like that. Which, *we* all know is bullshit.
And where does the liability train end? God forbid a lawyer actually understand any of this stuff, because it'll go from Microsoft, to the department, to the head engineer, to the underlying compiler, to the board of committee that governs the spec. Maybe no software designer accepts the liability, perhaps pass on the ball to those pesky hardware guys... the bug isn't a problem with software the software was just doing what the hardware allowed... now, square one, in a totally different ball field.
So they try to qualify it by "knowingly", but I just outlined the problem with this. These are ambiguous terms, nearly impossible to prove. Such concepts can result in long drawn out court battles, which due to no legal protection from the state, poor people can't afford. Which the whole thing will get abused by big business wishing to shut down an open source developer, or an upstart, or it's direct competition (we all remember Creative's use of legal battles to crush competition yes?).
Because of reliable prophecy of where this sort of stuff will result in, I'm willing to absolve any and all liability of even my worst enemy (Microsoft) should their software cause damage due to a bug. Besides, I don't know anyone who can write bug free code. I don't know anyone who can write a relatively useful, yet simple, program once and have no bugs, no gotchas without having to hit the backspace key at all. There is a great deal of trial and error in computer programming, there's a great deal of revisionism, bug fixing, updating and modification. Software development is as buggy as there are natural phenomena, it's as progressive and dynamic as nature itself. Attempting to hold someone liable is sheer stupidity.
Maturity in IT really means that you're at the point where you finally realize, 'there really is no magic'.
Truth is far stranger than fiction.
Perhaps it's you who is living in a fantasy world? A world where you believe you have a freedom of speech? Never mind other freedoms. Have you ever tried to exercise this freedom of speech?
Let me do that for you, "THE US PRESIDENT IS AN ASSHOLE! ISRAEL IS KILLING PALESTINIAN BABIES!"
There, does that make you feel proud? Happy? Secure? Free? Is that an example of free speech, a posting on /. a couple of simple sentences? Boy, if that's all it takes to make you happy and believing you have a legally protected Right... then you, my dear friend is much the fool.
Let's take it up a step further. I walk down town, find a hill, raising 6 feet high, pull out a bull horn and announce controversial views to be heard around for blocks. The views must be controversial, because otherwise the concept of free speech is masked by conformance of what those in power want you to believe; this is called effective free speech, something you apparently know nothing of. Along with effective free speech comes the prospect of actually having people listen to you, and see your ways... you have to effect people, this is the part of free speech people do not understand, like you. If you can't get someone else to see your ways, free speech or not... you're just mumbling to yourself, effectively. And guess what? Rebels and resistance has always mumbled to themselves, regardless of whatever freedoms they are claimed to have.
So there I am, speaking of controversial views (any view that makes people see things differently is controversial, or will soon become controversial; this I hope you do understand).
No one stops by, maybe a few that wish to yell back, nothing more than displaying their obedience to their cruel overlords. Police see that my speech has no effect, so they elect to adhere to laws that best suits the situation (my controversial views aren't causing a ruckus), so by laws handed down, noise ordinance laws allows me to be as loud as I want till 10pm. So then, I'm just wasting breath.
People start forming up around me, listening. A few shy away, a few in the front start showing signs of comprehension and acceptance. Now, the police again has elect the best course of action for the situation. In this case, I'm enlightening the people, so the noise ordinance laws are ignored because I'm actually effecting people. Now comes laws from the other side of the spectrum, assembly laws. Do I have a permit to rally? Do I have a permit for public announcement? Noise ordinance laws are for private individuals with private interests, if I'm making a speech, then they do not apply to me in the same way. Speech being justified by the congregation before me that has been formed. Police aren't there to protect me, but those in power. So they step in, grab the bull horn, and ask for permits. If everyone disperses quietly and no lasting effect has been made on the sheep, then I get off with a warning. But if there's any resistance, showing maybe I opened some eyes, then I go to jail, and maybe some of them too for disrupting the peace; among other laws such as not having a hundred different permits to legally be allowed to do such a thing.
Depending on the speech, if I anger the wrong people. Then you have libel suits brought against me. Maybe I garner the wrath in all the many forms from those that I anger. The more effective my speech, the worse the wrath will be.
So, you see, you don't have freedom of speech. Just because you can whisper what you want amongst the crowd of yelling fanatics, doesn't mean your thoughts are going to have any effect therefore pose any real threat to those in power. You think you can change the world with your words, but you can't, and you won't even attempt to prove me wrong because you know I'm right. Do everything you can to justify this believe you so long for.
In China, you think they don't have freedom of speech. In China perhaps it's illegal to say the president is an
Half infuriated, half ecstatic.
On one hand, Microsoft's bloat may lend some weight should they shift momentum of their extortion efforts into the direction of others in the industry.
On the other hand, perhaps this will stack within the mile high evidence showing how software patents are pure bullshit through and through.
Considering either way, is really a resistance or lashing out with something I believe in. Politicians had better get a clue, it's only sad that they only speak currency rather than logic. So, to play their game, I'm probably going to be upping my FSF membership status. Should I ever get my hands on any one of these politicians, who make stupid decisions regarding law and technology, perhaps I'll nickname him Marcus Crassus; I'm sure I have enough gold.
Well, the business economics can get more complicated I think. The article briefly mentions that eBay gets more power from it's five boxes than the acres of land it has allocated for solar power. The compact space of these units is rather valuable itself I think, considering now they can sell that land reserved for solar panels, maybe build a stripmall on it or something else that can make money. Or, outright sell the land, and count the savings on land taxes saved and contribute that savings to the boxes.
But, most importantly, this technology doesn't claim to defy thermodynamics, zero-point energy or any of the whacky stuff... so maybe it's actually legit. Price may go down. First time buyers always pay big.
That's like advertising the keys on a keyboard
The keys on the Optimus Maximus Keyboard are it's prime selling point. Though expensive, its keys are really awesome, desired and the concept can achieve high demand. Because of it's keys, it is, literally, the only real advancement in keyboard technology since the technology for the keyboard you're using today was developed upteen million years ago.
That's like advertising the wheels on a car
OZ Rims are classic performance rims found on rather expensive cars, like Porsche GTs et al. OZ advertisements in car magazines never seemed out of place.
I was only able to see one video on the site hosting the contest results. I actually had to google search the winner, and watch a copy from Viddler.
Even in my earliest days, physical access to a box meant, my box. So to speak.
I'm not surprised that this system has been cracked. With sufficient knowledge of a system, with reasonable tools and physical access to a system, that system is likely to be compromised, plain and simple. This is a hardware hack, and I'm always fascinated with hardware hacks, bare metal hacks seem really cool; but I don't think they are "near impossible".
I applaud his hardware hack, but in light of the expectation of "near impossible", I'll be moving on to the next article.
I read the article, heart warming indeed. I am grateful of corporate assistance in Open Source, I render respect and appreciation for what has come as a result of combining capitalistic economics with social/community based efforts. A lot can happen put the two together.
But, the article seems to portray doom and utter failure if it weren't for paid sponsorship of a particular sliver of Open Source projects. This is where the confusion sets in, because while there is a lot to thank business and their contributions, a lot has been done the by the community at large. I think Accessibility Features will continue, but perhaps not with the same zeal (this I understand, not sure how many disabled hackers there are out there). Progress will continue.
It sure seems to me, that Open Source projects really started getting much better in the early 2000s. About the same time the dot-com bubble burst and put a lot of skilled programmers on the street looking for new career paths. I never saw any reports, no stats to back this up, but it did seem this way. Anyways, after 9/11 I was one of those out looking for a new job, and I just sat at home and did whatever; which included coding.
Now that's Capitalism in all it's irony if you ask me; try to save a little money by laying off high skilled people and using those 6 figure salaries to pay executive bonuses, only to later lose billions in market share because those ex-employees continued working on their own anyways in different areas and fields.
At some point, Psychology has dug itself into a hole. Or, perhaps the conspiracy theorist would love to jump on my belief below when it comes to their ideas of world domination. But, the facts are present to some degree the following:
1) It seems that with every pill from the pharmaceutical companies comes a new mental disorder
Now, granted if we all were to believe that most people are stupid, then by nature being smart would not be the norm and thus disorderly. But, when combined with the word 'mental', is such connotation really necessary without an assumed agenda?
Now, I prefer to cling onto the classics in regards to mental health, and yes I'm willing to disregard whatever numerical claim psychologists would like tag on to their years of clinical studies. First off, the only clinic like structures in mental health I might easily recognize is the traditional asylum, which brings me to my second point. Unless you are incapacitated, drooling and banging your head against the wall, you aren't "crazy". Just because some people might resist social etiquette doesn't mean they have a disorder beyond that of not being sheep.
Autism is no different, and it too has such classical definitions. So here it is. If you aren't a human calculator, you don't have autism. If you need a visual, Rain Main, rent it, watch it, observe it, cherish it as very few children are ever that gifted in such narrow subjects.
Psychology is still an art, not a science, and psychiatrist are nothing but licensed professional front-men to pawn off drugs to half-wits while charging the insurance companies that cover mental health. With all these categorical labels mental health, has more tools for lawyers to get the murderer off the hook from a capital punishment trial, but more disturbing can be used as a case to take away the rights of someone, who isn't banging their head against the wall, drooling and incapable of much anything else; never mind even aware of rights or able to competently voice an opinion regarding their own rights.
The most disturbing to me, is all the new autisms that are propounded about the psych industry and media. What ticks me off, than all the shades of insanity that might exist. Is now, people who are rather gifted and not Rain Man gifted, are claimed to have some sort of autism, a mental disorder. Perhaps if they weren't so smart they'd cease to be autistic? Maybe the autism wouldn't be detected? Seriously, I've seen the pretty dumb blond so stupid that her inability to do anything is shadowed by some of those I've seen who were officially committed. But productivity or capability may not be indicative to insanity or mental disorders some would suggest. So even if I accept this obvious contradiction, it can only be that damn near everyone has a mental disorder, and everyone who is dumb and docile must be the only sane and desirable people! And who decides this qualification of "disorder"? They never give examples of people who have no disorders. So what system are they using as a comparison?
It sure does seem to be an agenda. Make people want to be dumb, docile and conformant out of fear they'll be considered to have mental issues. Ultimately, make them feel they are in constant bombardment of this threat so they purchase more Zanax or Paxil, Prozac or any number of quality name brand seritonin re-uptake inhibitors on the market to boost their mood and keep a smile on their face even in the most dire circumstances.
I'm sorry, but astrology is more scientific than psychology. Makes me wanna go burn their books they put so much faith into.
It saddens me to see Australia pass such legislation. An idea is an idea regardless of name and postal code, some of those ideas are true honest sentiments that might contradict public perception; and thus either open eyes, be repulsive but true, and outright offense yet true still. Some times, the best way to change the world, is to get your idea out there, and while some might wish to hold you accountable, the time they waste searching for you your concept is sinking in to the rest of the people. On the other hand, if they immediately catch you, they can bash you on the media effectively diverting the public from the issue you might have raised.
Whistleblowers tend to come out in times like these. It's my philosophy that the truth only manifests in extreme situations. And no matter how much we might stomach the ignoble practices of one potential politician, the moment they stand to get elected into a seat of power is such an extreme that often compels an objector to speaking out. Sometimes these issues to be made known are offensive in nature, or of great concern... yet real enough warranting anonymity of the whistleblower not only from the accused but from public backlash.
Anonymity veils a persons inhibitions and permits more honest dialogue. Sometimes we dislike what we hear from anonymity, and challenge the person such as 'Oh, hiding behind a computer screen, I'd kick your ass you say that to my face' is really just... 'I can't convince you of irrational beliefs so I'll threaten pain for you to object to them, and if you rescind or silence, then morons around me will applaud me as if I'm correct'.
Requiring a name and postal code is attempting to achieve accountability, which is a detriment to free speech. With accountability comes liability, should your free speech anger the wrong person. With liability, there is no free speech. It should suffice alone, that the message be known to have originated within the jurisdiction of the topic. With the world being so small due to the Internet, perhaps originating IP address is to restricted for Australian political issues, perhaps an Australian is in Belgium when he rightfully voices his opinion. But, no politician might object to praise from any source, perhaps even from his enemy. International praise is coveted I assume, so if I compliment Vladimir Putin as an American, I think it's safe to assume he might accept the compliment, the International approval, the Global approval, even though I'm not a Russian constituent. If willing to accept praise, then be prepared to hear criticism as well; picking and choosing in this regard is simply foolish for every criticism simply provides the conditions for future praise.
I think Australia would do well to undo this law.
I'm being fed information, tailored to an agenda (a.k.a propaganda) and they want me to pay for it? First of all, for example, the BBC News website, has so many grammatical errors it's infuriating and doesn't lend well to trying to squash the racism towards people from India (as it's probably knee jerk reaction to assume ENGLAND could only make such gross errors in ENGLISH that they must be outsourcing their translations/editorial processes... and India is often hand in hand with 'outsourcing'.) On BBC News website, it's so bad, no article on that site lacks a grotesque grammatical error, most of the articles have at least three; the larger the article, the more you'll find. Go take a look, actually read one from start to finish if you can muster it.
So, BBC... a large news outlet, probably getting most of their content from AP, and how might we respect their efforts when they care so little of it themselves to outsource their editorial process to someone who can't speak, read or write English? I've since stopped looking at BBC because I can't stomach the errors in their articles, and find it difficult to lend authority to their articles in light of their carelessness. But BBC News is not the only one at fault, in spite of their inability to write in English, they aren't as bad as say CNN or Fox News when it comes to blatant propaganda and slanted views. I stopped reading and respecting anything from Fox News over 10 years ago, their reports are so engineered and fabricated that only Jerry Springer could make them any more ridiculous and further from the truth.
Bottom line, the primary reason I endeavor to learn a foreign language is to gain access to non-English based news outlets. Something outside of News Corporation or APs reach. Something a bit more raw, truthful and as a result authoritative. Some of the Russian news seem to be much more accurate, but most importantly, I prefer a third world language... where their news sources are in now way in the stream of Western engineered crap.
So not only are the news outlets in America bullshit, fabricated much of the time (aka fibs, stories, lies, totally made up, filler), geared towards make people scared and pampering people from the realities and real horrors overseas (re, Isreal/Palestine)... They want us to pay for this shit? Might I remind the people that services like CBS/NBC/ABC were made free because Radio and Television was a means to have news freely available and ultimately accessible to EVERYONE. Television wasn't a goal to put Real World on the air, it was a means to network the entire nation with information.
I digress, it is today what it is. But I'm still not going to pay for propaganda, so any news outlet written in English or will get their money when they suck it from my ass (Thanks Paulie!).
I'm in total favor of reviewing and reestablishing older precedent. For example, my store/school/park/pub or bar, my property, my responsibility, my liability so therefore my choice on who I want to serve.
However, in this case, maybe it's not necessary. I think the champerty laws ultimately govern law processes, I think they can be abused to prevent you from opening a class action lawsuit, or as retribution for having successfully disrupted the system on account of a whistle blower.
Regarding law, Lawyers should be civil servants and paid accordingly. In America it's constitutionally guaranteed legal council, but who in America can really afford an lawyer? To draw up an interesting contrast here, let's pick a hot current affair regarding what the Average Joe has access too... Medicine. We all recognize the medical field is fucked up, average Joe can't get medical assistance, that surgery is too expensive this and that. But, what about compared to the legal system (of which, we are supposed to be constitutionally guaranteed access too)? I mean seriously, has anyone ever drawn up a comparison? Today I can effectively and safely tend to my minor wounds. I can buy some ibuprofen, some cough medicine, I know how to make a splint for a broken leg, I mean I can even get real medicine, the nerve in your tooth just died on a Sunday morning guy down the road has some cocaine to tide you over till Monday. Now, in the legal system you can represent yourself but that's called a fool and the cheapest retainer fee I could ever find was 500 dollars (pro bono you ask? HAH!). The legal system is so far out of reach of the average person it seems a damn waste of time even teaching words like "court", "lawyer/counsel/attorney", "Supreme Court" in our schools.
Now, we have all argued on the patents... my objections above lay on the perimeter of a basic sentiment. We should not rely on a broken and inaccessible system to fix another corrupted system. We should fix the systems, but regarding patents, the legal system and social laws are a totally different matter in themselves.
If RedHat is so bent on trying to provide legal arguments to bring back old stuff, then they should be trying to bring back the recently revised IP laws, specifically altering the legalities of reverse engineering. To me, RedHat's proposition only serves to fix a window pane of a house sitting on a shoddy foundation. I think we need a whole new house.
Look. I can not hold a grudge against any man who takes pride and preference in his own; family, kind, nation, company or foot ball team.
China actually has a good thing in my opinion. While Hollywood moves to feed crap to whoever will watch, they seem to also decide to give those same people something a little less media driven. I wish the United States did something like this, maybe people might gain a sense of patriotism or pride, maybe the United States could make theatres do a mandatory showing for two months out of the year, what Brittany Spears looks like before the plastic surgery, minus the choreography, minus special FX, plus everday cloths. But, men don't like looking at ugly girls is what Hollywood research has found... Point is, a lot of people actually believe something in each one of these movies, and to be reminded of reality isn't such a bad idea. However it might be done, exposure to Hollywood techniques to fabricate sex icons, or diversion into more historical and culturally relevant themes. I mean seriously, it's so bad in America that Americans actually watch "Reality TV Shows"... god forbid they knock on their neighbors door and say "Hi, I'm Jack, how are you?".
Guys, this really isn't a time to try to bash the commie here. China had these cultural integrity programs in place for a long time. Enter Avatar a film that Americans apparently love, slot it to be inevitably cut short by predefined schedules, well known in Hollywood... only to plaster the calculated results across American news outlets to garner a social reaction to the issue. Mean while China is like... what?
I saw Avatar... I thought it was OK. Who the hell am I to get angry because China decides not to show it's citizens something else? This anger steams from some fucked up idea that we have a right to business where ever. You're stealing my customers! This is going to result in potential loss! China has billions of people, I have a right to take a dollar from each of them! This is stupid fellas. It's their decision, and as far as I'm concerned, I applaud their willingness to use the theaters sometimes to give the people something of value, even if it's less "entertaining".
Go China!
Off the cuff, the only series that had sufficient success with alternate actors playing key roles, I think is the Batman series. However, I propose a solution to this exception in the amazing match-ups each movie had regarding the villian, Danny Devito as the Pengiun, Jim Carrey as the Riddler etc. Also, it sorta helps when the blunder becomes the norm, Michael Keaton played the first and second, then Val Kilmer, then George Clooney, Christian Bale....
They did it with the Incredible Hulk, while the second release had good actors... Ed Norten, Tim Roth, Jennifer Connelly is hotter than the both of them, plus 'Hulk' also had Sam Elliott and Nick Nolte... ultimately, 'Hulk' came first and was of sufficient quality.
They can't go and muck with super heros, and I don't know why they try. If you attach a personality to a super hero, then in most cases that needs to stick (the exception most likely to refute this claim would be pointing out Jack Nicolson vs Heath Ledger, but you'll find that these people are not aware that Heath Ledger was technically playing a different character, Joker from the Dark Knight series rather than the classic Joker from the original Batman that Jack did so well doing.)
Spiderman has had too many movies to start swapping around actors. If Tobey Maguire isn't spiderman, if Kirsten Dunst isn't his squeeze, no matter how much money Sony throws at the problem, a new release is likely to receive more criticism than praise; things like this need a huge time buffer, a revision or remake 20 years later sort of thing. Sony needs to keep the key actors in a Spiderman 4, otherwise it's going to go straight to DVD and be forgotten... but maybe it'll become a cult film?
Very few were of a mind to buy a Mac I assure you.
I challenge this assertion. Some Windows based musicians claim Windows can be used in audio engineering on a professional level.
At Logic's level (You know, real professional studio quality work... Capital Records, Geffen et al), we have voices such as MOTU, Digital Performer and the like. BTW, Digital Performer or Audio Desk is yet to be ported to Windows so while there are *buggy and unreliable* Win32 drivers for MOTU equipment, much of MOTU flag ship software isn't available for Windows.
Most Windows software cited to support Windows role in audio engineering really is... good enough to cut a demo tape. Or, maybe there is one or two software packages that can give it a niche role in a real studio, but not be the computing beef that Macintosh has long traditionally held in this arena.
Inspite of all the craptastic consumer level sound applications like Sound Forge found on Best Buy shelves, when it comes to real audio work, the best analogy would be the gaming market in the late 90s. Linux had more games in the mid to late 90s than Windows ever had in regards to professional audio; not just harddisk recording software but including hardware support.
So, when I hear you say that very few were of a mind to buy a Mac, totally emersed within a culture and profession strongly dominated by Apple... well... such Windows users are indeed "very few" to begin with. But hardly ignorant of their handicap. And speaking of Linux... Linux has some decent software to cut a demo tape. Leaving me feeling rather competitive from a Linux point of view to the audio productivity capable with a Linux box to a Windows box. But, when I bought my MOTU equipment for my guitar work, though I love Linux, I knew that world is dominated by Apple and so I bought a Mac just to run my home studio.
Of course you haven't seen it. That's the point. Just because you personally haven't seen it--or, probably more accurately, didn't notice it--doesn't mean it's not there. But you think that just because you haven't seen something, it doesn't exist. That's the problem.
Oh this is crap. This sort of fabrication is the grounds for all the anti-racism propaganda and lies of the last 40 years.
First you seem supportive, in a condescending way that he hasn't seen sexism/racism/communism. Then you assume the person didn't "notice" sexism/racism/communism, as though they might not be aware of blatant examples. With this assumption, you attempt to shoot down his honest assertion that he hasn't witnessed any blatant sexism/racism/communism. After distracting the readers away from his factual and honest observation, and leave question to fantasy world of idiots you present by questioning his observations, you present your own agenda as reality and propose that sexism/racism/communism actually exists and one problem is that no one happens to see it.
We aren't dealing with microscopic issues here. If I wave my hand across the desk in front of me, looking for my pen, and I neither see it, smell it, touch it or hear it. IT'S NOT THERE! Perhaps it's in the drawer, but the pen, is not there where I directed my senses. But in the mind games played in sociology, we can convince a person that sexism/racism/communism pens are sitting there on the desk and the fact we didn't hear them, see them or come in contact with them while trying to look for them some how justifies claiming the pens are bigger than ever! It's an inverse rationale of homeopathy!
You're only tactic, is trying to put into question a persons ability to understand their own senses. While some things might be grey-area, it's only the blatant samples that are the active ingredients--meaning, the subtle episodes rarely sum to be a significant factor. Take rape for instance, a real rape victim, is a rape victim anywhere in the world looked at by any other person of any other culture. The slutty girl, wobbling about random bars hanging all over guys grabbing their privates with her breasts hanging out only to get worried about the one she finally woke up with.... well, not everyone thinks that's rape; I mean if we really want to put the cards face up on the table, tell me why it's my fault if I drink a beer and get into a car, but somehow it's somebody elses fault, regardless of their soberness, if I drink a beer and spread my legs?
Basically, if the man said he hasn't witnessed sexism/racism/communism... I think that more outlines the fact you have a personal agenda rather than a real life claim. Maybe it's not his apparently askewed and flawed perception of the world, all those girls he has seen weren't smiling or laughing... maybe he's psychotic and forgot to take medicine? Yeah, what he saw wasn't what happened.
This is an easy way out of having to rationalize, prove or otherwise demonstrate your claims. Maybe you are just making this all up, we all would like to change the world; some of us are willing to do or say anything to do it.
You are on the very edge of controversy with such a job. While people in Las Vegas might not think bad, try getting a job in Salt Lake City afterwards.
OK, suppose Playboy wanted to hire you? Would you go? Playboy being somewhat respected, how about Hustler? They all need IT gurus too. The fact is, they get them, and some of them stay in those industries forever. I also know VCs who will fund "pornographic" businesses, but they don't want as little public connection as possible. It's the whole image of an industry, that people will see in you and this is the issue. It's sorta like having a neck tattoo; only being associated with gambling maybe you can word your resume as far from fact as possible. (If I had a job at Playboy, I probably wouldn't say "Playboy" on my generic resume, but "Major Entertainment Company" and outline the technicalities of my job. At an interview, where they can read my personality and body expression, then I would mention Playboy, in hopes it doesn't sour my image. On the other hand, none of my work at Hustler would be on my generic resume, unless I was hoping to move to another adult entertainment company like Vivid or MetArt. You can get locked in quick.
Gambling is nowhere near as bad as adult entertainment. I personally wouldn't worry about it. The head IT guy at the Bellagio in Vegas is probably well respected by most he runs into; and he most certainly has that on his generic resume.
While a job at Playboy would have every male co-worker at your new job thinking you can get them inside the Playboy mansion. Having worked on code for slot machines would have every low-life gambler at your new job begging for information on some mysterious backdoor trick to rob Vegas with. This will probably be your biggest headache having such a job. Best not tell anyone.
I worked in a Print Shop for several years. Don't give me any of that dark room crap please. On one hand, you are right but you are intentionally blind to the exploitation that *will* take place giving *any* leniency to those in marketing and advertising. Their habitual lies resemble that of a heroin addiction in that, only a fool would suggest they might have any restraint.
I'm tired of looking at advertisements. Of all the hamburgers I have ever eaten, not on has every looked remotely close to any of the hamburger advertisements for their respected establishment. EVER! Yet, the laws aren't in-place or enforced to ensure their advertisements are somewhat *accurate*? The only restaurants that has ever had reasonable display advertisements for their food are the 24hr Mexican food shops in Southern California; where they literally pick a random plate for a customer and take a picture, print it out and post it on the board.
Is that what I want in advertisement, the grainy messy photos? YES! Because that's what you get at those establishments, and the images are damn accurate to what gets plopped in front of you! Bravo for the Roberto's of Southern California. If I want a artsy and obviously fake photo, I'll look for my computer's backdrop on deviantart.com.
There is a measurable bounds here somewhere. While the skinny girl in the Ralph Lauren is so grotesquely obvious, I think everyone finds it to be equally obvious that much of any printed advertisement, is too, faked/corrected/enhanced or otherwise some sort of visual trickery like a weird angle off-color lights, accents and hilights, or any single or combination of other stupid tricks on presentation and aesthetics.
It should all be banned from advertisement. If they want the burger to look good, then make the burger look good; it's a disservice to higher an artist to draw up a fantasy burger to pawn off as if it's an accurate representation.
For a Novel, Cryptonomicon. For a short, or movie... Pirates of Silicon Valley.
The problem with this sort of thing, and being part of a class curriculum, is the truth of history of technology and in particular IT and telecommunications will be highly controversial to many top figures in other industries. For example:
Show a bunch of kids Pirates of Silicon Valley. They see that those guys (Steve is still running the show) had done some rather "hackery" things in the past. The Blue Boxes (stealing phone service), the stealing and deceiving to acquire a OS (software piracy). How are the kids going to handle the reality of the birth of Microsoft and Apple, along with the flyers in the hallway by the RIAA/MPAA telling them that downloading music is bad? I think the reason most people are sympathetic to the idea that a Blue Box is "stealing", is the fact that it's always been a for-pay service. Kids (And I personally) don't see the difference in turning on the radio or downloading a song. I have never paid for radio, and this fact is the only reason I refuse satellite radio or other like wise radio services.
The IT industry, is historically bound and entrenched with the fact that someone did something they weren't supposed to do. To get a business edge (as in Microsoft), or to get a new product off the ground (Apple).
Over the years, these very exploits served a real purpose to improve the quality of the services exploited (and they still do). From the earliest days of hackers making their own games on the mainframes in secret of management, to Blizzard and their massive market success. From bare copper telecommunications equipment and mechanical clickedy click switching to superfast OC-xxx backbones and wicked sick solid state switches. Exploits became "bugs" that needed to be fixed, while before they were "features" or "those nosey kids had no business doing that, it broke because they did something they weren't supposed to do..." *I remember Microsoft blaming end-users and hackers on their security woes, don't you?*
Companies don't want people to use Blue Boxes. They don't want their admins to create some kind of game on their computers. They don't want to fix their problems, and blame inherent faults on those who discover and exploit them. They don't want kids in school, taught, shown or realizing that these very things drove the Technology Industry to the heights it currently sits.
If your endeavor ever gains broad acceptance, I think it'll result in another thing similar to teaching evolution in schools.
good.
Otherwise the place would be 99% full of copied, stolen software.You would think that software developers here would see what a bad thing that would be for the entire industry.
Either you limit resale, or you limit copying.
Or you all get jobs as bricklayers.
Choose.
Let's see. Today, when I get off work I'm going to go home and program, hacking or whatever. It seems to me, the only part that's important in regards to your comment is the "when I get off work" part.
Because I never told you what I did for work. Maybe I do lay bricks, there are many construction workers who make the same as I do, no not managers workers. Farmers can make good money, how do you think they pay for their land, expensive John Deer machinery; you think your Alienware or Falcon laptop is expensive?
Or, maybe you base someones motivation not on their paycheck but the prestige of their job? Well, I do admit being a Navy SEAL would be worth a poor paycheck, but that level of prestige is at an extreme. Or, maybe you think the only people who program, program well, interested in programming, or want to hack, are those who also do it for a living? The same people are also, accidentally kicking off tidbits to the OSS community, disassociated from the bulk of their "work"; this is test code, nothing important you can have it?
I think, the reality is, if I were a mason I would strive to be a master mason or whatever. I would also probably be a little more motivated at home and on weekends on my personal computing endeavors as work would in no way tax my motivation.
So, the only thing I really need, is something that brings in an equivalent paycheck at least. There are many jobs that pay as well, even better, than IT related jobs. Owning my own janitorial business, using good business tactics would pay more. A adult film photographer would not only pay more, but probably be a far more exciting and erotic life style.
What is exactly is your point? Get a job as a bricklayer, might be better than you think.
I feel compelled to side with my fellow geeks on this matter of misguided tech-geek-salesmen... but... seriously I think we are taking stabs at a dead horse.
OK, let's morph this discussion to other fields of interests. Do you believe that Doctors and Lawyers lack in elaborate stories of sheer idiocy from their clients? "Doc, I think I have a pulmonary endema! Need helps!" And everyone has their own divine wisdom of the law... I don't need to remark on this. A real lawyer is probably chalk full of reasons to believe most people are complete idiots.
Now, we geeks are paid to do the geek thing. And we want to joke and giggle at the efforts of a salesman hired to sell computers; when really they are simply hired to sell merchandise. Different words, different meanings and to the owner of the store they really don't give a hoot if it's computers or socks; after all, if it were legal, they would have call-girls services in the back. On second thought, some establishments actually do... anyways.
The biggest tech-idiot with the most charming smile will make the most sales, and as a result be rewarded for it. Sorry, but don't toot the capitalism trumpet and then demand honesty *and* expertise. So, if the budding salesman can charm his victim into purchasing 1,500 dollars in added services for a 350 dollar LCD TV and then probably pay an additional 15-30% in interest due to using a credit card... well, that's capitalism, the very thing many of you endorse.
Regardless of our philosophies on capitalism or any other economic model. The fact is, well skilled people will be employed at places like NASA, and the rest will be distributed out and about all other fields and applications. And, remember it's not really their job to be computer savvy, it's their job to sell merchandise. Be honest with yourselves, if you did find a computer savvy salesman, he's really only using those skills on a *very small* portion of clients. Here's a twist, since it's harder to bullshit those informed, he might not want to talk to you anyways.