For the sake of the shareholders and the managers it is a good thing that Microsoft does *not* do this...the trouble with Microsoft is that they have enough money (more than some governments) to make them really *worth* going after in court and at $150,000+ per song for enabling vicarious infringement of copyright the RIAA and their lawyers would have a field day. I know that it would be cool and that people would want this feature if it was described to them and they were asked, "would you like to have this feature? yes or no," but the reality is that it just isn't going to happen. Microsoft attracts enough lawyers looking to grab a slice of their cash hoard without doing this...the last thing that they want or need to do is open the door for more lawsuits.
Trust me, if it cost them less to setup the system than the money that's lost, it would be done.
This is a textbook example of what economists call negative externality or economic loss experienced by third parties to a transaction through no (reasonable) fault of their own, but a loss all the same. The credit card company doesn't care that your card being compromised potentially causes massive disruptions to your life as your credit is dragged through the mud (i.e. you don't get hired or get a car loan or a good mortgage because of your "poor credit") because it would cost them more than it is worth to fix the problem when they can pass the pain of not doing so to their customers instead. This is analogous to the proverbial paper company dumping their waste into the river because *strictly* speaking, in the absence of any prohibition against doing so, it is cheaper to dump than to reprocess and dispose of the waste responsibly (i.e. in a way which does not cause externalities). While I am normally not if favor of government intervention, being sympathetic to a more libertarian point of view, this is a clear cut case of negative externality that is just begging for regulation by the government (i.e. make it *extremely* unprofitable for the cc companies to shirk their security responsibilities). Of course some people will complain about lack of convenience when the cc companies turn down the easy credit spigot and the merchants will howl about having to upgrade their equipment, but this has to be done...as Reagan said, "If not now, then when? If not us, then who?"
Blocking JavaScript is for those that view the web as a giant book, full of text and pictures. Maybe a form here or there, or a decently build webshop. Nothing realtime, nothing changing quickly, nothing fully dynamic.
I might want the more dynamic experience and you certainly would, but not every customer does and if I can still earn money on sales or ad revenue then I don't mind if they don't see my fancy AJAX interface. Perhaps you are one of those creative types who feel strongly about controlling peoples' experience of your work but I, on the other hand, am a pragmatist. If the site earns money then it doesn't matter to me, give the customer what they want...its that simple. So what if they "miss" your AJAX enhanced site experience because they are not aware of the choice if it earns money and the customer is happy?
It will not be long now before these types of services begin to engage in intentional obfuscation or encryption combined with use of common ports such as 80 and 443 to sidestep measures such as packet shaping and bandwidth throttling. In fact many p2p clients include support for this today. Would it be so difficult for those broadband companies to just be honest about what you are actually buying when you pay for service and then deliver what people have paid for? Instead they engage in marketing bunk about "unlimited" data services and when the technical reality doesn't jive with the marketing line they (the telcos) engage in underhanded tactics in an attempt to preserve the illusion for the rest of their customers. The ISPs should not be surprised when the networks resort to obfuscation and encryption to counter the packet shaping and throttling. The ISPs were the first ones to hit below the belt in this fight so they should not be surprised when their opponents respond with an elbow to the throat.
Honestly, I would be quite interested in what Disney does on this one. This would be nice to track.
If I were Disney then I would do nothing, at least this time. There is already plenty of precedent to support the case that Disney has not abandoned their copyrights and trademarks (i.e. the characters, movies, songs, drawings, etc...) so why take the bait in what is obviously a trap just so that some guy who would otherwise toil in obscurity suddenly comes into the public spotlight and shines rather brightly on some questions that Disney would rather people not ask? The best move for Disney, from a PR and legal standpoint, is to simply do nothing. This will fade back into obscurity soon enough and life will continue on...now those DVD pirates in China are a *different* story, but they are in a whole different league both in volume and in their copying of material which is still commercially viable.
I absolutely hate it when people yell at me that I exclude JavaScript blocking visitors
Alright, but what is wrong with allowing your site to degrade gracefully instead of simply blocking everyone who doesn't opt for the bells and whistles? It is not a requirement that if I want to drive my Mercedes then I *must* use the navigation system with audio prompts. In the same way your website should not exclude someone simply because your mouseover, or (say it ain't so) mouse button disabling code (there is nothing *special* about your content that thousands of people haven't already done before), will not work if they disable JavaScript. If they do not get the "full" experience then that, as you say, is their choice, but nobody likes "my way or the highway" so why make it an all or nothing deal? If you were visiting someone else's website is that how you would want to be treated as a user? There are plenty of alternatives out their to your site and most people will not give you a second chance after they run into that kind of user experience, they will simply go someplace else...permanently.
In the USA, many Americans refuse to use public transportation due to class snobbery.
That might be a small part of it but really the issue is quality and suitability of public transportation for the kinds of living situations that are common here in America. The United States is a BIG country with large distances between things and spread out detached suburban style communities. This is not at all like Europe which is more heavily urbanized with high quality (the key here being HIGH QUALITY public transportation that runs on time and is clean etc...compared to what we have here in the United States anyway). They have ICE and TGV trains to get you where you need to go in air-conditioned reasonable level of comfort at 250+ mph. The transportation in Europe is usable whereas the transportation here in the United States is, for the most part with a few exceptions (the BART in San Francisco for example isn't too bad), not. You can argue about the reasons for this, but much of it really comes down to huge open spaces, economic viability, and cultural traditions. Americans will never get out of their cars now...its too late.
It is cheap although it may be slighly inconvenient because you must time your life according to the bus or train schedule.
It certainly is cheap, relative to ownership of a private vehicle anyway, but here in the US the quality of that bus or train is on the whole *abismally* poor. The trains run HOURS late and it can take several hours to get somewhere with two (2) or more bus transfers to get anywhere in a large American city in what would otherwise be a 30 minute trip by car. It doesn't matter that cars get stuck in rush hour freeway traffic because the buses get stuck in it too (I see them every day on my way to work). So it is more than slightly inconvenient and if you have a family, you need a kid hauler to get everyone to school, soccer practice, dance lessons, the grocery store, etc within the confines of the 24 hour day...which means an SUV style vehicle or a van. In short it is just about impossible to do the suburban family thing without a private vehicle and nobody in their right mind wants to raise their kids in the inner city ghetto and ride the bus if they can afford not to...that is just reality...at least here in America.
These are the same Americans who overwhelmingly supported the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Perhaps, but not because they wanted or expected that gasoline would return to $1.50 per gallon as a result of American foreign policy. It is a popular theory because it appeals to the sensibilities of certain groups out there on the left, but it really just isn't true. If anything, Iraq pumps less oil for export now then they did before the invasion and the oil companies pay the world price for that oil so there is no suggestion of "blood for oil" except by those who don't *want* to see any truth other than what they want to hear.
I saw a headline the other day where the kid who made facebook (just a website), refused to sell for $2billion.
Actually he refused to sell for $750 million to Viacom in January of 2006 and again in September, this time to Yahoo, for $900 million (although negotiations are presumably ongoing with the offer still on the table since neither side has announced publicly that they are pulling out of the deal). I don't know what the book value of the Facebook is, but if I were in his shoes then I probably would have sold to Viacom for $750 million provided that the offer was all or mostly cash AND that I could walk away at any time with my money if I didn't like the way that Viacom was running the business or if they were interfering...same for Yahoo. You can always take the money, shore up your financial position, and then found another company or simply retire to private life. These geeks are playing a very dangerous game by trying to squeeze that last few hundred million out what is already a pretty large pot of gold. Just imagine what happens when the deal falls through because you were stubborn and the market or technology changes and you are left with the burnt out shell of a dot.bomb company? Most people would probably have difficulty recovering from that type of a psychological blow...some probably never would. If you are ever in that enviable position then take the money and run if you don't like the way that things are going.
Of course, I am not in that position and it could be argued that given the amount of risk he took on to build the company to the point where he *could* sell it that he is either one of those people that thrives on insane risks and has a pair to match, he knows some *crucial* piece of information that we don't, or he is just plain stupid (unlikely). I tend to favor the risk taker hypothesis myself, that is probably why he controls an almost billion dollar corporation and I do not. On the other hand I would like to save enough money to die someplace warm when I am old and I don't fancy the idea of going broke a couple of times along the way on the outside chance that I might be in exactly the right place with exactly the right product at exactly the right time to make a killing, but that is just me I suppose.
They'll never get someone who thinks outside of the box then.
Maybe that is what they want...few things irk a middle manager more than an uppity young programmer with a high IQ making him look bad in front of the big bosses by actually doing something innovative and fresh (especially if the middle manager cannot plausibly hijack the project as his own idea when it succeeds while simultaneously having no connection if it happens to fail). The middle manager might look like he is standing still compared to the upstarts and in American style business these days (the whole Donald Trump "you're fired" thing) that can be very dangerous to the career of the stuck-in-a-rut middle manager.
If companies want to have more user generated content for their games, particularly when they themselves release "for sale" expansion modules ala the Neverwinter Nights series, then they must allow the copyrights to remain with the creators AND they have to give the creators a piece of the action when their content is featured in the "for sale" download area. The problem with Neverwinter Nights and other games is that they state in the license agreement that any content that you produce for their game becomes their property when you distribute it and they can re-distribute it as much as they want and even charge for it without giving you any royalties. If the companies want good user generated content then they must allow users to earn money off of their content and maintain rights to the content that they (the users) create.
And are you still able to gamble online and visit AllOfMp3.com if you *really* want to, even though you live in the United States? I would be that the answer to both questions is yes.
I remember that when I took the intro CS course (got my degree in CS five (5) years ago now and working as a software engineer w/no women coworkers...sigh) there were maybe ten (10) women in a class of two hundred (200), but most of the women passed the course (seven if I remember correctly) whereas the percentage of men who passed was much lower (the overall pass rate was 25% and it was necessary to pass the course with a C grade or better to advance). It could be argued that those ten (10) women were among the smartest and most motivated of the math oriented women freshmen on campus (i.e. the geek factor didn't deter them, but they were probably the "true believers" anyway) and that is why so many of them passed, but I also noticed that the women helped each other more on assignments and were generally closer as a group as opposed to the men so perhaps that had something to do with it as well. They must have been widely dispersed into the industry though after they graduated because I have yet to work with another woman software engineer (although my IT manager is a woman). I agree with you that the curriculum should not be changed to accommodate a lower standard simply to boost the number of women in CS programs, but neither should we discourage CS as a choice of major. In fact, I would be in favor of programs designed to better promote CS as a major to incoming women who are good candidates for an engineering degree.
I agree that more women among the software developers, especially 20 something and good looking Asian women, would certainly be desirable and not just for the technical skills that they bring to the game. There are few enough dating opportunities as it is in our profession and while I can only speak for myself, there is nothing sexier than a hot female geek (especially from the aforementioned category) who knows how to handle a C compiler and isn't afraid to show her male colleagues who really wears the pants in the IT department.
fully automatic firearms have been illegal in the US for a long time.
They are not strictly speaking *absolutely* illegal at a federal level, although some states have banned them, but rather any weapon that is capable of fully automatic fire that was not registered before 1982 (I think that was the cutoff but not exactly sure) is not legal to own. A current owner may transfer (i.e. sell) his gun to another provided that the all of the transfer taxes are paid, the paperwork is filled out properly, and the new owner can pass the background checks. The result is that the collective value of the remaining grandfathered weapons continues to increase such that it can cost thousands (and sometimes tens of thousands) of dollars to legally acquire one (assuming that you live in a state which has not banned them). This is effectively a ban for most Americans since the cost is prohibitive, but it is not technically the same as an outright ban.
Could anybody enlighten me as to why people want to carry guns at all?
There are many reasons given by both sides of the gun control debate for why we should or should not be allowed to carry firearms or even weapons in general. However, in answer to your question the reasons for allowing people to carry guns generally fall into the following general categories:
1. The people have the right to overthrow the government, violently if neccessary, if the government becomes tyrannical. This is stated particularly succinctly in the US Declaration of Independence.
Those in favor of gun control generally respond that even if personal weapons were kept for this purpose it would be hopeless to attempt to overthrow a government equipped with a modern mechanized military using personal small arms. On the other hand, the insurgents and their supporters in Iraq have been a real thorn in the side for the United States, Iraq, and the other coalition forces so perhaps there is some validity to the argument. However, the argument is of mostly theoretical interest in democratic first world nations such as the United States.
2. Although government is tasked with an obligation to protect citizens collectively, government is not obligated to protect any given individual citizen without a special relationship established with that citizen prior to victimization, and thus citizens have a demonstrable need for personal protection. (In U.S. case law, courts have held that the police cannot be held civilly or criminally liable for failing to provide individual protection (Warren v. District of Columbia, D.C. App., 444 A. 2d 1 (1981)).
This a big one and the reason that is most likely to be cited by those that support the carrying of guns. It is also important to remember that Japan is a very Homogeneous society (i.e. there are not many non-Japanese living and working in Japan compared to the Japanese) and therefore there are fewer tensions based upon different cultures, racial, or other factors which are more at work here in the United States. I tend to agree with this one since it is not reasonable to make somebody responsible for their own protection (i.e. we will try and be there for you, but if we cannot get there in time then tough and we are not liable) and then deny them the most expedient means of protecting themselves, which in most cases is a firearm of some sort.
3. Fewer guns in the hands of private people means more violent crime, as guns are The Great Equalizer, making victims more dangerous to criminals, and also because the criminals will, being criminals, flout the law and keep their guns, anyway.
This is a hot one here in the United States with studies and statistics on both sides. It is my personal opinion that fewer guns in the hands of private citizens probably does increase violent crime and especially crimes against women and other more vulnerable members of the society. There are alternatives, such as pepper spray and electric shocking devices (tazer), but these alternatives may not be as effective, especially against a determined attacker.
I have always thought that it would be fun, if one had an Asterisk box, to set up an automated plugin or script that would respond with phrases such as, "that sounds interesting, can you tell me more?", "I don't know, I'm just not sure", "yeah", "uh-huh", put them on hold randomly for random intervals, etc in a never ending loop so that the telemarketer stays on the call as long as possible while gathering no useful information and making no sale. You could even record the transcripts for a few laughs.
Once sales drop AND p2p downloads ALSO drop, the labels will get the idea that the product they push is crap and need to change in order to make it worthwhile. They would have to, since both revenue streams (via sales and litigation) would dry up.
What makes you so sure? The RIAA refuses utterly to acknowledge that the marketplace has been fundamentally altered by the emergence of new technologies AND they continue to lobby congress aggressively for more copyright powers, media taxes, technology bans, and whatever other mechanisms that they can think of to get the government to intervene in the creative destruction that is currently taking place in the packaged movie and music business. I don't trust them to stop the lawsuits, and even if there were no purchases and P2P downloaders they would probably lobby congress to tax every device that includes a DAC and give them a share of the taxes. The RIAA, MPAAA, and the rest are slimeballs working in a sleezy business (and that is unfortunate because the music and movie business doesn't have to be that way, but THEY made it that way) and you want to trust them to do the right thing? You cannot trust these people, its that simple.
Have you ever tried to convince the IRS that what they say is a business is actually just your hobby or the other way around? Whether you are trying to avoid paying income tax on income from your hobby (which the IRS sees as a business) OR you are trying to write off expenses on your business (which the IRS sees as a hobby) they make it tough to defend in an audit. If your grandmother wants to continue with her "hobby" then she must keep very detailed records indeed (every last receipt, check, and bank statement and preferably separate bank accounts for her eBay hobby). The IRS auditors remind me of the Agents from the Matrix, cold, cool, and calculating (I'd imagine that that type of work mostly appeals to that type of personality).
Please mod the parent up, he is exactly right on the abolish the income tax and levy the sales tax point. The United States could certainly use more saving and less spending (the average savings rate in the United States right now is actually negative...meaning most households are not only NOT saving anything but are sliding ever more deeply into debt). Unfortunately, the spenders among us far outnumber the savers among us and the spenders scream whenever the Fed raises the interest rates and the pain of those massive debt loads is ratcheted up a notch. The two million plus people currently working in the tax preparation industry have a vested interest in keeping the income tax system and making it as complicated and byzantine as possible. The retail sales industries, especially those that sell discretionary and luxury products, would also lobby heavily against this. The parent is right and the consumption tax makes tons more sense than the income tax, but the special interests aligned against change are powerful so I wont be holding my breath.
Not to support what the parent said, but I remember when Morgan Spurlock was doing his street interviews for the episode, "30 days as a Muslim", he asked the people, "What is the first thing that comes to your mind when I say Muslim?" Do you know what peoples' answers were? Terrorist and suicide bomber and the like. You can draw your own conclusions, but there are quite a few Americans who, even though they may not publicly admit it, consciously avoid anyone wearing traditional Muslim dress, turban or robes or head scarf, as if they were a potential terrorist or suicide bomber. In fact there was a scene where the white American family man, now alone and dressed in the robe and cap of a Muslim, gets wary or dirty looks from onlookers at the airport and is stopped by security and searched on his way to the plane. If he had been wearing a business suit then he probably wouldn't have gotten a second look, but the rules of the show said that he had to dress and live like a Muslim for 30 days.
What is about liberals always needing the last word? We are going around in circles. It is obvious that you are not changing my mind and that I might as well be talking to a wall for all the good that it is doing, we could argue forever. If this conversation proves anything then it proves just how hardened the positions have become. Further discussion is pointless.
Can you explain how proxy wars in Afghanistan or in other places around the world changes this situation? I'm failing to see your logic.
It changes the situation because if one side allows the other to win a small victory then it tips the balanced scales ever so slightly in their favor in the grand scheme of things. They become bolder and push you in another more important area and so on until they make a demand that you cannot accept and what began as a series of proxy wars that you lost now becomes the final push to wipe you out. By projecting weakness one draws agression, but with strength one can ensure an equal peace with one's enemies.
When sovereignty of nations is held up as an excuse for war criminals to hide behind, then international law and the World Court have no meaning.
I agree with you that the world court is meaningless. It should be disbanded if it cannot do anything practical to meet the goals stated in its charter.
There are more than 1,500 South Africans in Iraq today, most of whom are former members of the South African Defense Force and South African Police."
What the South Africans do is entirely their own affair it really doesn't bother me in the least.
I think you'll have to work a little harder to "prove" that it doesn't meet the criteria under the definition that you have supplied. Clearly, it does - do a little more research if you don't like the "liberal" news source.
The american citizens working for these contractors are not mercenaries because the United States is an official party to the conflict. I have no problem with private military contractors so long as they are not being explicitly substituted for field units of the United States Army and Marine Corps in front line combat.
BTW: The article that you link has no corroborating sources cited for their figures. In the news world that is the equivalent of hearsay and no respectable news outlet would print hearsay without corroboration or citing sources.
And you have the gall to sit here and claim mercenaries aren't fighting this war? Soldiers that signed up for that bonus are mercenaries
Absolutely, they (the uniformed soldiers) are not mercenaries and it is a popular misrepresntation of the left that they are. The United States government can pay whatever size bounty they want to entice people to enlist and they are NOT MERCENARIES. Frankly sir, it is surprising to me that one who served in the military would so frequently and blithely apply the label "mercenary" to those currently serving in the armed forces of the United States, it is increadibly insulting. If you had restricted your criticism to the private military contractors then it might have been halfway legitimate, but to suggest that uniformed soldiers of the United States are mercenaries strains your credibility.
People working for groups like Blackwater are also mercenaries - irrespective of their nation of citizenship
That is your opnion, but in point of fact, according to the UN definition, they are not. The South Africans might be, but it is not conclusive because it is debatable whether they are being contracted to fight or simply to provide protection. Do they seek out insurgents and kill them on orders from the United States or are they just trying to protect VIPs on their drive from the Baghdad airport to the green zone? There is a difference.
The fact that mercenaries are needed, the fact that you and others like you aren't willing to fight the war yourself should make you start to wonder - is it truly as important as I like to pretend it is when it isn't my ass on the line?
The powers that be in the United States government have not seen fit to mobilize the entire nation with war time economy and a draft and so it is probably more productive for myself and others like me who are already 30+ years of age to remain in our present jobs, paying taxes, and taking care of our fa
Slashdot Mirror
For the sake of the shareholders and the managers it is a good thing that Microsoft does *not* do this...the trouble with Microsoft is that they have enough money (more than some governments) to make them really *worth* going after in court and at $150,000+ per song for enabling vicarious infringement of copyright the RIAA and their lawyers would have a field day. I know that it would be cool and that people would want this feature if it was described to them and they were asked, "would you like to have this feature? yes or no," but the reality is that it just isn't going to happen. Microsoft attracts enough lawyers looking to grab a slice of their cash hoard without doing this...the last thing that they want or need to do is open the door for more lawsuits.
Trust me, if it cost them less to setup the system than the money that's lost, it would be done.
This is a textbook example of what economists call negative externality or economic loss experienced by third parties to a transaction through no (reasonable) fault of their own, but a loss all the same. The credit card company doesn't care that your card being compromised potentially causes massive disruptions to your life as your credit is dragged through the mud (i.e. you don't get hired or get a car loan or a good mortgage because of your "poor credit") because it would cost them more than it is worth to fix the problem when they can pass the pain of not doing so to their customers instead. This is analogous to the proverbial paper company dumping their waste into the river because *strictly* speaking, in the absence of any prohibition against doing so, it is cheaper to dump than to reprocess and dispose of the waste responsibly (i.e. in a way which does not cause externalities). While I am normally not if favor of government intervention, being sympathetic to a more libertarian point of view, this is a clear cut case of negative externality that is just begging for regulation by the government (i.e. make it *extremely* unprofitable for the cc companies to shirk their security responsibilities). Of course some people will complain about lack of convenience when the cc companies turn down the easy credit spigot and the merchants will howl about having to upgrade their equipment, but this has to be done...as Reagan said, "If not now, then when? If not us, then who?"
Castro has already said that he won't sell Cuba's sugarcane crop, at least not to a first party buyer, for that purpose.
Blocking JavaScript is for those that view the web as a giant book, full of text and pictures. Maybe a form here or there, or a decently build webshop. Nothing realtime, nothing changing quickly, nothing fully dynamic.
I might want the more dynamic experience and you certainly would, but not every customer does and if I can still earn money on sales or ad revenue then I don't mind if they don't see my fancy AJAX interface. Perhaps you are one of those creative types who feel strongly about controlling peoples' experience of your work but I, on the other hand, am a pragmatist. If the site earns money then it doesn't matter to me, give the customer what they want...its that simple. So what if they "miss" your AJAX enhanced site experience because they are not aware of the choice if it earns money and the customer is happy?
It will not be long now before these types of services begin to engage in intentional obfuscation or encryption combined with use of common ports such as 80 and 443 to sidestep measures such as packet shaping and bandwidth throttling. In fact many p2p clients include support for this today. Would it be so difficult for those broadband companies to just be honest about what you are actually buying when you pay for service and then deliver what people have paid for? Instead they engage in marketing bunk about "unlimited" data services and when the technical reality doesn't jive with the marketing line they (the telcos) engage in underhanded tactics in an attempt to preserve the illusion for the rest of their customers. The ISPs should not be surprised when the networks resort to obfuscation and encryption to counter the packet shaping and throttling. The ISPs were the first ones to hit below the belt in this fight so they should not be surprised when their opponents respond with an elbow to the throat.
Honestly, I would be quite interested in what Disney does on this one. This would be nice to track.
If I were Disney then I would do nothing, at least this time. There is already plenty of precedent to support the case that Disney has not abandoned their copyrights and trademarks (i.e. the characters, movies, songs, drawings, etc...) so why take the bait in what is obviously a trap just so that some guy who would otherwise toil in obscurity suddenly comes into the public spotlight and shines rather brightly on some questions that Disney would rather people not ask? The best move for Disney, from a PR and legal standpoint, is to simply do nothing. This will fade back into obscurity soon enough and life will continue on...now those DVD pirates in China are a *different* story, but they are in a whole different league both in volume and in their copying of material which is still commercially viable.
I absolutely hate it when people yell at me that I exclude JavaScript blocking visitors
Alright, but what is wrong with allowing your site to degrade gracefully instead of simply blocking everyone who doesn't opt for the bells and whistles? It is not a requirement that if I want to drive my Mercedes then I *must* use the navigation system with audio prompts. In the same way your website should not exclude someone simply because your mouseover, or (say it ain't so) mouse button disabling code (there is nothing *special* about your content that thousands of people haven't already done before), will not work if they disable JavaScript. If they do not get the "full" experience then that, as you say, is their choice, but nobody likes "my way or the highway" so why make it an all or nothing deal? If you were visiting someone else's website is that how you would want to be treated as a user? There are plenty of alternatives out their to your site and most people will not give you a second chance after they run into that kind of user experience, they will simply go someplace else...permanently.
In the USA, many Americans refuse to use public transportation due to class snobbery.
That might be a small part of it but really the issue is quality and suitability of public transportation for the kinds of living situations that are common here in America. The United States is a BIG country with large distances between things and spread out detached suburban style communities. This is not at all like Europe which is more heavily urbanized with high quality (the key here being HIGH QUALITY public transportation that runs on time and is clean etc...compared to what we have here in the United States anyway). They have ICE and TGV trains to get you where you need to go in air-conditioned reasonable level of comfort at 250+ mph. The transportation in Europe is usable whereas the transportation here in the United States is, for the most part with a few exceptions (the BART in San Francisco for example isn't too bad), not. You can argue about the reasons for this, but much of it really comes down to huge open spaces, economic viability, and cultural traditions. Americans will never get out of their cars now...its too late.
It is cheap although it may be slighly inconvenient because you must time your life according to the bus or train schedule.
It certainly is cheap, relative to ownership of a private vehicle anyway, but here in the US the quality of that bus or train is on the whole *abismally* poor. The trains run HOURS late and it can take several hours to get somewhere with two (2) or more bus transfers to get anywhere in a large American city in what would otherwise be a 30 minute trip by car. It doesn't matter that cars get stuck in rush hour freeway traffic because the buses get stuck in it too (I see them every day on my way to work). So it is more than slightly inconvenient and if you have a family, you need a kid hauler to get everyone to school, soccer practice, dance lessons, the grocery store, etc within the confines of the 24 hour day...which means an SUV style vehicle or a van. In short it is just about impossible to do the suburban family thing without a private vehicle and nobody in their right mind wants to raise their kids in the inner city ghetto and ride the bus if they can afford not to...that is just reality...at least here in America.
These are the same Americans who overwhelmingly supported the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Perhaps, but not because they wanted or expected that gasoline would return to $1.50 per gallon as a result of American foreign policy. It is a popular theory because it appeals to the sensibilities of certain groups out there on the left, but it really just isn't true. If anything, Iraq pumps less oil for export now then they did before the invasion and the oil companies pay the world price for that oil so there is no suggestion of "blood for oil" except by those who don't *want* to see any truth other than what they want to hear.
I saw a headline the other day where the kid who made facebook (just a website), refused to sell for $2billion.
Actually he refused to sell for $750 million to Viacom in January of 2006 and again in September, this time to Yahoo, for $900 million (although negotiations are presumably ongoing with the offer still on the table since neither side has announced publicly that they are pulling out of the deal). I don't know what the book value of the Facebook is, but if I were in his shoes then I probably would have sold to Viacom for $750 million provided that the offer was all or mostly cash AND that I could walk away at any time with my money if I didn't like the way that Viacom was running the business or if they were interfering...same for Yahoo. You can always take the money, shore up your financial position, and then found another company or simply retire to private life. These geeks are playing a very dangerous game by trying to squeeze that last few hundred million out what is already a pretty large pot of gold. Just imagine what happens when the deal falls through because you were stubborn and the market or technology changes and you are left with the burnt out shell of a dot.bomb company? Most people would probably have difficulty recovering from that type of a psychological blow...some probably never would. If you are ever in that enviable position then take the money and run if you don't like the way that things are going.
Of course, I am not in that position and it could be argued that given the amount of risk he took on to build the company to the point where he *could* sell it that he is either one of those people that thrives on insane risks and has a pair to match, he knows some *crucial* piece of information that we don't, or he is just plain stupid (unlikely). I tend to favor the risk taker hypothesis myself, that is probably why he controls an almost billion dollar corporation and I do not. On the other hand I would like to save enough money to die someplace warm when I am old and I don't fancy the idea of going broke a couple of times along the way on the outside chance that I might be in exactly the right place with exactly the right product at exactly the right time to make a killing, but that is just me I suppose.
They'll never get someone who thinks outside of the box then.
Maybe that is what they want...few things irk a middle manager more than an uppity young programmer with a high IQ making him look bad in front of the big bosses by actually doing something innovative and fresh (especially if the middle manager cannot plausibly hijack the project as his own idea when it succeeds while simultaneously having no connection if it happens to fail). The middle manager might look like he is standing still compared to the upstarts and in American style business these days (the whole Donald Trump "you're fired" thing) that can be very dangerous to the career of the stuck-in-a-rut middle manager.
If companies want to have more user generated content for their games, particularly when they themselves release "for sale" expansion modules ala the Neverwinter Nights series, then they must allow the copyrights to remain with the creators AND they have to give the creators a piece of the action when their content is featured in the "for sale" download area. The problem with Neverwinter Nights and other games is that they state in the license agreement that any content that you produce for their game becomes their property when you distribute it and they can re-distribute it as much as they want and even charge for it without giving you any royalties. If the companies want good user generated content then they must allow users to earn money off of their content and maintain rights to the content that they (the users) create.
And are you still able to gamble online and visit AllOfMp3.com if you *really* want to, even though you live in the United States? I would be that the answer to both questions is yes.
I remember that when I took the intro CS course (got my degree in CS five (5) years ago now and working as a software engineer w/no women coworkers...sigh) there were maybe ten (10) women in a class of two hundred (200), but most of the women passed the course (seven if I remember correctly) whereas the percentage of men who passed was much lower (the overall pass rate was 25% and it was necessary to pass the course with a C grade or better to advance). It could be argued that those ten (10) women were among the smartest and most motivated of the math oriented women freshmen on campus (i.e. the geek factor didn't deter them, but they were probably the "true believers" anyway) and that is why so many of them passed, but I also noticed that the women helped each other more on assignments and were generally closer as a group as opposed to the men so perhaps that had something to do with it as well. They must have been widely dispersed into the industry though after they graduated because I have yet to work with another woman software engineer (although my IT manager is a woman). I agree with you that the curriculum should not be changed to accommodate a lower standard simply to boost the number of women in CS programs, but neither should we discourage CS as a choice of major. In fact, I would be in favor of programs designed to better promote CS as a major to incoming women who are good candidates for an engineering degree.
I agree that more women among the software developers, especially 20 something and good looking Asian women, would certainly be desirable and not just for the technical skills that they bring to the game. There are few enough dating opportunities as it is in our profession and while I can only speak for myself, there is nothing sexier than a hot female geek (especially from the aforementioned category) who knows how to handle a C compiler and isn't afraid to show her male colleagues who really wears the pants in the IT department.
fully automatic firearms have been illegal in the US for a long time.
They are not strictly speaking *absolutely* illegal at a federal level, although some states have banned them, but rather any weapon that is capable of fully automatic fire that was not registered before 1982 (I think that was the cutoff but not exactly sure) is not legal to own. A current owner may transfer (i.e. sell) his gun to another provided that the all of the transfer taxes are paid, the paperwork is filled out properly, and the new owner can pass the background checks. The result is that the collective value of the remaining grandfathered weapons continues to increase such that it can cost thousands (and sometimes tens of thousands) of dollars to legally acquire one (assuming that you live in a state which has not banned them). This is effectively a ban for most Americans since the cost is prohibitive, but it is not technically the same as an outright ban.
Could anybody enlighten me as to why people want to carry guns at all?
There are many reasons given by both sides of the gun control debate for why we should or should not be allowed to carry firearms or even weapons in general. However, in answer to your question the reasons for allowing people to carry guns generally fall into the following general categories:
1. The people have the right to overthrow the government, violently if neccessary, if the government becomes tyrannical. This is stated particularly succinctly in the US Declaration of Independence.
Those in favor of gun control generally respond that even if personal weapons were kept for this purpose it would be hopeless to attempt to overthrow a government equipped with a modern mechanized military using personal small arms. On the other hand, the insurgents and their supporters in Iraq have been a real thorn in the side for the United States, Iraq, and the other coalition forces so perhaps there is some validity to the argument. However, the argument is of mostly theoretical interest in democratic first world nations such as the United States.
2. Although government is tasked with an obligation to protect citizens collectively, government is not obligated to protect any given individual citizen without a special relationship established with that citizen prior to victimization, and thus citizens have a demonstrable need for personal protection. (In U.S. case law, courts have held that the police cannot be held civilly or criminally liable for failing to provide individual protection (Warren v. District of Columbia, D.C. App., 444 A. 2d 1 (1981)).
This a big one and the reason that is most likely to be cited by those that support the carrying of guns. It is also important to remember that Japan is a very Homogeneous society (i.e. there are not many non-Japanese living and working in Japan compared to the Japanese) and therefore there are fewer tensions based upon different cultures, racial, or other factors which are more at work here in the United States. I tend to agree with this one since it is not reasonable to make somebody responsible for their own protection (i.e. we will try and be there for you, but if we cannot get there in time then tough and we are not liable) and then deny them the most expedient means of protecting themselves, which in most cases is a firearm of some sort.
3. Fewer guns in the hands of private people means more violent crime, as guns are The Great Equalizer, making victims more dangerous to criminals, and also because the criminals will, being criminals, flout the law and keep their guns, anyway.
This is a hot one here in the United States with studies and statistics on both sides. It is my personal opinion that fewer guns in the hands of private citizens probably does increase violent crime and especially crimes against women and other more vulnerable members of the society. There are alternatives, such as pepper spray and electric shocking devices (tazer), but these alternatives may not be as effective, especially against a determined attacker.
I have always thought that it would be fun, if one had an Asterisk box, to set up an automated plugin or script that would respond with phrases such as, "that sounds interesting, can you tell me more?", "I don't know, I'm just not sure", "yeah", "uh-huh", put them on hold randomly for random intervals, etc in a never ending loop so that the telemarketer stays on the call as long as possible while gathering no useful information and making no sale. You could even record the transcripts for a few laughs.
Once sales drop AND p2p downloads ALSO drop, the labels will get the idea that the product they push is crap and need to change in order to make it worthwhile. They would have to, since both revenue streams (via sales and litigation) would dry up.
What makes you so sure? The RIAA refuses utterly to acknowledge that the marketplace has been fundamentally altered by the emergence of new technologies AND they continue to lobby congress aggressively for more copyright powers, media taxes, technology bans, and whatever other mechanisms that they can think of to get the government to intervene in the creative destruction that is currently taking place in the packaged movie and music business. I don't trust them to stop the lawsuits, and even if there were no purchases and P2P downloaders they would probably lobby congress to tax every device that includes a DAC and give them a share of the taxes. The RIAA, MPAAA, and the rest are slimeballs working in a sleezy business (and that is unfortunate because the music and movie business doesn't have to be that way, but THEY made it that way) and you want to trust them to do the right thing? You cannot trust these people, its that simple.
Sony...like no other
IMSAI supported USB? Wow, they really were ahead of their time. If I plug it into my Mac will it "just work"?
Have you ever tried to convince the IRS that what they say is a business is actually just your hobby or the other way around? Whether you are trying to avoid paying income tax on income from your hobby (which the IRS sees as a business) OR you are trying to write off expenses on your business (which the IRS sees as a hobby) they make it tough to defend in an audit. If your grandmother wants to continue with her "hobby" then she must keep very detailed records indeed (every last receipt, check, and bank statement and preferably separate bank accounts for her eBay hobby). The IRS auditors remind me of the Agents from the Matrix, cold, cool, and calculating (I'd imagine that that type of work mostly appeals to that type of personality).
Please mod the parent up, he is exactly right on the abolish the income tax and levy the sales tax point. The United States could certainly use more saving and less spending (the average savings rate in the United States right now is actually negative...meaning most households are not only NOT saving anything but are sliding ever more deeply into debt). Unfortunately, the spenders among us far outnumber the savers among us and the spenders scream whenever the Fed raises the interest rates and the pain of those massive debt loads is ratcheted up a notch. The two million plus people currently working in the tax preparation industry have a vested interest in keeping the income tax system and making it as complicated and byzantine as possible. The retail sales industries, especially those that sell discretionary and luxury products, would also lobby heavily against this. The parent is right and the consumption tax makes tons more sense than the income tax, but the special interests aligned against change are powerful so I wont be holding my breath.
Not to support what the parent said, but I remember when Morgan Spurlock was doing his street interviews for the episode, "30 days as a Muslim", he asked the people, "What is the first thing that comes to your mind when I say Muslim?" Do you know what peoples' answers were? Terrorist and suicide bomber and the like. You can draw your own conclusions, but there are quite a few Americans who, even though they may not publicly admit it, consciously avoid anyone wearing traditional Muslim dress, turban or robes or head scarf, as if they were a potential terrorist or suicide bomber. In fact there was a scene where the white American family man, now alone and dressed in the robe and cap of a Muslim, gets wary or dirty looks from onlookers at the airport and is stopped by security and searched on his way to the plane. If he had been wearing a business suit then he probably wouldn't have gotten a second look, but the rules of the show said that he had to dress and live like a Muslim for 30 days.
What is about liberals always needing the last word? We are going around in circles. It is obvious that you are not changing my mind and that I might as well be talking to a wall for all the good that it is doing, we could argue forever. If this conversation proves anything then it proves just how hardened the positions have become. Further discussion is pointless.
Can you explain how proxy wars in Afghanistan or in other places around the world changes this situation? I'm failing to see your logic.
It changes the situation because if one side allows the other to win a small victory then it tips the balanced scales ever so slightly in their favor in the grand scheme of things. They become bolder and push you in another more important area and so on until they make a demand that you cannot accept and what began as a series of proxy wars that you lost now becomes the final push to wipe you out. By projecting weakness one draws agression, but with strength one can ensure an equal peace with one's enemies.
When sovereignty of nations is held up as an excuse for war criminals to hide behind, then international law and the World Court have no meaning.
I agree with you that the world court is meaningless. It should be disbanded if it cannot do anything practical to meet the goals stated in its charter.
There are more than 1,500 South Africans in Iraq today, most of whom are former members of the South African Defense Force and South African Police."
What the South Africans do is entirely their own affair it really doesn't bother me in the least.
I think you'll have to work a little harder to "prove" that it doesn't meet the criteria under the definition that you have supplied. Clearly, it does - do a little more research if you don't like the "liberal" news source.
The american citizens working for these contractors are not mercenaries because the United States is an official party to the conflict. I have no problem with private military contractors so long as they are not being explicitly substituted for field units of the United States Army and Marine Corps in front line combat.
BTW: The article that you link has no corroborating sources cited for their figures. In the news world that is the equivalent of hearsay and no respectable news outlet would print hearsay without corroboration or citing sources.
And you have the gall to sit here and claim mercenaries aren't fighting this war? Soldiers that signed up for that bonus are mercenaries
Absolutely, they (the uniformed soldiers) are not mercenaries and it is a popular misrepresntation of the left that they are. The United States government can pay whatever size bounty they want to entice people to enlist and they are NOT MERCENARIES. Frankly sir, it is surprising to me that one who served in the military would so frequently and blithely apply the label "mercenary" to those currently serving in the armed forces of the United States, it is increadibly insulting. If you had restricted your criticism to the private military contractors then it might have been halfway legitimate, but to suggest that uniformed soldiers of the United States are mercenaries strains your credibility.
People working for groups like Blackwater are also mercenaries - irrespective of their nation of citizenship
That is your opnion, but in point of fact, according to the UN definition, they are not. The South Africans might be, but it is not conclusive because it is debatable whether they are being contracted to fight or simply to provide protection. Do they seek out insurgents and kill them on orders from the United States or are they just trying to protect VIPs on their drive from the Baghdad airport to the green zone? There is a difference.
The fact that mercenaries are needed, the fact that you and others like you aren't willing to fight the war yourself should make you start to wonder - is it truly as important as I like to pretend it is when it isn't my ass on the line?
The powers that be in the United States government have not seen fit to mobilize the entire nation with war time economy and a draft and so it is probably more productive for myself and others like me who are already 30+ years of age to remain in our present jobs, paying taxes, and taking care of our fa