I don't know. Getting a bunch of prepaid cards and then using them to get cash back at places doesn't sound like a half bad idea if you can pull it off fast enough to get some money.
Except for the fact that every store which sells these prepaid debit cards has video surveillance of all checkout stations and it even says on the card packaging that surveillance video will be provided to law enforcement in the event of fraud or use of the card to purchase illegal goods or services. If you're considering doing something like this, I would advise against it. If you're living in the US and you're caught, you will become the newest member of that permanent underclass which is forever cut off from any meaningful employment or worthwhile future opportunities by virtue of being a convicted felon. There's now effectively zero forgiveness in American society for ex-criminals, reformed or not. One mistake and you're branded for life. Consider all of this carefully before deciding whether or not to commit a crime, especially a blue collar one like low-rent debit card fraud. No matter how desperate you are, it's almost certainly NOT worth it.
even though it was stupid from the standpoint of someone who values their freedom.
The people making the purchases in Vegas and the people who "cloned" the cars were not likely the same people. Did TFA say *exactly* what was purchased using these cloned cards? For example, the people who actually used the cards, aka "the mules", were probably instructed to purchase portable high value items, including fine jewelry and watches, and then to mail those items on to fences in Russia, Eastern Europe, Asia or Africa. This also explains why Vegas was chosen because there are many high end shops selling very expensive jewelery, watches and other luxury goods in high volumes on credit so a large number of transactions is less likely to be noticed. Once the goods arrive overseas, they are resold and the profits, minus cuts for middle men, are transferred back to the technically sophisticated criminals who reside in countries where it's difficult or impossible for US law enforcement to reach them. Obviously this is less desirable then simply transferring funds electronically and directly, but the limited amount of data stolen in this case, as others have already pointed out, limited the options of these thieves.
The corporate tax accountants have already taken obfuscation of payments and source of same to a high art form. No doubt they could also make it very difficult to track down just who was paying Pirate Pay or others to do the dirty work.
What makes this legal? The target also engaging in illegal activity?
This a Russian company operating out of Russia. In case you haven't been keeping track, the United States and Russia are not exactly on the best of terms these days. The scheduled installation of missile defenses in Eastern Europe, the arrest and deportation of Russian spies operating in the US and the general bungling of diplomatic US-Russia relations by the Obama administration, among other grievances, have all contributed to a general disinclination on the part of Russians to cooperate with the United States. They may choose to cooperate on some issues, if properly incentivized, but it would have to further their own interests, or at least not interfere with them, and the price demanded in exchange would likely be high because they don't much care for the United States whom they continue to view as a long term rival and opponent of their interests. If there is to be open warfare between bittorrent users and foreign operations like Pirate Pay, then the bittorent users are on their own and should not expect help or support from US authorities.
It should be possible to alter the existing protocol so that hosts are trusted, or ranked if you will, by the number of "good" packets they deliver to other hosts. This should include a voting protocol whereby bad or malicious hosts, like Pirate Pay, can be "voted off the island" as it were. Obviously there are details to be worked out, but it probably can (and will) be implemented if Pirate Pay persists with their "gum up the works" strategy.
Use a carbon tax to make these fuels' cost represent their real cost
Which would be largely meaningless for several reasons. First, the world is currently using almost as much oil as can be pumped out of the ground at maximum rates. There is no longer any significant slack in the world's oil supplies while at the same time there are billions of aspiring consumers in both India and China who are right now in the process of acquiring all of the habits of a western style consumerist lifestyle. This means that any slack in the oil market generated by American or European cutbacks, due to carbon pricing or whatever, will be almost immediately taken up by consumers and industry in China and India. What will be the result of this policy? American and European economies are crippled by higher energy taxes while at the same time no less carbon is emitted because India and China are now burning whatever oil we don't. In fact, it would probably lead to overall worse emissions because vehicles in China in India tend to be older and less efficient designs which belch huge clouds of greasy black smoke from their tailpipes and produce large quantities of photochemical smog. Second, selling energy taxes is like selling austerity and we've all seen how well austerity sells to the public in Europe as a result of the financial meltdown. People really hate being asked to make do with less, especially when government policy forces it upon them. So asking people to cut back and make sacrifices for the climate is basically a non-starter on any meaningful scale. Any workable solution to climate change will have to be almost a drop in replacement for our current energy use or it has basically no chance of being used.
I think thinking that there is some conspiracy here is kind of ridiculous.
It's not a conspiracy and I don't think that's what the parent meant. Rather, he was alluding to the fact that third world countries cannot, due to corruption, or will not, due to outright refusal, agree to participate in your carbon taxing scheme. So what you will end up with is a game where one side plays by the rules and the other side does as it pleases. Why should we wrestle with one arm tied behind our collective backs? The US economy is in bad enough shape right now without adding the self inflicted wounds of carbon taxing. Thanks, but no thanks.
Yes, excessive compared to a median wage earner. It used to be that the boss made 30-50 times his average employee. Now it's more like several hundred times.
Do you feel this way about other highly paid people or just CEOs of big corporations? For example, Kobe Bryant is paid ~28.7 million dollars per year to play basketball for the LA Lakers. Is that excessive? Is he worth it? Are the best CEOs less talented or simply overrated? What I'm getting at here is that few, if any, play basketball as well as Kobe Bryant and without him and others like him nobody would watch the NBA and billions of dollars in revenue wouldn't be collectively earned by the league, the owners and countless other businesses involved, directly or indirectly, with the NBA. If you believe that average people can run big corporations well, then you probably think that CEOs are overpaid. However, if you believe that the difference between a good CEO and a bad one is hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars less in profit to the corporation (i.e. a losing season); perhaps the good CEO is worth paying for? It's all about supply, demand and what the market will bear, not how much his (or her) labor is "worth". This would fall more generally under the criticisms over what's called the Labor Theory of Value or even more generally who creates value and therefore who can demand what share of that additional value that's created.
Have CEOs somehow become ten times as awesome in the last twenty years?
I would argue that management, in general, has definitely improved in the last twenty years. There are more and smarter people coming up all of the time and competition has only increased. It's true that the role of the CEO has become more prominent during that time period than perhaps it was in the past, and it's a difficult question to ask because there are so many variables, but I would say that at the very least CEOs have, in general, also improved substantially in the last twenty years, yes.
I could hire 500 full-time expert advisers to work together and do my job, and sit back and enjoy the excess 50% of the CEO salary, and do a better job than any average CEO, yes.
So start your own company and prove it by eating everyone elses' lunch.
The better question is, do you really think a single CEO does the combined work load of 1,000+ men?
Of course not. At the Fortune 500 companies there are already 1,000+ expert managers and smart men working beneath the CEO and ultimately reporting to him (or her) via the chain of command. The point is that somebody must ultimately be in charge. For example, every government on this planet has a head of state or a single person who is in charge and and ultimately held responsible for success or failure (here in the US we call that person the President). Large corporations likewise require a singular leader or executive to call the shots, make final decisions, and generally get things done.
Now, how much that person is paid is an arguable point. It depends upon the size of the business, the consequences of failure, and the perceived difficult of running the business well. To use an analogy here, a good CEO and board will adroitly steer the boat through the rapids and emerge out the other side while the bad CEO and board will smash the boat on the rocks, capsize the it and dump everyone into the water. The quality of CEOs and board members (and therefore how much it's worth paying them) is demonstrated by how well they react under market pressures and how well they steer the ship of the corporation unerringly towards profitability, damn the torpedoes. Is there a difference between a Steve Jobs, a Jack Welch or just anyone else? You bet there is AND it's worth paying for.
So why not show up at the shareholder meeting, apply for your 3 minutes at the mic, and suggest that? If you think that the other shareholders would agree then you can try to get it on the ballot as a shareholder resolution or you could simply vote 'No' on the non-binding pay resolutions that are now required by law. However, I think that both you and I know the score here, so one so one of two things is true:
1. You're right and anyone can run a Fortune 500 company which means that me and all of the rest of the shareholders are idiots for continuing to tolerate a CEO and board of directors, all of whom are paid millions, to run the business on our behalf.
OR
2. A good CEO and board, generally costing millions, and not just anybody really are necessary to run a Fortune 500 company. Me and the rest of the shareholders are right to continue paying the CEO and the board and you don't know WTF you're talking about.
Now, which do you suppose is more likely? (don't strain your big brain thinking too much about it m'kay)
Excessive compared to what? A minimum wage earner or perhaps even a median wage earner? Could just anyone off the street run a Fortune 500 company well or even just capably? Could you? If you were the CEO in charge of any of these companies what would you have done differently? Would you have created a better shareholder return than the existing management? People like to complain about overpaid CEOs, and some of them are overpaid, but running a big company well is a lot harder than it looks. The best CEOs, boards and management provide substantially better results and superior shareholder value as compared to the worst. Most shareholders agree that good management is worth paying for, especially when there are billions of dollars at stake, as there are in the biggest corporations, where even modest mistakes can cost millions. The non-binding votes on compensation mostly bear this out. With a few notable exceptions, Citi being prominent among them, most CEOs earn their pay packets in the eyes of investors. If you don't agree or think that you could do better, sell your shares and found your own company to compete against your "incompetent" competitors.
Informed consent just does not happen at the retail level in finance and the courts are unwilling to face that fact.
People want to be treated as independent adults in this world and yet they want the government to stand behind them and wipe their collective asses. Give me a break. The lesson here is that ignorance is a relatively expensive luxury these days.
It's not fraud as long as the liabilities created by the derivatives are reported on the balance sheet. The liabilities may be difficult to quantify, but as long as they're disclosed the diligent investor can decide for themselves how they're going to respond. What Buffet was saying was that it was very difficult, in his opinion, to estimate the risks in these complex derivatives transactions and Warren Buffet is well known for refusing to invest in things which he either doesn't understand or cannot reliably quantify (his avoidance of high tech investments are another example of this). Just because an investment is high risk or because foolish investors don't or cannot understand the risks that they're really taking doesn't make it fraud. This is an important distinction that's often lost upon the Occupy people and those who decry "preditory lending" or "cutthroat capitalism". Personally, I agree with Buffet and don't invest in futures or derivatives because I don't understand them. Indeed, I suspect that few people, even among professional traders, actually do. So when someone tells me that they fully understand all of the risks associated with their derivatives trade I know that they're either a savant or a liar. However, just because an investment is complex and risky (the two often go hand in glove) doesn't automatically make it fraudulent. As with most things in life, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
Siri is an interface to search, not a replacement for it.
Yes, but non-technical people often confuse the interface with the mechanism of action, particularly when that interface sits between them and a computing device.
Which can be effectively addressed through targeted killings. The Israelis have demonstrated time and again the effectiveness of killing key personnel whether they be terrorist leaders or enemy nuclear scientists. Targeted killings are effective, provided that they're used sparingly. In the case of a nuclear or missile program, this goes hand in hand with sabotage and misinformation campaigns. Helping to ensure that faulty data and or parts/equipment find their way into enemy hands (the North Koreans currently produce their own faulty equipment so no problems there).
Missile defense has historically been more about economics and less about technology. The interests of the United States would be better served by beefing up retaliatory options, and demonstrating the capability and will to use them, rather than focusing so much on point defense which will always cost more than whatever is being intercepted. A stepwise menu of graduated options, ranging from cruise missile or theater ballistic missile with conventional warheads, all the way up to nuclear tipped Minuteman ICBMs is generally sufficient to deter most rational opponents. To deal with the less rational ones we need to beef up our intelligence agencies and their offensive capabilities. Say what you want about the Israeli policy of "targeted killings", but it has been a relatively low cost and yet very effective tactic. Killing the leaders, or the brains of the operations, prevents the sort of sophisticated planning and training necessary to run an effective terrorist group because the ones who are left, while angry, cannot find their own asses with both hands.
Steve Jobs arrived at basically the same conclusion way back in 2001, that the way to compete with "free" was to provide overwhelming convenience and better customer service in exchange for a nominal fee. The reason that we don't see more of this in practice is that the content owners believe, wrongly, that they can charge a much higher price for a product that is designed to be inconvenient (aka DRM) and get away with it. Of course, the marketplace proves daily that this is false, but for some reason, perhaps escalation of commitment, the content owners cannot or will not admit defeat. The technology industry should stop coddling the content industry and start twisting the knife instead. Now is their chance to deliver the coup de grâce to Hollywood, while they're on the ropes, and yet something stays their hand. Google, Microsoft, IBM and Oracle could collectively crush Hollywood for interfering in their business. Perhaps they should before Hollywood releases "Bride of SOPA".
I tried to make the same point above, but parent has said it best. Put down the device for a day and see what you've been missing, the results may surprise you.
a view that users are nothing more than exploitable sources of money that need to be controlled.
It's quite possible to get along in life without purchasing or using Apple products and I would argue that such a life is no less rich and varied than one spent with one's head buried in iDevices. On the contrary, it's liberating to emancipate oneself from the continuous partial attention and shallow relationships that have come to characterize this entire iCulture. Do you really have 100+ friends? Can you even remember what you were tweeting about or posting on Facebook a year or even six months ago? Did it even matter? Probably not.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know. Getting a bunch of prepaid cards and then using them to get cash back at places doesn't sound like a half bad idea if you can pull it off fast enough to get some money.
Except for the fact that every store which sells these prepaid debit cards has video surveillance of all checkout stations and it even says on the card packaging that surveillance video will be provided to law enforcement in the event of fraud or use of the card to purchase illegal goods or services. If you're considering doing something like this, I would advise against it. If you're living in the US and you're caught, you will become the newest member of that permanent underclass which is forever cut off from any meaningful employment or worthwhile future opportunities by virtue of being a convicted felon. There's now effectively zero forgiveness in American society for ex-criminals, reformed or not. One mistake and you're branded for life. Consider all of this carefully before deciding whether or not to commit a crime, especially a blue collar one like low-rent debit card fraud. No matter how desperate you are, it's almost certainly NOT worth it.
even though it was stupid from the standpoint of someone who values their freedom.
The people making the purchases in Vegas and the people who "cloned" the cars were not likely the same people. Did TFA say *exactly* what was purchased using these cloned cards? For example, the people who actually used the cards, aka "the mules", were probably instructed to purchase portable high value items, including fine jewelry and watches, and then to mail those items on to fences in Russia, Eastern Europe, Asia or Africa. This also explains why Vegas was chosen because there are many high end shops selling very expensive jewelery, watches and other luxury goods in high volumes on credit so a large number of transactions is less likely to be noticed. Once the goods arrive overseas, they are resold and the profits, minus cuts for middle men, are transferred back to the technically sophisticated criminals who reside in countries where it's difficult or impossible for US law enforcement to reach them. Obviously this is less desirable then simply transferring funds electronically and directly, but the limited amount of data stolen in this case, as others have already pointed out, limited the options of these thieves.
The corporate tax accountants have already taken obfuscation of payments and source of same to a high art form. No doubt they could also make it very difficult to track down just who was paying Pirate Pay or others to do the dirty work.
What makes this legal? The target also engaging in illegal activity?
This a Russian company operating out of Russia. In case you haven't been keeping track, the United States and Russia are not exactly on the best of terms these days. The scheduled installation of missile defenses in Eastern Europe, the arrest and deportation of Russian spies operating in the US and the general bungling of diplomatic US-Russia relations by the Obama administration, among other grievances, have all contributed to a general disinclination on the part of Russians to cooperate with the United States. They may choose to cooperate on some issues, if properly incentivized, but it would have to further their own interests, or at least not interfere with them, and the price demanded in exchange would likely be high because they don't much care for the United States whom they continue to view as a long term rival and opponent of their interests. If there is to be open warfare between bittorrent users and foreign operations like Pirate Pay, then the bittorent users are on their own and should not expect help or support from US authorities.
It should be possible to alter the existing protocol so that hosts are trusted, or ranked if you will, by the number of "good" packets they deliver to other hosts. This should include a voting protocol whereby bad or malicious hosts, like Pirate Pay, can be "voted off the island" as it were. Obviously there are details to be worked out, but it probably can (and will) be implemented if Pirate Pay persists with their "gum up the works" strategy.
Use a carbon tax to make these fuels' cost represent their real cost
Which would be largely meaningless for several reasons. First, the world is currently using almost as much oil as can be pumped out of the ground at maximum rates. There is no longer any significant slack in the world's oil supplies while at the same time there are billions of aspiring consumers in both India and China who are right now in the process of acquiring all of the habits of a western style consumerist lifestyle. This means that any slack in the oil market generated by American or European cutbacks, due to carbon pricing or whatever, will be almost immediately taken up by consumers and industry in China and India. What will be the result of this policy? American and European economies are crippled by higher energy taxes while at the same time no less carbon is emitted because India and China are now burning whatever oil we don't. In fact, it would probably lead to overall worse emissions because vehicles in China in India tend to be older and less efficient designs which belch huge clouds of greasy black smoke from their tailpipes and produce large quantities of photochemical smog. Second, selling energy taxes is like selling austerity and we've all seen how well austerity sells to the public in Europe as a result of the financial meltdown. People really hate being asked to make do with less, especially when government policy forces it upon them. So asking people to cut back and make sacrifices for the climate is basically a non-starter on any meaningful scale. Any workable solution to climate change will have to be almost a drop in replacement for our current energy use or it has basically no chance of being used.
I think thinking that there is some conspiracy here is kind of ridiculous.
It's not a conspiracy and I don't think that's what the parent meant. Rather, he was alluding to the fact that third world countries cannot, due to corruption, or will not, due to outright refusal, agree to participate in your carbon taxing scheme. So what you will end up with is a game where one side plays by the rules and the other side does as it pleases. Why should we wrestle with one arm tied behind our collective backs? The US economy is in bad enough shape right now without adding the self inflicted wounds of carbon taxing. Thanks, but no thanks.
Ban? Care to elaborate on this? I know of no bans or even any regulation on where you can live?
It's called Zoning, look it up sometime.
Yes, excessive compared to a median wage earner. It used to be that the boss made 30-50 times his average employee. Now it's more like several hundred times.
Do you feel this way about other highly paid people or just CEOs of big corporations? For example, Kobe Bryant is paid ~28.7 million dollars per year to play basketball for the LA Lakers. Is that excessive? Is he worth it? Are the best CEOs less talented or simply overrated? What I'm getting at here is that few, if any, play basketball as well as Kobe Bryant and without him and others like him nobody would watch the NBA and billions of dollars in revenue wouldn't be collectively earned by the league, the owners and countless other businesses involved, directly or indirectly, with the NBA. If you believe that average people can run big corporations well, then you probably think that CEOs are overpaid. However, if you believe that the difference between a good CEO and a bad one is hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars less in profit to the corporation (i.e. a losing season); perhaps the good CEO is worth paying for? It's all about supply, demand and what the market will bear, not how much his (or her) labor is "worth". This would fall more generally under the criticisms over what's called the Labor Theory of Value or even more generally who creates value and therefore who can demand what share of that additional value that's created.
Have CEOs somehow become ten times as awesome in the last twenty years?
I would argue that management, in general, has definitely improved in the last twenty years. There are more and smarter people coming up all of the time and competition has only increased. It's true that the role of the CEO has become more prominent during that time period than perhaps it was in the past, and it's a difficult question to ask because there are so many variables, but I would say that at the very least CEOs have, in general, also improved substantially in the last twenty years, yes.
I could hire 500 full-time expert advisers to work together and do my job, and sit back and enjoy the excess 50% of the CEO salary, and do a better job than any average CEO, yes.
So start your own company and prove it by eating everyone elses' lunch.
The better question is, do you really think a single CEO does the combined work load of 1,000+ men?
Of course not. At the Fortune 500 companies there are already 1,000+ expert managers and smart men working beneath the CEO and ultimately reporting to him (or her) via the chain of command. The point is that somebody must ultimately be in charge. For example, every government on this planet has a head of state or a single person who is in charge and and ultimately held responsible for success or failure (here in the US we call that person the President). Large corporations likewise require a singular leader or executive to call the shots, make final decisions, and generally get things done.
Now, how much that person is paid is an arguable point. It depends upon the size of the business, the consequences of failure, and the perceived difficult of running the business well. To use an analogy here, a good CEO and board will adroitly steer the boat through the rapids and emerge out the other side while the bad CEO and board will smash the boat on the rocks, capsize the it and dump everyone into the water. The quality of CEOs and board members (and therefore how much it's worth paying them) is demonstrated by how well they react under market pressures and how well they steer the ship of the corporation unerringly towards profitability, damn the torpedoes. Is there a difference between a Steve Jobs, a Jack Welch or just anyone else? You bet there is AND it's worth paying for.
So why not show up at the shareholder meeting, apply for your 3 minutes at the mic, and suggest that? If you think that the other shareholders would agree then you can try to get it on the ballot as a shareholder resolution or you could simply vote 'No' on the non-binding pay resolutions that are now required by law. However, I think that both you and I know the score here, so one so one of two things is true:
1. You're right and anyone can run a Fortune 500 company which means that me and all of the rest of the shareholders are idiots for continuing to tolerate a CEO and board of directors, all of whom are paid millions, to run the business on our behalf.
OR
2. A good CEO and board, generally costing millions, and not just anybody really are necessary to run a Fortune 500 company. Me and the rest of the shareholders are right to continue paying the CEO and the board and you don't know WTF you're talking about.
Now, which do you suppose is more likely? (don't strain your big brain thinking too much about it m'kay)
Does it enter into it that the sales people targeted people likely to have a lack of financial knowledge?
Not in my opinion, no. As always in real estate, or indeed in any investment, Let the Buyer Beware .
Excessive compared to what? A minimum wage earner or perhaps even a median wage earner? Could just anyone off the street run a Fortune 500 company well or even just capably? Could you? If you were the CEO in charge of any of these companies what would you have done differently? Would you have created a better shareholder return than the existing management? People like to complain about overpaid CEOs, and some of them are overpaid, but running a big company well is a lot harder than it looks. The best CEOs, boards and management provide substantially better results and superior shareholder value as compared to the worst. Most shareholders agree that good management is worth paying for, especially when there are billions of dollars at stake, as there are in the biggest corporations, where even modest mistakes can cost millions. The non-binding votes on compensation mostly bear this out. With a few notable exceptions, Citi being prominent among them, most CEOs earn their pay packets in the eyes of investors. If you don't agree or think that you could do better, sell your shares and found your own company to compete against your "incompetent" competitors.
Informed consent just does not happen at the retail level in finance and the courts are unwilling to face that fact.
People want to be treated as independent adults in this world and yet they want the government to stand behind them and wipe their collective asses. Give me a break. The lesson here is that ignorance is a relatively expensive luxury these days.
No one can say the fraud was unknown
It's not fraud as long as the liabilities created by the derivatives are reported on the balance sheet. The liabilities may be difficult to quantify, but as long as they're disclosed the diligent investor can decide for themselves how they're going to respond. What Buffet was saying was that it was very difficult, in his opinion, to estimate the risks in these complex derivatives transactions and Warren Buffet is well known for refusing to invest in things which he either doesn't understand or cannot reliably quantify (his avoidance of high tech investments are another example of this). Just because an investment is high risk or because foolish investors don't or cannot understand the risks that they're really taking doesn't make it fraud. This is an important distinction that's often lost upon the Occupy people and those who decry "preditory lending" or "cutthroat capitalism". Personally, I agree with Buffet and don't invest in futures or derivatives because I don't understand them. Indeed, I suspect that few people, even among professional traders, actually do. So when someone tells me that they fully understand all of the risks associated with their derivatives trade I know that they're either a savant or a liar. However, just because an investment is complex and risky (the two often go hand in glove) doesn't automatically make it fraudulent. As with most things in life, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
Siri is an interface to search, not a replacement for it.
Yes, but non-technical people often confuse the interface with the mechanism of action, particularly when that interface sits between them and a computing device.
You'd think he was being paid by the comma.
Sort of, you know, like a certain actor who, before he became a .com spokesman, was known for other, even less prominent, roles.
Can it be? A Slashdot user who doesn't use NoScript, AdBlock, Flashblock and Ghostery? Really?
I'm terrified of the man who only wants one.
Which can be effectively addressed through targeted killings. The Israelis have demonstrated time and again the effectiveness of killing key personnel whether they be terrorist leaders or enemy nuclear scientists. Targeted killings are effective, provided that they're used sparingly. In the case of a nuclear or missile program, this goes hand in hand with sabotage and misinformation campaigns. Helping to ensure that faulty data and or parts/equipment find their way into enemy hands (the North Koreans currently produce their own faulty equipment so no problems there).
Missile defense has historically been more about economics and less about technology. The interests of the United States would be better served by beefing up retaliatory options, and demonstrating the capability and will to use them, rather than focusing so much on point defense which will always cost more than whatever is being intercepted. A stepwise menu of graduated options, ranging from cruise missile or theater ballistic missile with conventional warheads, all the way up to nuclear tipped Minuteman ICBMs is generally sufficient to deter most rational opponents. To deal with the less rational ones we need to beef up our intelligence agencies and their offensive capabilities. Say what you want about the Israeli policy of "targeted killings", but it has been a relatively low cost and yet very effective tactic. Killing the leaders, or the brains of the operations, prevents the sort of sophisticated planning and training necessary to run an effective terrorist group because the ones who are left, while angry, cannot find their own asses with both hands.
Piracy isn't just people being cheap
Steve Jobs arrived at basically the same conclusion way back in 2001, that the way to compete with "free" was to provide overwhelming convenience and better customer service in exchange for a nominal fee. The reason that we don't see more of this in practice is that the content owners believe, wrongly, that they can charge a much higher price for a product that is designed to be inconvenient (aka DRM) and get away with it. Of course, the marketplace proves daily that this is false, but for some reason, perhaps escalation of commitment, the content owners cannot or will not admit defeat. The technology industry should stop coddling the content industry and start twisting the knife instead. Now is their chance to deliver the coup de grâce to Hollywood, while they're on the ropes, and yet something stays their hand. Google, Microsoft, IBM and Oracle could collectively crush Hollywood for interfering in their business. Perhaps they should before Hollywood releases "Bride of SOPA".
I tried to make the same point above, but parent has said it best. Put down the device for a day and see what you've been missing, the results may surprise you.
a view that users are nothing more than exploitable sources of money that need to be controlled.
It's quite possible to get along in life without purchasing or using Apple products and I would argue that such a life is no less rich and varied than one spent with one's head buried in iDevices. On the contrary, it's liberating to emancipate oneself from the continuous partial attention and shallow relationships that have come to characterize this entire iCulture. Do you really have 100+ friends? Can you even remember what you were tweeting about or posting on Facebook a year or even six months ago? Did it even matter? Probably not.
IPv6 allows us to finally get rid of NAT
And the privacy advantages that it confers...
If we as an industry think that diversity is important,
Diversity is overrated at best.
I think making others feel welcome is important.
Finishing projects on time and on budget is more important.