Well, not to be heartless here but "true" poverty in my mind is very different from what I see on the streets of the USA. Yes, we have poor people and yes, they struggle. And I am certain you saw some of that in your mission work and house-building work.
But struggling to get your car working or to pay your bills or to patch your house is very very different from struggling to:
a) Evade the rebel army that lurks all over your country (see Sudan)
b) Eat - most "truly" poor people have a very hard time finding food for themselves and their family. See many parts of Africa.
c) Shelter yourself. I am quite certain that ANYONE who is hanging in one of the refugee camps would gladly trade their tent for the 3BR shack you describe in your post.
I am not saying there aren't some of those folks here in the US. I am sure there are. In fact, I've spent some time down in the Valley -- near the TX/Mexico border and even there, the standard of living for the "poor" is WAY above the standard of living of the "poor" in the rest of the world.
I think that is the point the GP was making. That being "poor" here in America is arguably better than being "poor" somewhere else in the world.
(sidenote: this discussion reminds me of a Sam Kinison comedy routine -- "the rest of the world dreams of being homeless in America. The homeless here eat better than 1/3 of the worlds population - and that's just from the dumpsters")
Egads. I think you may be right on this one. I *swear* I read that (or something eerily close to it) in the Art of War. I have never read anything on Nap Bonaparte so I am completely jacked up now as to where this originally came from.
Remember the movie Wall Street? When a company is rumored to be bought, its stock will most likely go up substantially because investors know the company will cut overhead, largely in the form of layoffs. Expect that to happen here.
Not trying to be an asshat here but did you just reference a movie in your analogy of how takeover's work in the REAL world? I used to work in M&A (mergers and acquisitions) and I assure you, the movie Wall Street is NOT how things work. Not even close.
I don't know what the legal implications are but I look at it like this: which is the worst?
In other words, what is the punishment for not revealing the information? And assuming they have a real reason for holding/investigating you, what is the punishment if they find you guilty of whatever they are charging you with? Because they most certainly will get a conviction if you give them the info they are asking for.
Back in college, we had an attorney come talk to us about drunk driving and what to do if you ARE DRUNK and get pulled over (yes, I know you shouldn't be drunk driving but that is beside the point). At that time, the penalty for NOT taking the breathalizer was loss of your license for 6 months. The attorney also mentioned that most juries (in his experience) did not hold it against people who did not take the breathalizer. However, they DID hold it against you if you failed the breathalizer. So the equation became real easy:
a) Don't take the breathalizer. Be found innocent and lose your license for 6 months.
.....or.....
b) take the breathalizer, fail, AND get convicted.
So his advice was this: never-ever take a breathalizer. Even if you are innocent. Losing your license for 6 months was MUCH better than "risking" it and getting yourself convicted.
I think the situation you describe is very very similar. But I don't know what the penalities are for withholding passwords or encryption keys. Over in the UK, they are quite steep. But I don't know about the USA.
I'm not so sure about that. Certainly they have cause to be angry but if past history is any indication -- they'll just take it. And then go buy another Sony product.
Dude, it's Europe. Get used to it. For all of my life, everytime I have to deal with Europe or European companies -- I re-learn the fact that my concept of "time" is not the same as theirs. Just try to get ANYTHING done in August or September and you will get a first hand lesson too (Europe goes on vacation during those months)
Sucks that it has to be that way and I am certain they are not alone but it is what it is.
What takes 2 weeks here in America, often takes 2 months when you go abroad. I am not smart enough to know WHY that is but one thing is for sure: it has been a consistent problem for my entire adult life. And I don't think it's going to change.
(note: for those that think I am bashing -- I'm not. I am simply stating an observation that is obvious to many Americans such as myself. You can debate the differences in culture on your own time.)
Worked the same for me, except I had to play with the resolutions a bit. I wound up with 1024 x 768 and it looks damn good. Had no issues whatsoever getting my card to recognize my TV (Sony 4210)
I echo your sentiments. Specifically, the CableCard comment. *THAT* was the way Tivo could be installed on most digital cable systems. Without CableCard support, all a person could do is record standard "analog" channels and FTA (free to air) HDTV channels - which are basically the local channels. No ESPN-HD or DiscoveryHD without a cable card. Also, no National Geography channel because its a "digital channel" -- not an analog channel. (note: on my system, analog channels are 2-78 and digital channels are 100+. HDTV channels are in the 700's and they are most definitely digital channels). Yes, you can do the IR blaster and use a regular cable box, but that kind of defeats the purpose anyway. If I wanted to do that, I could go buy a $75 capture card and store my shows on a PC.
And because Tivo is so damn late to the game, I had to make the jump FROM Tivo to my cable co's HDTV PVR (Motorola 6412). I hate it. I would rather have TiVo -- but not a crippled one.
To me, the CableCard issue *IS* the issue. Today, you STILL can't buy a Series3 and combine it with a CableCard. Even tho, CableCards are available (at least in my area....I actually have one in my TV).
I had Tivo. I liked my Tivo. I had an "upgraded" series 1 and it served me well.
However, their lack of HDTV support is a tragedy. As far as I know, they only have announcements to show for their effort, not counting the "prototype" that was just displayed at the last CES. Yes, they have forces working against them (its called competition!) -- but they should have put out the HDTV unit long ago. Instead, all I can use is my cable co's weak-ass DVR (Motorola DCT-6412).
And that is why I don't care about Tivo anymore. Great product and idea. Lousy execution.
So who is going to be the first to create a plug-in that auto-encrypts what it sends and auto-decrypts what it receives - from Google?
That would be sweet to have client side encryption "built in" to whatever the client ends up being. But from the sound of this article, it's probably more like "hacked in" instead of "built in". After all, Google wants to READ what you store....
The fact that laws are in legalese, or I assume so as all I have ever seen are in that way, makes it hard to read.
That, my friend...is by design. I am certain that a certain segment of the workforce that specializes in "translating" legalese into layman's terms, will be happy to help you for about $250/hr. They're called Attorneys. And in case you haven't noticed, they wield a LOT of power in this country. An unusual amoutn, in fact. And, personally, they remind me a lot of scribes back in their day and the power they wielded (like copying the bible, etc).
That's the problem. An entire world full of people, people competing in similar businesses, all wanting to be in the first 10 hits of a google search.
So, it's....uh...competition?
I hear what you are saying but it seems to me that "being in the top 10" is PART of the competitive landscape, no? If it wasn't important to anyone's success, then it wouldn't be an issue. But clearly, it IS important. And that's why we have all these shenanigans to deal with.
It's really the same in the offline world. There are plenty of "shady" businesses that will take ANY edge offered to them. Even if it's morally dubious. The difference is that they are fairly easy to identify in the offline world. In the online world, it just takes a talented graphical artist and your site can be as "good" as that of a Fortune 500 company with vastly more resources.
Google needs to do a better job of weeding out the ilk but I don't see a technical way that they can do that. Does anyone? How would you code to recognize the difference between an original source and a rehash of the exact same material (with different wording)?
Yes, you are probably right that we should educate everyone on what the scientific process is and is not. It never ceases to amaze me - oh SWEET, another episode of The Bachelor: Paris is on right now.
So, um...they reinvented usenet? Not to be a troll, but this is *EXACTLY* how usenet works at the server level. It's P2P for the most part.
So we've "web-i-zized" the same technology for use in the go-go Web 2.0 so we can seamlessly integrate disparate mediums across a non-traditional life-cycle that leverages cross marketing synergy in order to capture positive customer sentiment.
Sweet! I am intrigued by your ideas. How can I subscribe to your newsletter? Oh, nevermind.
It's NOT changing technology that is driving this. It's control. Be it DRM or whatever. Companies have started to realize they can "lock in" customers by vertically integrating hardware and software (and DRM). In the past, this didn't work because there was always an alternative that you could switch to. But with the new laws and new business practices for commerce, this has all been turned on it's head.
It's not that all the technologies CAN'T work together. It's that the companies producing the units won't LET them work together. They are purposely trying to NOT work together so that they can lock you in to their product offering and keep you coming back to THEIR pipe for the next hit.
That's what all of this nonsense about. It's 100% about control.
Hey, thanks for the reply. Let me try to clarify a bit...
While it's not happening now - because we don't have the tech to do it - it is true that things are becoming more "realistic" in the virtual world. So is there ever a point where we have to intervene so that people can NOT get hurt in a virtual world? (both physically as in the holodeck as well as emotionally, which is a little more dubious but still relevant nontheless).
I think of it like the Lawnmower man movie. Not sure if you have seen it but if not, think about the Matrix. As more "virtual" stuff intersects with "real" stuff, there are going to be strange collisions between those worlds. For example, what if we can implant images into the brain that are SO realistic that they are indistiguishable from reality. Now, replace images with whatever you would like - emotions, etc. After all, the brain - and how it works is most definitely chemical, so that implies that we can manipulate those chemicals and thus, manipulate the brain (more directly than just day to day brain activity). In fact, we already do that on a primitive level with pharmaceuticals. Now think what happens when we mix the virtual world with our newfound ability to do this brain manipulation. Do we need to have some "boundaries" on that? Or is it "anything goes" -- with the possibility that we might really fuck some people up in the process by exposing them to things in the virtual world that might actually damage them in the real world.
Thats really the point I was trying to make (although poorly). Believe me, I am an "information wants to be free guy" and am VERY loathe to restrict anything on computers --- but I can also see some situations in the future that may crop up where it would be in ALL of our best interest to limit. I just don't know what they are yet.
And yea, I know this whole thread is "out there" so no problem if I haven't made it clear. Its kind of a murky topic anyway.
Yea, I get the point of you post but I think you oversimplify things. Virtual is virtual and real is real. Got it. (I actually agree with most of your post but I have to address the oversimplification)
How about safety within the virtual world? Another poster gave a (simplified) example of safety measures on a holodeck to insure that nobody REALLY gets hurt. While hypothetical, it is an example of a limitation that we would WANT or NEED to build into the system. Now go define "safety measure" anyway you want to and you'll start to understand the question I am asking. Where/what lines should be drawn?
We all know the difference between virtually shooting someone and physically shooting someone. That was not the subject of my post.
Slashdot Mirror
you forgot the hot grits
Well, not to be heartless here but "true" poverty in my mind is very different from what I see on the streets of the USA. Yes, we have poor people and yes, they struggle. And I am certain you saw some of that in your mission work and house-building work.
But struggling to get your car working or to pay your bills or to patch your house is very very different from struggling to:
a) Evade the rebel army that lurks all over your country (see Sudan)
b) Eat - most "truly" poor people have a very hard time finding food for themselves and their family. See many parts of Africa.
c) Shelter yourself. I am quite certain that ANYONE who is hanging in one of the refugee camps would gladly trade their tent for the 3BR shack you describe in your post.
I am not saying there aren't some of those folks here in the US. I am sure there are. In fact, I've spent some time down in the Valley -- near the TX/Mexico border and even there, the standard of living for the "poor" is WAY above the standard of living of the "poor" in the rest of the world.
I think that is the point the GP was making. That being "poor" here in America is arguably better than being "poor" somewhere else in the world.
(sidenote: this discussion reminds me of a Sam Kinison comedy routine -- "the rest of the world dreams of being homeless in America. The homeless here eat better than 1/3 of the worlds population - and that's just from the dumpsters")
Egads. I think you may be right on this one. I *swear* I read that (or something eerily close to it) in the Art of War. I have never read anything on Nap Bonaparte so I am completely jacked up now as to where this originally came from.
"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake" -- Sun Tzu (Anonymous), The Art of War
Remember the movie Wall Street? When a company is rumored to be bought, its stock will most likely go up substantially because investors know the company will cut overhead, largely in the form of layoffs. Expect that to happen here.
Not trying to be an asshat here but did you just reference a movie in your analogy of how takeover's work in the REAL world? I used to work in M&A (mergers and acquisitions) and I assure you, the movie Wall Street is NOT how things work. Not even close.
I don't know what the legal implications are but I look at it like this: which is the worst?
.....or.....
In other words, what is the punishment for not revealing the information? And assuming they have a real reason for holding/investigating you, what is the punishment if they find you guilty of whatever they are charging you with? Because they most certainly will get a conviction if you give them the info they are asking for.
Back in college, we had an attorney come talk to us about drunk driving and what to do if you ARE DRUNK and get pulled over (yes, I know you shouldn't be drunk driving but that is beside the point). At that time, the penalty for NOT taking the breathalizer was loss of your license for 6 months. The attorney also mentioned that most juries (in his experience) did not hold it against people who did not take the breathalizer. However, they DID hold it against you if you failed the breathalizer. So the equation became real easy:
a) Don't take the breathalizer. Be found innocent and lose your license for 6 months.
b) take the breathalizer, fail, AND get convicted.
So his advice was this: never-ever take a breathalizer. Even if you are innocent. Losing your license for 6 months was MUCH better than "risking" it and getting yourself convicted.
I think the situation you describe is very very similar. But I don't know what the penalities are for withholding passwords or encryption keys. Over in the UK, they are quite steep. But I don't know about the USA.
travel to Indonesia, Pakistan, Iran, Central Asia, Africa and Turkey as well as Arabia
:)
Nah, I think I'll take your word for it.
and angry
I'm not so sure about that. Certainly they have cause to be angry but if past history is any indication -- they'll just take it. And then go buy another Sony product.
Dude, it's Europe. Get used to it. For all of my life, everytime I have to deal with Europe or European companies -- I re-learn the fact that my concept of "time" is not the same as theirs. Just try to get ANYTHING done in August or September and you will get a first hand lesson too (Europe goes on vacation during those months)
Sucks that it has to be that way and I am certain they are not alone but it is what it is.
What takes 2 weeks here in America, often takes 2 months when you go abroad. I am not smart enough to know WHY that is but one thing is for sure: it has been a consistent problem for my entire adult life. And I don't think it's going to change.
(note: for those that think I am bashing -- I'm not. I am simply stating an observation that is obvious to many Americans such as myself. You can debate the differences in culture on your own time.)
Worked the same for me, except I had to play with the resolutions a bit. I wound up with 1024 x 768 and it looks damn good. Had no issues whatsoever getting my card to recognize my TV (Sony 4210)
I echo your sentiments. Specifically, the CableCard comment. *THAT* was the way Tivo could be installed on most digital cable systems. Without CableCard support, all a person could do is record standard "analog" channels and FTA (free to air) HDTV channels - which are basically the local channels. No ESPN-HD or DiscoveryHD without a cable card. Also, no National Geography channel because its a "digital channel" -- not an analog channel. (note: on my system, analog channels are 2-78 and digital channels are 100+. HDTV channels are in the 700's and they are most definitely digital channels). Yes, you can do the IR blaster and use a regular cable box, but that kind of defeats the purpose anyway. If I wanted to do that, I could go buy a $75 capture card and store my shows on a PC.
And because Tivo is so damn late to the game, I had to make the jump FROM Tivo to my cable co's HDTV PVR (Motorola 6412). I hate it. I would rather have TiVo -- but not a crippled one.
To me, the CableCard issue *IS* the issue. Today, you STILL can't buy a Series3 and combine it with a CableCard. Even tho, CableCards are available (at least in my area....I actually have one in my TV).
Yes....except last year, it was also "coming soon". Either way, it doesn't matter. It's woefully late to the market.
Just one question: WHERE IS TIVO's HDTV UNIT?
It's only been, what...3 years since they announced it?
Hey submitter and editors -- Google isn't PAYING anything. They are giving credits to buy more advertising.
Am I the only one who recognizes the difference between "getting paid $1" and "getting credit for $1 - at that company"?
Are you fucking kidding me? They make PLENTY of money and benefits.
98% of the population dreams of making this much money.
I had Tivo. I liked my Tivo. I had an "upgraded" series 1 and it served me well.
However, their lack of HDTV support is a tragedy. As far as I know, they only have announcements to show for their effort, not counting the "prototype" that was just displayed at the last CES. Yes, they have forces working against them (its called competition!) -- but they should have put out the HDTV unit long ago. Instead, all I can use is my cable co's weak-ass DVR (Motorola DCT-6412).
And that is why I don't care about Tivo anymore. Great product and idea. Lousy execution.
So who is going to be the first to create a plug-in that auto-encrypts what it sends and auto-decrypts what it receives - from Google?
That would be sweet to have client side encryption "built in" to whatever the client ends up being. But from the sound of this article, it's probably more like "hacked in" instead of "built in". After all, Google wants to READ what you store....
The fact that laws are in legalese, or I assume so as all I have ever seen are in that way, makes it hard to read.
That, my friend...is by design. I am certain that a certain segment of the workforce that specializes in "translating" legalese into layman's terms, will be happy to help you for about $250/hr. They're called Attorneys. And in case you haven't noticed, they wield a LOT of power in this country. An unusual amoutn, in fact. And, personally, they remind me a lot of scribes back in their day and the power they wielded (like copying the bible, etc).
Brought to you by: Dewey, Screwum, and Howe LLP
That's the problem. An entire world full of people, people competing in similar businesses, all wanting to be in the first 10 hits of a google search.
So, it's....uh...competition?
I hear what you are saying but it seems to me that "being in the top 10" is PART of the competitive landscape, no? If it wasn't important to anyone's success, then it wouldn't be an issue. But clearly, it IS important. And that's why we have all these shenanigans to deal with.
It's really the same in the offline world. There are plenty of "shady" businesses that will take ANY edge offered to them. Even if it's morally dubious. The difference is that they are fairly easy to identify in the offline world. In the online world, it just takes a talented graphical artist and your site can be as "good" as that of a Fortune 500 company with vastly more resources.
Google needs to do a better job of weeding out the ilk but I don't see a technical way that they can do that. Does anyone? How would you code to recognize the difference between an original source and a rehash of the exact same material (with different wording)?
Yes, you are probably right that we should educate everyone on what the scientific process is and is not. It never ceases to amaze me - oh SWEET, another episode of The Bachelor: Paris is on right now.
Gotta run. Don't have time.
(yes, this is sarchastic - and sadly, true.)
So, um...they reinvented usenet? Not to be a troll, but this is *EXACTLY* how usenet works at the server level. It's P2P for the most part.
So we've "web-i-zized" the same technology for use in the go-go Web 2.0 so we can seamlessly integrate disparate mediums across a non-traditional life-cycle that leverages cross marketing synergy in order to capture positive customer sentiment.
Sweet! I am intrigued by your ideas. How can I subscribe to your newsletter? Oh, nevermind.
LOL. It came right after Amiga died. ;)
It's NOT changing technology that is driving this. It's control. Be it DRM or whatever. Companies have started to realize they can "lock in" customers by vertically integrating hardware and software (and DRM). In the past, this didn't work because there was always an alternative that you could switch to. But with the new laws and new business practices for commerce, this has all been turned on it's head.
It's not that all the technologies CAN'T work together. It's that the companies producing the units won't LET them work together. They are purposely trying to NOT work together so that they can lock you in to their product offering and keep you coming back to THEIR pipe for the next hit.
That's what all of this nonsense about. It's 100% about control.
Hey, thanks for the reply. Let me try to clarify a bit...
While it's not happening now - because we don't have the tech to do it - it is true that things are becoming more "realistic" in the virtual world. So is there ever a point where we have to intervene so that people can NOT get hurt in a virtual world? (both physically as in the holodeck as well as emotionally, which is a little more dubious but still relevant nontheless).
I think of it like the Lawnmower man movie. Not sure if you have seen it but if not, think about the Matrix. As more "virtual" stuff intersects with "real" stuff, there are going to be strange collisions between those worlds. For example, what if we can implant images into the brain that are SO realistic that they are indistiguishable from reality. Now, replace images with whatever you would like - emotions, etc. After all, the brain - and how it works is most definitely chemical, so that implies that we can manipulate those chemicals and thus, manipulate the brain (more directly than just day to day brain activity). In fact, we already do that on a primitive level with pharmaceuticals. Now think what happens when we mix the virtual world with our newfound ability to do this brain manipulation. Do we need to have some "boundaries" on that? Or is it "anything goes" -- with the possibility that we might really fuck some people up in the process by exposing them to things in the virtual world that might actually damage them in the real world.
Thats really the point I was trying to make (although poorly). Believe me, I am an "information wants to be free guy" and am VERY loathe to restrict anything on computers --- but I can also see some situations in the future that may crop up where it would be in ALL of our best interest to limit. I just don't know what they are yet.
And yea, I know this whole thread is "out there" so no problem if I haven't made it clear. Its kind of a murky topic anyway.
Yea, I get the point of you post but I think you oversimplify things. Virtual is virtual and real is real. Got it. (I actually agree with most of your post but I have to address the oversimplification)
How about safety within the virtual world? Another poster gave a (simplified) example of safety measures on a holodeck to insure that nobody REALLY gets hurt. While hypothetical, it is an example of a limitation that we would WANT or NEED to build into the system. Now go define "safety measure" anyway you want to and you'll start to understand the question I am asking. Where/what lines should be drawn?
We all know the difference between virtually shooting someone and physically shooting someone. That was not the subject of my post.