I have come to the conclusion that the telecom companies in the US are fighting a losing battle -- trying desperately to milk the last dollars out of a market and hoping that people don't have enough information to know that they're getting cheated royally.
Seriously, I get offers for long-distance in the mail for 7 cents a minute, or maybe 15 cents per minute "anytime", and they're trying to make it sound like they're doing me a favor. Then, when I decide that I'll go with a company like bigzoo for my long-distance needs, then they tack on some very dubious "taxes" and "surcharges" onto my bill to recoup their losses. I mean, I have to pay, not to have a long distance carrier! Is this fraud or what?
The telecom companies know that they're fighting a losing battle. It would be nice if they got on board and tried to lead the technology revolution, instead of getting dragged behind it. But that's asking a little too much of them, I guess. In the meantime, let them get screwed for promulgating such a stupid business model -- preying on people's ignorance.
Well, all the better for students and the less priviliged people around the world. Hopefully, at least in this aspect, the internet will set them free.
If you think about it in the biological sense, from a purely result-oriented perspective, one might make the argument that viruses are good for computers. The justification is that viruses force people to make their code more robust, and less vulnerable to attack.
I think I subscribe to this to some extent. If we had no viruses, and didn't know what havoc they could play with our system, we'd be completely unprepared for any such trouble in our systems -- whether maliciously, or because someone's code happened to go wrong.
I don't think that you can place restrictions on what people write or do not write. I feel it's still the obligation of the system user to protect him/herself against problems and to be vigilant. It keeps us all in practice, and makes us more ready for whatever is out there, no?
So how did US Space Command track it over Asia? It's not like we have tracking stations out there... Or do we?
please think twice about stories like this.
on
When Looks Can Kill
·
· Score: 1
Look, I'm not a military pacifist, but I think there's danger in glorifying military technology and placing it here next to other stories about video games, operating systems, and cool tech stuff.
I know that most of the readers here are young, male, interested in technology and its applications. I'm one of them. But when it comes to military hardware, I think that many of us are too easily charmed into the "coolness" of the applications, the "coolness" of the implementation, and forget what military hardware is designed to do, namely to commit aggression and kill people. Maybe this is a little *too* blunt, but in the end, it does seem always to have that purpose, right?
Now you may say that it's important to have a strong defense, and I agree to some extent. But too often this is used as an incidental explanation to commit some pretty shitty stuff. Like hurting civilians who happen to be in the way of your target. Or like deceiving a population about what the military really does, or why we need to send hundreds of billions of hard-earned dollars per year, plus our sons and daughters to military purposes.
I think that it's up to all of us to question more vigorously the way we think about things like this. When you admire this technology, is it because you forget about what its real purpose is? When you work on code that guides missiles to their targets, is it because you feel proud of getting the job done right -- rather than thinking about what your code is really helping the US military (and others around the world) to do to all of us? I'm just suggesting that we be more deliberate in what we admire and place value on, and perhaps think in an ethical way about our actions.
You may call this flamebait, but I'm not someone who posts this stuff every day to champion a cause. I just saw this story, and felt strange about it. I mean, it's not like GTA3. This is real life stuff. I would be glad to know what you think.
Just so people remember correctly, it wasn't either deregulation or regulation that got California into so much trouble with the rolling blackouts, etc. It was the combination of half-assed deregulation AND half-assed regulation combined that caused their self-imposed troubles. The state decided to deregulate most aspects of the power industry, but didn't feel like taking the consequences, so it capped what power companies could charge for the power.
Forgive me for saying so, but people in California seem to have a bad habit of wanting everything, but not wanting to pay for it in some way or another. Like requiring 15 different grades of gasoline, but then complaining about the high prices at the pump. Or griping about the poor public education facilities in the state, but then not putting up the money to fix them up (actually, squandering the funds so that a bond issue had to be floated).
DSL is not a life necessity. There are people who would benefit much more if those legislators and administrators spent their time looking into solving CA's power, housing, labor, and immigration problems. I don't feel particularly bad for either the providers of DSL service or the consumers right now. One is scamming the other, and the other is allowing themselves to be scammed. So I don't particularly think that these regulation efforts are best spent in this area. But it's their state -- maybe they can do DSL differently? Somehow, I have a bad feeling!
Apologies for the rant. It just seems that people, Californians in particular, want to fix the wrong problems. Like when the Berkeley city council votes to condemn border disputes between Myanmar and Burma, but in the meantime, the streets of their own city go to shit, so homeless people actually flock there for the fringe benefits. Or when the state has a referendum on whether to outlaw the consumption of horsemeat. I mean really, how many people does this affect? And all the while, countless others are living in poverty, right next to dot com billionaires. Oops, there I go again. Sorry. I'll stop now.
Although the message above this has been marked as flamebait, I'd like to comment briefly.
For those who (inexplicably, through brainwashing or other) don't believe that evolution happens, computers (and their software) provide an unequaled example of evolution in progress.
The speed of computers is the main reason we can actually witness technological evolution happening. Here we have the essense of evolution -- a multitude of different technologies that compete in a marketplace, people writing software and bringing "mutations" into the system to improve it. Look even only at the past 20 years of computer history -- can you simply ignore the evolution going on from Commodore 64 to Apple IIe to Mac to Windows box (to linux box, he he)?
I think this is a very apt idea -- that the forces of biology (call it something else if you want, silicon dynamics)can be seen in our own creations -- with all the implications that that brings. It makes no sense to put your fingers in your ears, evolution is happening.
I'm 26 years old, and I don't think there has been anything in my life that has been more directly shocking to me and what I perceive my future to be than this announcement. Not even the Sept. 11 attacks compare to this demonstration of *intent* to use nuclear weapons in battle if necessary. Sorry, but the loss of 5000 people on that day is not enough to justify unleasing the nuclear floodgates on the world. How dare we.
Even India and Pakistan testing their nuclear stuff was of less concern to me than this situation. They're developing countries, trying to posture against each other, and at least with them, you figure they're just using the weapons to compete and deter each other.
But in this case, we've got the world's superpower, announcing that it's ready (yes, what do you think a contingency plan means? it means they're ready to do it) to use nuclear weapons of all sizes against whomever they believe to be the enemy. On its own, without giving a damn about the rest of the world.
I know that the military is not directly linked to the administration in the White House, but you'd better believe that GW Bush made this attitude possible. This is unbelievable, and endangers all of our lives, seriously. How dare we say that we have the right to go around the world and root out our enemies, bombing the shit out of lands just because we believe that they're hiding somewhere.
This administration has destroyed our credibility and leverage among our neighbors and I'm not sure how big the repercussions will be in the long run for all of us. It's time to stop the childish attitudes and understand what our role in the world is. It's not just "whatever we want because they're the bad guys, and because we can".
many people have predicted (and it's becoming apparent) that Asia will lead the way in such biotechnology areas. People in Asia are not quite as brainwashed or blinded by Christian religious dogma, and probably don't mind conducting research that can improve the quality of human life.
While the politicians here debate, and try to cater to every consituency, by holding research back, the rest of the world will be able to run with the ball...
That's great -- I can't wait for them to put those speedpasses in the Ironman triathlon watches, so that the fat slob wearing it can get his greasy Mcdonalds big mac and fries 10 seconds faster than his previous record...:)
Citing De Beers as an example doesn't exactly arouse sympathy in me.
De Beers is one of the most manipulative, monopolistic, thug-like conglomerates in the world today. While I'm surprised at how well they managed to turn something of no inherent value into something of incredible value, I find their practices rather dubious and worthy of careful scrutiny.
They gather several dozen tons of diamonds every year -- and do you ever wonder why diamonds still cost so much? Thank De Beers for that. Not to mention their continuing contribution to political strife in Africa, use of intimidation tactics to discourage competition, etc. etc.
Sorry for the rant, I just think people should consider where diamonds come from before they assign them so much artificial value.
What they need to do is to test this in the latest release of State of Emergency. Nothing like a good numerical simulation to figure out if something will work. That way, I can see whether my molotov cocktails, hand grenades, etc. will be compatible Oh, plus I can pee on the slime.
You know, no one is *forcing* you to get the service.
I bought a 20 hour Tivo in December, upgraded it to 80 hours on my own, and have been using it without service since then. I still think it's great!
Sure, service would be nice, I would get to see the program names and scroll through tv guides, but I'm still happy without it. TIvo records the same programs for me every day (I set it manually to repeat), and it does perfectly well for me.
Maybe when I start making some more money, I'll justify paying another monthy fee to some company, but not now. I'm already fed up with those cable, telephone, etc. companies.
The amazing thing is that the satellite is sending out a signal with as much power as maybe a watch battery, and we're receiving it from over 10^9 km away...
Of course, the receiving dish is as big as a football field, but still.
If you told the public that a $0.01 charge per email would reduce spam and lower the costs of ISPs doing business, I think they would accept it.
I think it would pretty simply eliminate the open relay servers flooding the world with unwanted email -- if they don't pay for what they send, then their emails are rejected.
Email is surprisingly similar to real mail. We want to receive something, but not get flooded with useless junk. It's a security risk. It's a nuisance. Let's apply models that have worked -- pay for email. Why not?
Perhaps this has been discussed before, but why not have ISPs levy a per-email-charge so that the real cost of sending these messages is reflected? It's not like it would take a quantum leap in billing technology.
Let's make it $0.01 per email, which will cost near nothing to the average email user, but for the lousy spammer who sends out 10,000 emails, this will set him back $100.
People will only change their behavior if it hits them right in the pocket, as soon as they carry out that unwanted behavior. Why should email be free for people to abuse?
This is some of what I never understood, even after I took economics. Let's say we swap the tree and cow back and forth 10,000 times. (simplifying what happens in our economy, basically). We still have only one tree and one cow, and yet we say we've acquired 10,000 times their value by exchanging money that many times more. Isn't this a little strange?
It seems to me this is a lot of what the US economy is about, just swapping things back and forth between people, as they compete and jostle for higher positions in our society. What's the point? And worse, each time the cow and tree get swapped, the cow takes a crap and you've got to clean it up, and the tree loses a few leaves...
Maybe the innovative capitalist would say, let's use the crap to fertilize the tree -- problem solved!
You are right that there is a cost to taking action. It will probably be slower growth, economic contraction even, perhaps. But at the risk of taking a superior attitude about the US economy -- I think we could stand to contract a little bit and maybe not keep our place as the biggest proportional consumer of everthing on the planet. I know that everyone likes growth, but it was never guaranteed, was it? It seems to me we're driving ourselves crazy right now, with businesses (and therefore our people) trying to make a profit wherever there's any to be had, regardless of how worthwhile that particular endeavor may be.
I'm sure that's a controversial statement, but here's my reasoning. The US is certainly a leader in many industries, but for the most part my opinion is that we sure waste a whole lot for that which we produce. In essence, a bulk portion of the population is a leisure/service society. Do we really need so much productivity going into things like marketing, sales, junk?
Cycles of contraction and growth are necessary to keep people grounded with a sense of proportion. Just look at spending habits and the dot com busts -- when Silicon valley was awash with money, it drove the whole place into an unsustainable cycle of inflation and surprisingly, poverty. The contraction now has restored some sanity to that area. I think we (the US) might benefit from a contraction. It might reorganize our priorities...
You are right that there is a cost to taking action. I will probably be slower growth, economic contraction even, perhaps. But at the risk of taking a superior attitude about the US economy -- I think we could stand to contract a little bit and maybe not keep our place as the biggest proportional consumer of everthing on the planet.
I'm sure that's a controversial statement, but here's my reasoning. The US is certainly a leader in many industries, but for the most part my opinion is that we sure waste a whole lot for that which we produce. In essence, a bulk portion of the population is a leisure/service society. Do we really need so much productivity going into things like marketing, sales, junk?
I think we might benefit from a contraction. It might reorganize our priorities...
Slashdot Mirror
I have come to the conclusion that the telecom companies in the US are fighting a losing battle -- trying desperately to milk the last dollars out of a market and hoping that people don't have enough information to know that they're getting cheated royally.
Seriously, I get offers for long-distance in the mail for 7 cents a minute, or maybe 15 cents per minute "anytime", and they're trying to make it sound like they're doing me a favor. Then, when I decide that I'll go with a company like bigzoo for my long-distance needs, then they tack on some very dubious "taxes" and "surcharges" onto my bill to recoup their losses. I mean, I have to pay, not to have a long distance carrier! Is this fraud or what?
The telecom companies know that they're fighting a losing battle. It would be nice if they got on board and tried to lead the technology revolution, instead of getting dragged behind it. But that's asking a little too much of them, I guess. In the meantime, let them get screwed for promulgating such a stupid business model -- preying on people's ignorance.
Well, all the better for students and the less priviliged people around the world. Hopefully, at least in this aspect, the internet will set them free.
I think they got confused... They just plugged their headphones into the cassette tape drive, and thought they were hearing RealAudio!
Now all those Brits can go online and file for their unemployment checks!
Honestly, I think they have some other problems to deal with before broadband internet is the top story, really...
If you think about it in the biological sense, from a purely result-oriented perspective, one might make the argument that viruses are good for computers. The justification is that viruses force people to make their code more robust, and less vulnerable to attack.
I think I subscribe to this to some extent. If we had no viruses, and didn't know what havoc they could play with our system, we'd be completely unprepared for any such trouble in our systems -- whether maliciously, or because someone's code happened to go wrong.
I don't think that you can place restrictions on what people write or do not write. I feel it's still the obligation of the system user to protect him/herself against problems and to be vigilant. It keeps us all in practice, and makes us more ready for whatever is out there, no?
So I don't imagine that they'll be so obliging to give customers a little applet that monitors their bandwidth use on their desktop, will they?
No, I suppose they'll just start charging whenever you run over, yet not offer any easy way of tracking it, right?
That's capitalism. Capitalism is also the fact that they'll still get plenty of stupid customers.
So how did US Space Command track it over Asia? It's not like we have tracking stations out there... Or do we?
Look, I'm not a military pacifist, but I think there's danger in glorifying military technology and placing it here next to other stories about video games, operating systems, and cool tech stuff.
I know that most of the readers here are young, male, interested in technology and its applications. I'm one of them. But when it comes to military hardware, I think that many of us are too easily charmed into the "coolness" of the applications, the "coolness" of the implementation, and forget what military hardware is designed to do, namely to commit aggression and kill people. Maybe this is a little *too* blunt, but in the end, it does seem always to have that purpose, right?
Now you may say that it's important to have a strong defense, and I agree to some extent. But too often this is used as an incidental explanation to commit some pretty shitty stuff. Like hurting civilians who happen to be in the way of your target. Or like deceiving a population about what the military really does, or why we need to send hundreds of billions of hard-earned dollars per year, plus our sons and daughters to military purposes.
I think that it's up to all of us to question more vigorously the way we think about things like this. When you admire this technology, is it because you forget about what its real purpose is? When you work on code that guides missiles to their targets, is it because you feel proud of getting the job done right -- rather than thinking about what your code is really helping the US military (and others around the world) to do to all of us? I'm just suggesting that we be more deliberate in what we admire and place value on, and perhaps think in an ethical way about our actions.
You may call this flamebait, but I'm not someone who posts this stuff every day to champion a cause. I just saw this story, and felt strange about it. I mean, it's not like GTA3. This is real life stuff. I would be glad to know what you think.
Just so people remember correctly, it wasn't either deregulation or regulation that got California into so much trouble with the rolling blackouts, etc. It was the combination of half-assed deregulation AND half-assed regulation combined that caused their self-imposed troubles. The state decided to deregulate most aspects of the power industry, but didn't feel like taking the consequences, so it capped what power companies could charge for the power.
Forgive me for saying so, but people in California seem to have a bad habit of wanting everything, but not wanting to pay for it in some way or another. Like requiring 15 different grades of gasoline, but then complaining about the high prices at the pump. Or griping about the poor public education facilities in the state, but then not putting up the money to fix them up (actually, squandering the funds so that a bond issue had to be floated).
DSL is not a life necessity. There are people who would benefit much more if those legislators and administrators spent their time looking into solving CA's power, housing, labor, and immigration problems. I don't feel particularly bad for either the providers of DSL service or the consumers right now. One is scamming the other, and the other is allowing themselves to be scammed. So I don't particularly think that these regulation efforts are best spent in this area. But it's their state -- maybe they can do DSL differently? Somehow, I have a bad feeling!
Apologies for the rant. It just seems that people, Californians in particular, want to fix the wrong problems. Like when the Berkeley city council votes to condemn border disputes between Myanmar and Burma, but in the meantime, the streets of their own city go to shit, so homeless people actually flock there for the fringe benefits. Or when the state has a referendum on whether to outlaw the consumption of horsemeat. I mean really, how many people does this affect? And all the while, countless others are living in poverty, right next to dot com billionaires. Oops, there I go again. Sorry. I'll stop now.
Hmm.. somehow, I doubt the resolution of cameras in cell phones will be anything near that capability.
Maybe good enough to tell if someone is wearing the smilie face tshirt, but not rapid facial recognition!
So aren't they not supposed to be posting stuff like this on the internet anymore where some loony may get a hold of it and try something stupid?
Although the message above this has been marked as flamebait, I'd like to comment briefly.
For those who (inexplicably, through brainwashing or other) don't believe that evolution happens, computers (and their software) provide an unequaled example of evolution in progress.
The speed of computers is the main reason we can actually witness technological evolution happening. Here we have the essense of evolution -- a multitude of different technologies that compete in a marketplace, people writing software and bringing "mutations" into the system to improve it. Look even only at the past 20 years of computer history -- can you simply ignore the evolution going on from Commodore 64 to Apple IIe to Mac to Windows box (to linux box, he he)?
I think this is a very apt idea -- that the forces of biology (call it something else if you want, silicon dynamics)can be seen in our own creations -- with all the implications that that brings. It makes no sense to put your fingers in your ears, evolution is happening.
Well, maybe not in Kansas, or Texas...
I'm 26 years old, and I don't think there has been anything in my life that has been more directly shocking to me and what I perceive my future to be than this announcement. Not even the Sept. 11 attacks compare to this demonstration of *intent* to use nuclear weapons in battle if necessary. Sorry, but the loss of 5000 people on that day is not enough to justify unleasing the nuclear floodgates on the world. How dare we.
Even India and Pakistan testing their nuclear stuff was of less concern to me than this situation. They're developing countries, trying to posture against each other, and at least with them, you figure they're just using the weapons to compete and deter each other.
But in this case, we've got the world's superpower, announcing that it's ready (yes, what do you think a contingency plan means? it means they're ready to do it) to use nuclear weapons of all sizes against whomever they believe to be the enemy. On its own, without giving a damn about the rest of the world.
I know that the military is not directly linked to the administration in the White House, but you'd better believe that GW Bush made this attitude possible. This is unbelievable, and endangers all of our lives, seriously. How dare we say that we have the right to go around the world and root out our enemies, bombing the shit out of lands just because we believe that they're hiding somewhere.
This administration has destroyed our credibility and leverage among our neighbors and I'm not sure how big the repercussions will be in the long run for all of us. It's time to stop the childish attitudes and understand what our role in the world is. It's not just "whatever we want because they're the bad guys, and because we can".
many people have predicted (and it's becoming apparent) that Asia will lead the way in such biotechnology areas. People in Asia are not quite as brainwashed or blinded by Christian religious dogma, and probably don't mind conducting research that can improve the quality of human life.
While the politicians here debate, and try to cater to every consituency, by holding research back, the rest of the world will be able to run with the ball...
That's great -- I can't wait for them to put those speedpasses in the Ironman triathlon watches, so that the fat slob wearing it can get his greasy Mcdonalds big mac and fries 10 seconds faster than his previous record... :)
...
Ha ha
Citing De Beers as an example doesn't exactly arouse sympathy in me.
De Beers is one of the most manipulative, monopolistic, thug-like conglomerates in the world today. While I'm surprised at how well they managed to turn something of no inherent value into something of incredible value, I find their practices rather dubious and worthy of careful scrutiny.
They gather several dozen tons of diamonds every year -- and do you ever wonder why diamonds still cost so much? Thank De Beers for that. Not to mention their continuing contribution to political strife in Africa, use of intimidation tactics to discourage competition, etc. etc.
Sorry for the rant, I just think people should consider where diamonds come from before they assign them so much artificial value.
What they need to do is to test this in the latest release of State of Emergency. Nothing like a good numerical simulation to figure out if something will work. That way, I can see whether my molotov cocktails, hand grenades, etc. will be compatible Oh, plus I can pee on the slime.
You know, no one is *forcing* you to get the service.
I bought a 20 hour Tivo in December, upgraded it to 80 hours on my own, and have been using it without service since then. I still think it's great!
Sure, service would be nice, I would get to see the program names and scroll through tv guides, but I'm still happy without it. TIvo records the same programs for me every day (I set it manually to repeat), and it does perfectly well for me.
Maybe when I start making some more money, I'll justify paying another monthy fee to some company, but not now. I'm already fed up with those cable, telephone, etc. companies.
The amazing thing is that the satellite is sending out a signal with as much power as maybe a watch battery, and we're receiving it from over 10^9 km away...
Of course, the receiving dish is as big as a football field, but still.
Will they have AI algorithms to ensure that annoying music is played to matter what passenger steps in?
How about artificial smell generators to simulate that real taxi cab experience?
Steve Ballmer: developers developers developers developers...
developers developers developers developers...
developers developers developers developers...
developers developers developers developers...
The funniest video I've ever seen...
If you told the public that a $0.01 charge per email would reduce spam and lower the costs of ISPs doing business, I think they would accept it.
I think it would pretty simply eliminate the open relay servers flooding the world with unwanted email -- if they don't pay for what they send, then their emails are rejected.
Email is surprisingly similar to real mail. We want to receive something, but not get flooded with useless junk. It's a security risk. It's a nuisance. Let's apply models that have worked -- pay for email. Why not?
Perhaps this has been discussed before, but why not have ISPs levy a per-email-charge so that the real cost of sending these messages is reflected? It's not like it would take a quantum leap in billing technology.
Let's make it $0.01 per email, which will cost near nothing to the average email user, but for the lousy spammer who sends out 10,000 emails, this will set him back $100.
People will only change their behavior if it hits them right in the pocket, as soon as they carry out that unwanted behavior. Why should email be free for people to abuse?
This is some of what I never understood, even after I took economics. Let's say we swap the tree and cow back and forth 10,000 times. (simplifying what happens in our economy, basically). We still have only one tree and one cow, and yet we say we've acquired 10,000 times their value by exchanging money that many times more. Isn't this a little strange?
It seems to me this is a lot of what the US economy is about, just swapping things back and forth between people, as they compete and jostle for higher positions in our society. What's the point? And worse, each time the cow and tree get swapped, the cow takes a crap and you've got to clean it up, and the tree loses a few leaves...
Maybe the innovative capitalist would say, let's use the crap to fertilize the tree -- problem solved!
You are right that there is a cost to taking action. It will probably be slower growth, economic contraction even, perhaps. But at the risk of taking a superior attitude about the US economy -- I think we could stand to contract a little bit and maybe not keep our place as the biggest proportional consumer of everthing on the planet. I know that everyone likes growth, but it was never guaranteed, was it? It seems to me we're driving ourselves crazy right now, with businesses (and therefore our people) trying to make a profit wherever there's any to be had, regardless of how worthwhile that particular endeavor may be.
I'm sure that's a controversial statement, but here's my reasoning. The US is certainly a leader in many industries, but for the most part my opinion is that we sure waste a whole lot for that which we produce. In essence, a bulk portion of the population is a leisure/service society. Do we really need so much productivity going into things like marketing, sales, junk?
Cycles of contraction and growth are necessary to keep people grounded with a sense of proportion. Just look at spending habits and the dot com busts -- when Silicon valley was awash with money, it drove the whole place into an unsustainable cycle of inflation and surprisingly, poverty. The contraction now has restored some sanity to that area. I think we (the US) might benefit from a contraction. It might reorganize our priorities...
You are right that there is a cost to taking action. I will probably be slower growth, economic contraction even, perhaps. But at the risk of taking a superior attitude about the US economy -- I think we could stand to contract a little bit and maybe not keep our place as the biggest proportional consumer of everthing on the planet.
I'm sure that's a controversial statement, but here's my reasoning. The US is certainly a leader in many industries, but for the most part my opinion is that we sure waste a whole lot for that which we produce. In essence, a bulk portion of the population is a leisure/service society. Do we really need so much productivity going into things like marketing, sales, junk?
I think we might benefit from a contraction. It might reorganize our priorities...