As long as Amazon is getting the best price for the customer, no one will ask the State to regulate anything. Typically, the State regulate when the customers are complaining about abuse from the monopoly, as long as a monopoly doesn't abuse from its position no one complains. So, a monopoly should take care of the largest group in order to avoid the intervention of the State.
However, abusing from its position on the authors may also harm the customers at the end, since the authors will have no more interest in writing given the are abused and the customers will then have not longer have new books to discover.
A monopoly can be a good thing, but it is rarely a good thing since the equilibrium is hard to reach.
How does this apply to people at large? People get sick, take drugs, may have accidents. The "stay healthy" path is not entirely under control of anyone. I don't know anyone who wants to be sick. Neverthless, people die of cancer, cardiovascular diseases, flu, and so on.
I must had also all leaked information is usable by providers, customers, shareholders, anyone in the future to negociate more tightly agreements, if any at all, with Sony. This will also cost them money. I believe you don't have a faint idea of the magnitude and impact of this for Sony Pictures.
Suppose you are a script, scenarist, producer, director or any other important job in the making of a movie. How would you feel doing business with Sony given the way they protect your work? It is very likely someone will seek to work with someone else but Sony Pictures.
Since they had to change all the IT infrastructure to clear it from any virii, it already costs them a pile of money. Now, they face legal suits from employees and ex-employees for failing to protect personal information, including medical records, security number and full details on them. I don't know in what world you live, but it is not the real one.
Really? It is not like the company data has no value at all. Perhaps you missed what happened recently to Sony. Getting access without a warrant and any valid reason to corporate data is a good way to spy and make a few bucks selling the information to competitors or becoming a competitor. A proposal for a many billion dollars project worth something for the competition. Many millions in fact.
Just when I learn a large enterprise here is already in the process to outsource the IT department as a whole in Romania within the next three months. A delayed Water Bucket Challenge.
True and it is not a reason to give them money as like it is a good cause. It isn't, There is many charities out there who deserved much more our money than a gang of monkeys who believe they achieved something for America doing a bad movie and having crappy IT security practices.
Obama is wrong when he says North Korea should pay Sony for the damages. North Korea should pay America because they did a crime on american soil, but the money should not be spend on Sony. They do not deserve it.
Why? To make Sony rich? There is no patriotism behind watching this serie B film. It will be released, that's all that matter. Free speech is not about the obligation to watch bad movies and make a gang of morons rich. I fear I don't want to encourage an enteprise with so bad security practices and reward the shareholders for not making the call when it was time to.
Well, either way it's bad. When people are leaving messages, it is not rare you have to listen at them a half dozen times before you finally get correctly some critical information in it, like the name of the caller or the phone number which happen to not be the same as the caller id when you get one. There is still a ton of people around thinking leaving a message is some kind of race and you have nearly 10 seconds to tell about your whole life. I hate phones.
I would like to see phone plans without talking minutes or an optional amount of minutes and a base rate for SMS/text. Currently, most plans include a fix amount of minutes and you have to buy minutes to which SMS are added. Why not the reverse? It would be much less expensive, I almost never talk over phone.
Undoubtely the market will slap SPE back and forth in the face. If they don't, they are really a gang of idiots. Who would invest in a company which is unable to protect itself and its assets? In not way this could be a marketing strategy to pocket a few million dollars. It will cost SPE much more than what they could hope to cash-in from a serie B movie and even an Oscar winner would not compensate.
First of all, the movie isn't a product of the USA government. You know about free speech? If free speech is considered by the rest of the world as cultural arrogance, so be it.
Second, hijacking a website and the cyberspace is a crime. It is not about the movie industry or whatever, it is about a crime perpetrated on american soil by another country. USA is perfectly legit to react and take action against anyone behind this crime. No matter how weak the security at Sony is.
Third, any real proofs US government is behind Stuxnet? I would like to see them, really.
Fourth, they also insult their own leaders. There is numerous movies where the President of USA is depicted as an idiot, killed or whatever.
And given the high level of radiations any form of life will be subject to during the thousands of years it would take to make the trip nearby our solar system, I would say a living organism has almost no chance to survive the trip.
By number of units? By pound? By size of the actions domain? By resilience? By IQ? By energy consumption? By number of other entities it kills? By distance it travels?
It is very likely our first encounter with extrastellar form of life will be with a non-living space probe or something like that. Sustaining life during an interstellar journey is about impossible. In the big void, there is no energy available to sustain life as we define it and the amount of time it will take to reach a target capable to provide some power supply is too large for any kind of power supply we know and can think of. Nuclear reactors won't fit the bill, they will need to be replace/rebuild entirely many times, radioactive material will be no longer radioactive many thousands of years before an alien world is reached, etc. So, it leaves autonomous probes that can hibernate until some source of power is encountered.
Given that, would you qualify an autonomous probe as a form of life? Surely not.
On what side do you think are the physicists questioning the identity of the Higgs and believing it may be another particle while the probabilities are much more higher than 95% it is in fact the Higgs? You just don't get it. It is not a matter of probabilities. At the beginning of the XXth century, it was taken for granted (almost 100% of the scientific community) the ether exists until two skeptic guys, Michelson and Morley decided to setup an experiment to determine if it actually exists and they found it didn't. Science is not a poll.
Not only the data and the conclusions, the models themselves. If you use a model to analyze the data and draw some conclusions from it and this model is unable to predict phenomena correctly you can certainly become skeptic about the conclusions you drawn from it. Recently, many models were put exactly in that position. Calling everyone a denier because he/she express some doubts about the conclusions of a model without any decent prediction capability is certainly an abuse of language and even bullying toward legitimate skepticism.
I don't think so. We are talking about Sony only. And it is working with Sony because they have a lot of valuable information on Sony they just stole few days before. This is not likely to work with any North American media, if any other. You should also take into account Sony is not particularily good at protecting its own systems and they are reknown for that in fact. It is not the case of all the media.
The US? I believe the US is larger than Sony. Just in case you are not aware of it, the decision was not made by the White House, the Congress or the Senate. So, keep it to the right proportions.
The economists rational makes no sense. First of all, AI creates more jobs than it destroys at the moment. There is currently no autonomous car to buy anywhere. No taxi, truck, bus driver has been replaced so far and no one knows when it will happen and if it will happen at all.
Second thing, most examples given are low wages jobs, then the argument does not hold water if you pretend it is responsible for stagnation of the average wages, the average wages should go up if there is less people with minimum wages.
Third, it is false to say there is less salesman jobs because Google has automated the advertisement. If it wasn't automated it would not be affordable to advertise for many enterprises which then would not exist at all or would have lower earnings, then would not be able to pay well their own employees.
The problem is rather than that some enterprises are draining too much money for what they do. For example, to give an extreme one, Instagram is creating very few jobs and was valued at 1 billion dollars while what they are doing is easily replicatable by a small team of developers. These sectors are draining too much economic resources for the services they provide.
M. Gustave: [to Mme. Celine's corpse] "You're looking so well, darling, you really are... they've done a marvelous job. I don't know what sort of cream they've put on you down at the morgue, but... I want some. "
Slashdot Mirror
As long as Amazon is getting the best price for the customer, no one will ask the State to regulate anything. Typically, the State regulate when the customers are complaining about abuse from the monopoly, as long as a monopoly doesn't abuse from its position no one complains. So, a monopoly should take care of the largest group in order to avoid the intervention of the State.
However, abusing from its position on the authors may also harm the customers at the end, since the authors will have no more interest in writing given the are abused and the customers will then have not longer have new books to discover.
A monopoly can be a good thing, but it is rarely a good thing since the equilibrium is hard to reach.
Should be mod up. By far the most comprehensive description of the threat so far.
How does this apply to people at large? People get sick, take drugs, may have accidents. The "stay healthy" path is not entirely under control of anyone. I don't know anyone who wants to be sick. Neverthless, people die of cancer, cardiovascular diseases, flu, and so on.
I must had also all leaked information is usable by providers, customers, shareholders, anyone in the future to negociate more tightly agreements, if any at all, with Sony. This will also cost them money. I believe you don't have a faint idea of the magnitude and impact of this for Sony Pictures.
Suppose you are a script, scenarist, producer, director or any other important job in the making of a movie. How would you feel doing business with Sony given the way they protect your work? It is very likely someone will seek to work with someone else but Sony Pictures.
Since they had to change all the IT infrastructure to clear it from any virii, it already costs them a pile of money. Now, they face legal suits from employees and ex-employees for failing to protect personal information, including medical records, security number and full details on them. I don't know in what world you live, but it is not the real one.
Really? It is not like the company data has no value at all. Perhaps you missed what happened recently to Sony. Getting access without a warrant and any valid reason to corporate data is a good way to spy and make a few bucks selling the information to competitors or becoming a competitor. A proposal for a many billion dollars project worth something for the competition. Many millions in fact.
Just when I learn a large enterprise here is already in the process to outsource the IT department as a whole in Romania within the next three months. A delayed Water Bucket Challenge.
True and it is not a reason to give them money as like it is a good cause. It isn't, There is many charities out there who deserved much more our money than a gang of monkeys who believe they achieved something for America doing a bad movie and having crappy IT security practices.
Obama is wrong when he says North Korea should pay Sony for the damages. North Korea should pay America because they did a crime on american soil, but the money should not be spend on Sony. They do not deserve it.
Why? To make Sony rich? There is no patriotism behind watching this serie B film. It will be released, that's all that matter. Free speech is not about the obligation to watch bad movies and make a gang of morons rich. I fear I don't want to encourage an enteprise with so bad security practices and reward the shareholders for not making the call when it was time to.
Watching the movie just by patriotism is stupid.
So funny, it's a pain I cannot contribute to skyrocket your already topped score.
Well, either way it's bad. When people are leaving messages, it is not rare you have to listen at them a half dozen times before you finally get correctly some critical information in it, like the name of the caller or the phone number which happen to not be the same as the caller id when you get one. There is still a ton of people around thinking leaving a message is some kind of race and you have nearly 10 seconds to tell about your whole life. I hate phones.
I would like to see phone plans without talking minutes or an optional amount of minutes and a base rate for SMS/text. Currently, most plans include a fix amount of minutes and you have to buy minutes to which SMS are added. Why not the reverse? It would be much less expensive, I almost never talk over phone.
Unfortunately, your source contains well-known misquotes and totally faked quotes from Albert Einstein. http://skepticaesoterica.com/d... and http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/A...
Undoubtely the market will slap SPE back and forth in the face. If they don't, they are really a gang of idiots. Who would invest in a company which is unable to protect itself and its assets? In not way this could be a marketing strategy to pocket a few million dollars. It will cost SPE much more than what they could hope to cash-in from a serie B movie and even an Oscar winner would not compensate.
It still doesn't make it a product of the government. BTW, I would like to have some serious source behind this claim of yours.
First of all, the movie isn't a product of the USA government. You know about free speech? If free speech is considered by the rest of the world as cultural arrogance, so be it.
Second, hijacking a website and the cyberspace is a crime. It is not about the movie industry or whatever, it is about a crime perpetrated on american soil by another country. USA is perfectly legit to react and take action against anyone behind this crime. No matter how weak the security at Sony is.
Third, any real proofs US government is behind Stuxnet? I would like to see them, really.
Fourth, they also insult their own leaders. There is numerous movies where the President of USA is depicted as an idiot, killed or whatever.
Considering Blackberry has almost self-destructed itself, there is no doubt it is the best qualified company to develop such smartphone.
And given the high level of radiations any form of life will be subject to during the thousands of years it would take to make the trip nearby our solar system, I would say a living organism has almost no chance to survive the trip.
Define dominant.
By number of units? By pound? By size of the actions domain? By resilience? By IQ? By energy consumption? By number of other entities it kills? By distance it travels?
It is very likely our first encounter with extrastellar form of life will be with a non-living space probe or something like that. Sustaining life during an interstellar journey is about impossible. In the big void, there is no energy available to sustain life as we define it and the amount of time it will take to reach a target capable to provide some power supply is too large for any kind of power supply we know and can think of. Nuclear reactors won't fit the bill, they will need to be replace/rebuild entirely many times, radioactive material will be no longer radioactive many thousands of years before an alien world is reached, etc. So, it leaves autonomous probes that can hibernate until some source of power is encountered.
Given that, would you qualify an autonomous probe as a form of life? Surely not.
On what side do you think are the physicists questioning the identity of the Higgs and believing it may be another particle while the probabilities are much more higher than 95% it is in fact the Higgs? You just don't get it. It is not a matter of probabilities. At the beginning of the XXth century, it was taken for granted (almost 100% of the scientific community) the ether exists until two skeptic guys, Michelson and Morley decided to setup an experiment to determine if it actually exists and they found it didn't. Science is not a poll.
Not only the data and the conclusions, the models themselves. If you use a model to analyze the data and draw some conclusions from it and this model is unable to predict phenomena correctly you can certainly become skeptic about the conclusions you drawn from it. Recently, many models were put exactly in that position. Calling everyone a denier because he/she express some doubts about the conclusions of a model without any decent prediction capability is certainly an abuse of language and even bullying toward legitimate skepticism.
Who are "they"? Do they have any authority? Don't confuse the government and a chain of movie distributors.
I don't think so. We are talking about Sony only. And it is working with Sony because they have a lot of valuable information on Sony they just stole few days before. This is not likely to work with any North American media, if any other. You should also take into account Sony is not particularily good at protecting its own systems and they are reknown for that in fact. It is not the case of all the media.
The US? I believe the US is larger than Sony. Just in case you are not aware of it, the decision was not made by the White House, the Congress or the Senate. So, keep it to the right proportions.
The economists rational makes no sense. First of all, AI creates more jobs than it destroys at the moment. There is currently no autonomous car to buy anywhere. No taxi, truck, bus driver has been replaced so far and no one knows when it will happen and if it will happen at all.
Second thing, most examples given are low wages jobs, then the argument does not hold water if you pretend it is responsible for stagnation of the average wages, the average wages should go up if there is less people with minimum wages.
Third, it is false to say there is less salesman jobs because Google has automated the advertisement. If it wasn't automated it would not be affordable to advertise for many enterprises which then would not exist at all or would have lower earnings, then would not be able to pay well their own employees.
The problem is rather than that some enterprises are draining too much money for what they do. For example, to give an extreme one, Instagram is creating very few jobs and was valued at 1 billion dollars while what they are doing is easily replicatable by a small team of developers. These sectors are draining too much economic resources for the services they provide.
M. Gustave: [to Mme. Celine's corpse] "You're looking so well, darling, you really are... they've done a marvelous job. I don't know what sort of cream they've put on you down at the morgue, but... I want some. "