I don't see a lot of people saying that all of Google's "accidental" deeds are good. What I do see is that a lot of people don't think Google accidentally saving a copy of an email that you placed on *their* servers is a huge threat.
And Google is not the government. So even if you do find a lot of Google defenders, you've got a nice false equivalence going on there. I think a lot of people who aren't too bothered by Google keeping track of stuff they voluntarily do on Google's servers might *still* have a problem with the law backing up the TSA taking naked pictures of them whenever they want to fly.
You missed the part about "hotspot compiler" or also commonly known as a Just-In-Time (JIT) compiler. It's completely different than a VM or an interpreter. The.Net CLR also sports a JIT compiler.
But then, your "I know Java, JS, Python, Perl, and Ruby" statement makes it sounds like you're a web developer who probably doesn't have much experience with the lower-level workings of computers. This is fine, but doesn't lend much weight to your argument.
Ok, fine -- throw this guy in jail for computer trespass.
But while you're at it, throw Sony in jail for their rootkit. Throw Starforce in jail for their rootkit. Throw the "ACORN pimp" in jail for his tampering with the phones in the Democratic office.
If you're going to apply a law, apply it consistently. The way it's being enforced now is way too arbitrary.
You know, game developers could just as easily point at you and say the exact same thing. At least the game developers are *producing* something of value; all you're doing is shuffling stuff around and providing a (increasingly irrelevant) retail space.
In fact, this is the one thing I have in favor of DLC: I'd rather see money go directly to the publishers than to some place like Gamestop that gouges their customers for 200-500% markups on used games. In fact, it won't really bother me all that much if all specialty game stores that rely heavily on game sales go out of business and leave only big box stores to buy hardware from, and publishers to buy games from directly online.
--Jeremy
Re:Compare to boardgames and RPGs
on
When DLC Goes Wrong
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I can't speak for everyone, but my opinion on this subject is that when you buy an expansion for a board game or an RPG, you *own* it. You can use it, put it in your closet for 5 years, then take it out again and it will still be there. You can turn around and sell it or give it to a friend.
With DLC, you don't actually own anything. You have your original disc, and you have access to the DLC for as long as the company selling it is kind enough to let you keep using it. But if you get your XBox 1080, then in 5 years decide you'd like to go back and play one of your 360 games, it's a crapshoot as to whether or not you'll have access to any of that DLC.
This is why I don't buy DLC, personally. It's imaginary property. I'm sure I'll have to break down and buy it soon enough, because that's the way the industry is heading, but for the time being I don't feel that it's justified; I have plenty of other things to do and to play without resorting to DLC.
Other M was crap, and Corruption was the weakest of the Prime trilogy, I'll give you -- but what gripe do you have with Zelda? Twilight Princess was pretty much a standard Zelda game.
Rare hasn't done anything worthwhile since Conker's Bad Fur Day. Perfect Dark was decent. Star Fox Adventures was meh (and would have still been meh if they hadn't re-tooled it with Star Fox characters), and the few games they've released for the XBox platforms haven't been particularly noteworthy.
Nintendo made out like bandits when they sold their stake in Rare.
Nice false equivalence. You seem to be good at it.
What Google did would be more similar to, say, driving around and looking in all directions, and in one of those directions they happened to see an attractive woman. Then they noted that "hey, there's a pretty woman here. Anyone else that sees this pretty woman must be close to this location." Then they drive off and that's the end of it.
I have specific reasons that does not work for me! is completely missing the point and destroying what made them valuable to me! I choose to ignore that disable or transparently work around because... sucks for me! People who like obviously don't know what they're doing, and probably have some sort of mental defect that causes them to not see that it sucks!
Personally, I don't mind the instant search. Maybe it's because I have a decent enough computer and connection that it really is nearly instantaneous. I actually find it incredibly impressive that Google can generally return search results and suggestions that match what I wanted before I'm even done typing. I don't know that it's much more useful than the older "type query->submit" method, but it certainly isn't any worse for my usage.
Your implication that focusing on Middle Eastern men is more productive than searching 85 year old Caucasian women is probably correct.
However, you're looking at a 0% effective rate for the Caucasian woman, and a 0.00000001% effective rate for young Middle Eastern men. You'd probably find a roughly similar rate in young Caucasian men.
In my opinion, that makes the money spent on in-depth screening a waste for both of them.
You have some reasonable and well thought-out points.
As soon as you demonstrate that you apply reason to your own party's actions as well, someone might take you seriously. Until then, you're just as much into Koolaid politics as anyone else. All I see from your posting history is someone drinking the Republican koolaid.
So your rationalization is that because poor people in 1st world countries have it better than the worst places in the world, they should shut up and be grateful? Let me guess -- they should all eat cake, right?
Screw you idiots that spew the "poor have it good enough" bullshit.
Except we aren't even #2 or #3 in very many things by most measures.
What we *really* need to do is stop pretending like we're the best in the world at everything, and ignoring all of the successful solutions that other nations have come up with.
Would you kill a 3 year old to survive? How about a young mother? Perhaps an old person- or as above someone who is "sick already". Seriously? Picture your self sliding a knife into their throat or strangling them so you could live. Could you imagine that as a "good" deed in any way?
What are the circumstances? The question is meaningless without context. For instance, if the young mother is actively trying to kill me (or someone else), I can certainly see myself killing her to survive. I'd probably try to subdue her first, but again, there has to be some context to the question before the answer has any meaning.
As it is, it's a loaded question that implies that any "yes" answers are equal to being some sort of a cold blooded killer.
Fortunately, the government's spending and your wife's spending really aren't even remotely comparable.
The government's spending, ideally, should be mainly investment in the overall economy. Your wife's buying of fur coats and big screen TVs isn't an investment at all.
You can disagree about whether or not the government's current spending is a real investment, that's fine. But comparing it to your puny spending on consumer goods shows a complete lack of understanding of what this stimulus is really about.
What did the Republicans do as the minority party since 2007 to ruin the economy and raise the unemployment to over 10% at the end of 2009 (it's currently at 9.6%)?
And what did the Democrats do to cause it? Care to give some specifics? All I've seen from you for this entire topic is vague innuendo about how much the Democrats have fucked things up. It's the kind of thing that makes me wish Slashdot had an ignore feature.
Both parties share blame; only an idiot could think otherwise. Note: I only just called you an idiot if you truly think that the Republican party is completely blameless.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see a lot of people saying that all of Google's "accidental" deeds are good. What I do see is that a lot of people don't think Google accidentally saving a copy of an email that you placed on *their* servers is a huge threat.
And Google is not the government. So even if you do find a lot of Google defenders, you've got a nice false equivalence going on there. I think a lot of people who aren't too bothered by Google keeping track of stuff they voluntarily do on Google's servers might *still* have a problem with the law backing up the TSA taking naked pictures of them whenever they want to fly.
--Jeremy
The Beatles don't even own the copyrights to their music; what little is left of the "band" didn't refuse anyone anything.
--Jeremy
/point
Audiophile!
Lemme ask you; ever done a double-blind listening test to see if you can really hear what you think you hear?
--Jeremy
Earlier in the thread...
Your large random number generator seems to have a flaw. :)
--Jeremy
And I'll refer to the AT&T wiretaps next time someone suggests that having the infrastructure privately owned is a "fix" for government snooping.
--Jeremy
You missed the part about "hotspot compiler" or also commonly known as a Just-In-Time (JIT) compiler. It's completely different than a VM or an interpreter. The .Net CLR also sports a JIT compiler.
But then, your "I know Java, JS, Python, Perl, and Ruby" statement makes it sounds like you're a web developer who probably doesn't have much experience with the lower-level workings of computers. This is fine, but doesn't lend much weight to your argument.
--Jeremy
Ok, fine -- throw this guy in jail for computer trespass.
But while you're at it, throw Sony in jail for their rootkit. Throw Starforce in jail for their rootkit. Throw the "ACORN pimp" in jail for his tampering with the phones in the Democratic office.
If you're going to apply a law, apply it consistently. The way it's being enforced now is way too arbitrary.
--Jeremy
You know, game developers could just as easily point at you and say the exact same thing. At least the game developers are *producing* something of value; all you're doing is shuffling stuff around and providing a (increasingly irrelevant) retail space.
In fact, this is the one thing I have in favor of DLC: I'd rather see money go directly to the publishers than to some place like Gamestop that gouges their customers for 200-500% markups on used games. In fact, it won't really bother me all that much if all specialty game stores that rely heavily on game sales go out of business and leave only big box stores to buy hardware from, and publishers to buy games from directly online.
--Jeremy
I can't speak for everyone, but my opinion on this subject is that when you buy an expansion for a board game or an RPG, you *own* it. You can use it, put it in your closet for 5 years, then take it out again and it will still be there. You can turn around and sell it or give it to a friend.
With DLC, you don't actually own anything. You have your original disc, and you have access to the DLC for as long as the company selling it is kind enough to let you keep using it. But if you get your XBox 1080, then in 5 years decide you'd like to go back and play one of your 360 games, it's a crapshoot as to whether or not you'll have access to any of that DLC.
This is why I don't buy DLC, personally. It's imaginary property. I'm sure I'll have to break down and buy it soon enough, because that's the way the industry is heading, but for the time being I don't feel that it's justified; I have plenty of other things to do and to play without resorting to DLC.
--Jeremy
Other M was crap, and Corruption was the weakest of the Prime trilogy, I'll give you -- but what gripe do you have with Zelda? Twilight Princess was pretty much a standard Zelda game.
--Jeremy
Rare hasn't done anything worthwhile since Conker's Bad Fur Day. Perfect Dark was decent. Star Fox Adventures was meh (and would have still been meh if they hadn't re-tooled it with Star Fox characters), and the few games they've released for the XBox platforms haven't been particularly noteworthy.
Nintendo made out like bandits when they sold their stake in Rare.
--Jeremy
That's the Konami code. Nintendo rarely has cheats in their games.
--Jeremy
Nice false equivalence. You seem to be good at it.
What Google did would be more similar to, say, driving around and looking in all directions, and in one of those directions they happened to see an attractive woman. Then they noted that "hey, there's a pretty woman here. Anyone else that sees this pretty woman must be close to this location." Then they drive off and that's the end of it.
--Jeremy
Yeah, that's irrefutable proof of your assertion. A Google search for some keywords.
Do you know which party outspent the other 7:1 in campaign ads last election? Do you seriously not think any of it came from "corporate interests"?
Enjoy your cognitive dissonance. Or rationalization. Or whatever the fuck it is that doesn't let you see reality.
--Jeremy
Yeah, the right is *completely* above childish, uncivil behavior.
Get over yourself.
--Jeremy
I have specific reasons that does not work for me! is completely missing the point and destroying what made them valuable to me! I choose to ignore that disable or transparently work around because ... sucks for me! People who like obviously don't know what they're doing, and probably have some sort of mental defect that causes them to not see that it sucks!
Personally, I don't mind the instant search. Maybe it's because I have a decent enough computer and connection that it really is nearly instantaneous. I actually find it incredibly impressive that Google can generally return search results and suggestions that match what I wanted before I'm even done typing. I don't know that it's much more useful than the older "type query->submit" method, but it certainly isn't any worse for my usage.
--Jeremy
Your implication that focusing on Middle Eastern men is more productive than searching 85 year old Caucasian women is probably correct.
However, you're looking at a 0% effective rate for the Caucasian woman, and a 0.00000001% effective rate for young Middle Eastern men. You'd probably find a roughly similar rate in young Caucasian men.
In my opinion, that makes the money spent on in-depth screening a waste for both of them.
--Jeremy
You have some reasonable and well thought-out points.
As soon as you demonstrate that you apply reason to your own party's actions as well, someone might take you seriously. Until then, you're just as much into Koolaid politics as anyone else. All I see from your posting history is someone drinking the Republican koolaid.
--Jeremy
So your rationalization is that because poor people in 1st world countries have it better than the worst places in the world, they should shut up and be grateful? Let me guess -- they should all eat cake, right?
Screw you idiots that spew the "poor have it good enough" bullshit.
--Jeremy
Except we aren't even #2 or #3 in very many things by most measures.
What we *really* need to do is stop pretending like we're the best in the world at everything, and ignoring all of the successful solutions that other nations have come up with.
--Jeremy
What are the circumstances? The question is meaningless without context. For instance, if the young mother is actively trying to kill me (or someone else), I can certainly see myself killing her to survive. I'd probably try to subdue her first, but again, there has to be some context to the question before the answer has any meaning.
As it is, it's a loaded question that implies that any "yes" answers are equal to being some sort of a cold blooded killer.
--Jeremy
Fortunately, the government's spending and your wife's spending really aren't even remotely comparable.
The government's spending, ideally, should be mainly investment in the overall economy. Your wife's buying of fur coats and big screen TVs isn't an investment at all.
You can disagree about whether or not the government's current spending is a real investment, that's fine. But comparing it to your puny spending on consumer goods shows a complete lack of understanding of what this stimulus is really about.
--Jeremy
Useful trick in politics: ignore anyone who uses the phrase "X will kill our economy."
--Jeremy
And what did the Democrats do to cause it? Care to give some specifics? All I've seen from you for this entire topic is vague innuendo about how much the Democrats have fucked things up. It's the kind of thing that makes me wish Slashdot had an ignore feature.
Both parties share blame; only an idiot could think otherwise. Note: I only just called you an idiot if you truly think that the Republican party is completely blameless.
--Jeremy
So essentially what you're saying is that a scratch is just as bad as an amputated leg, because neither one is "ideal."
--Jeremy