I don't have to agree with every single thing she says in order to like her. For example, I pretty much see the future U.S. President Obama as the second coming, even though I disagree with his decision to keep Pastor Wright around.
For the point of the story to be true, it requires sophistication, organization and strategic thinking on the level of an evil genius. Ayn Rand just didn't look at what her drivel would require to actually be true. For the story of Animal House to be true, it would require talking animals. That doesn't make it any less interesting, insightful, or poignant.
Governments do not exist to create criminals. Governments exist to create a smooth living environment that allows large groups of people to interact in an easy and predictable fashion. By creating criminals of those who do not interact in easy and predictable fashion. Since when should being difficult and unpredictable be a crime?
I do agree about responsibility though. They're creating the mess, they're on the hook to clean it up. I'm still a proponent of forcing politicians to pay out of their own pocket if they're creating a deficit. Well, we agree on one thing. Though here in California we have wonderful bond measures where people can vote themselves into debt mostly independent of politicians.
The point of the story isn't that there is an evil genius running it. It's that government exists to create criminals. Exposition doesn't work as well if it's done by faceless processes of human nature.
Also, there is the idea that politicians who get into office certainly don't do anything to fix it. If they see it and have the power to change it, are they any less responsible?
"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now, that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."
They were really starting to carve out their own share of Apple's customers before Jobs pulled the plug. So what you're saying is that Apple's legal tactics to protect their profits are ultimately malevolent towards the consumer?
I don't recall anyone ever saying "To have a free market, it must be provided by public Government services", a free market can never have any Government regulation or intervention, else it is not a free market. This is actually incorrect.
A free market is one in which participants are fully informed and free from force or fraud. While the goal is as little regulation as possible, it is not anarchy. Only what level of regulation is required to achieve the ideal free market is debatable, not whether there should be regulation at all. Many people confuse free market above with strict lassez-faire, which is what you are describing. This is an easy mistake to make.
In this example, there is a case for government provided last-mile as it consists of a natual monopoly. There is also a case against it as well. Arguing about the questions you raised would be a wonderful use of government, rather than deciding whether we should boycott some gaming event (for example).
You have never been exposed to computer newbies, right? I know people who have been clicking the same buttons again and again after opening a program for years, because the default setup isn't to their liking but they couldn't figure out how to set it up in the options. Same deal. Exactly. So this leads me to two conclusions:
1. The Slashdot community isn't quite as clever as I have been led to believe.
2. If people have been doing this for years, then this problem is not a new one to Vista.
UAC is one of the things that is very high on the annoyances list of the average user. Complaining about UAC is like complaining about not being able to change your desktop background. It is so fucking easy to turn off it's like being irritated that it's too dark when you're wearing sunglasses.
Given a targeted ad or a non-targeted ad, I would prefer the targeted.
Yes, sometimes it is irritating when I see an advertisement that I know is hitting my demographic exactly and pushing my buttons. But a few times I have disregarded it and been sorry I did because I would have wanted the service/item at a critical time.
Overall, I'd rather see ads for computer equipment than scuba gear. The latter is a total waste of my time, the former keeps me up on prices and features of stuff I buy all the time.
Of course, with adblock/Tivo/Netflix/BitTorrent/removal from snail-mail spamming lists, I rarely see an ad that is forced on me anyways. Mostly it's when I go looking. Unsolicited advertising is for the little people.
But sometimes I confuse myself. I mean, sure, don't show children "adult" things, and make sure they don't swear... but why? Why exactly do we embrace an arbitrary concept of "innocence" in children? I believe being honest is the best way to raise children. Of course my child has already seen breasts, he was breast fed. Why deny their existance just months later? Why not explain how society works and give them the honest scoop? We don't deny they exist, we simply say that they do exist, but that we general keep them to ourselves.
"Son, Fuck is a bad word that people don't like. Try not to say it in public or around your teacher. Also, don't use it around your parents, it's disrespectful." Swearing is used to express a particular emotional circumstance. If everyone swore whenever they felt like it, it would cease to be useful for the situations we use it for. Kind of like calling every marklar a marklar. Then marklar wouldn't be able to marklar when you were marklar or marklar. See what I'm saying? Since kids don't have the emotional maturity to make that distinction we simply ask them to hold off in general until they do.
Basically, my kid has enough on her plate figuring out how to use the potty and why the letter 'c' can sound like 's' sometimes and 'k' at others. We'll leave sex, swearing, driving, linear algebra, and the intricacies of wireless networking until sometime later, k?
In the end the average Joe Sixpack buys what he finds familiar. He doesn't make buying decisions based on facts or critical thinking or anything related to clear, precise, logical thought. Kinda scary when you think about it. Especially when you realize the same process applies to voting.
Then again, it seems that making games not very fun is a highly successful business model..Who would've guessed? Slot machine manufacturers. Those players look like they are dead.
Trent Reznor's cost of manufacturing is quite low in comparison with the amount of effort spent on copy protection. A game that costs $200 million to make and hopes to earn $250 million can afford to throw $500K into copy protection without really hitting the bottom line.
Slashdot Mirror
No developer could take advantage of it given all the 360s out there with DVD drives.
And furthermore, you're going to add another new layer of complexity onto an already flaky hardware?
It's like building a beautiful sculpture on top of a condemned building about to collapse.
I don't have to agree with every single thing she says in order to like her. For example, I pretty much see the future U.S. President Obama as the second coming, even though I disagree with his decision to keep Pastor Wright around.
The point of the story isn't that there is an evil genius running it. It's that government exists to create criminals. Exposition doesn't work as well if it's done by faceless processes of human nature.
Also, there is the idea that politicians who get into office certainly don't do anything to fix it. If they see it and have the power to change it, are they any less responsible?
"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now, that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."
Between Vista and the XBox fiasco I'm thinking their stock may have further to crash.
Sounds familiar...
The argument would be about whether this particular case justified intervention, not whether intervention would or would not be used.
A free market is one in which participants are fully informed and free from force or fraud. While the goal is as little regulation as possible, it is not anarchy. Only what level of regulation is required to achieve the ideal free market is debatable, not whether there should be regulation at all. Many people confuse free market above with strict lassez-faire, which is what you are describing. This is an easy mistake to make.
In this example, there is a case for government provided last-mile as it consists of a natual monopoly. There is also a case against it as well. Arguing about the questions you raised would be a wonderful use of government, rather than deciding whether we should boycott some gaming event (for example).
Given the temperature hasn't actually risen in ten years.
1. The Slashdot community isn't quite as clever as I have been led to believe.
2. If people have been doing this for years, then this problem is not a new one to Vista.
Most consumers aren't using their brains anyway.
I also prefer neither, but that isn't what this is article is about.
Selling you a weekend getaway that is 150 miles away is better than trying to sell you one 1500 miles away.
Also, if your ISP can't narrow its customer's locations down by zipcode, then they get a big bucket of fail served at room temperature anyways.
Given a targeted ad or a non-targeted ad, I would prefer the targeted.
Yes, sometimes it is irritating when I see an advertisement that I know is hitting my demographic exactly and pushing my buttons. But a few times I have disregarded it and been sorry I did because I would have wanted the service/item at a critical time.
Overall, I'd rather see ads for computer equipment than scuba gear. The latter is a total waste of my time, the former keeps me up on prices and features of stuff I buy all the time.
Of course, with adblock/Tivo/Netflix/BitTorrent/removal from snail-mail spamming lists, I rarely see an ad that is forced on me anyways. Mostly it's when I go looking. Unsolicited advertising is for the little people.
Basically, my kid has enough on her plate figuring out how to use the potty and why the letter 'c' can sound like 's' sometimes and 'k' at others. We'll leave sex, swearing, driving, linear algebra, and the intricacies of wireless networking until sometime later, k?
Trent Reznor's cost of manufacturing is quite low in comparison with the amount of effort spent on copy protection. A game that costs $200 million to make and hopes to earn $250 million can afford to throw $500K into copy protection without really hitting the bottom line.
Umm, corrected link, duh.
Market share for 360 is lowest amongst consoles, even in US.