Money-ish. Most academically/philosophy-motivated people I know (inluding myself) are happy to have moderate income with high job security and substantial housing subsidization.
Really? What about the PSN and SOE/customers/? You know, the ones who just had their financial security compromised? Is that part of the karma and justification?
I swear, it's like no one's thinking of the MILLIONS of accounts, but focusing on "Oh snap! Corporate PR fiasco!"
No. I just have a minimum standard for vocabulary as it relates to crime.
Copying an album = copyright infringement, not theft. The Sony rootkit was intended to prevent copyright infringement, not create a botnet or steal personal information.
You can't have a double standard for vocabulary AND expect people to take you seriously.
And that was a stupid decision of Sony's in an attempt to protect the revenue flow from their music division (illegally)-- but NOT to steal personal data.
SOE and the PS Network have never been info hungry.
SOE, Playstation, Sony/BMG while under the "SONY" umbrella are extremely separate entities. Screaming for joy for the harm of SOE users because Sony/BMG was stupid enough to put rootkits on musics CDs is like celebrating the disbanding of your local police department because the city is doing noisy road construction near your house. While the revenue eventually trickles up to the same source, they're operated separately with different goals and resources.
WTF do you mean "SOE got what they deserved"? YOU are the one getting screwed by this. YOU are the victim of their hack. They'll build a stronger system, but it's YOUR personal information for sale by some hacker now.
I'm a fan of some SOE games. I played EQ until my recent break in November-Now. I beta'd and played DCUO. I'm disappointed in their security, but the blame still lays with the hacker. Sony may have had my data under less-than-perfect security, but it takes the will to hack and steal to commit an actual crime.
Get it right. Hackers attacked Sony (and SOE), but while their PR got hurt and they have to spend some money on some security consultants, it's the USERS (past and present) that will be experiencing the brunt of the damage.
This is an attack on PEOPLE, not a company. If a company was the target, then corporate account information would have been hacked.
Are you suggesting that millions of Sony Online Entertainment game subscribers over the past 4 years have pissed off a hacker? Because they're the ones that are going to get screwed, not SOE.
Riiight... so when someone wants to re-subscribe to one of their games, they'll get a pop-up message that says:
"Please wait. We totally got your credit card data conveniently backed-up and cataloged on one of these DVD-Rs. We've sent an email to Harold, our new intern, to fetch the disc and upload your old account information. This will only be like, 18 minutes. Promise."
How did this get modded "5, Insightful"? Are those who modded this post agreeing with sentiment (Sony hate) or do they actually believe Sony Online Entertainment wants to steal personal data?
You're kidding, right? It's irrational to think that an 18 year-old should have acquired sufficient life experience to accurately predict the effect of future life experiences (external and internal) and thus guide himself specifically along a singular path. Then entire assertion is just silly.
Everyone sets forth plans for themselves and then life happens. Things change. People learn and change with it. If they didn't, 90% of of America would identify "failed lottery winner" because we all thought we'd make a low-cost, high-risk gamble to strike it rich as children.
Public universities *aren't* supposed to charge tuition. It's constant budget cuts that have forced them to do so. This year, the University of California finally resolved to stop calling their tuition "fees" (which got them around the "we don't charge tuition" thing). It's now just "tuition" and the current cuts to the system have reduced state support to less than 50% the cost of tuition.
Note that "tuition" isn't the only cost.
Books and Supplies ~$1,550 Room and Board ~$9,500 Personal ~$1,700 Transportation ~$2,000 Systemwide Fees (Tuition) ~$11,000 Campus Fees ~$1,800
That's for the upcoming academic year.
Here's 2000-2001: Books and Supplies - $1,162 Room and Board - $6,345 Personal - $1,542 Transportation - $978 Healthcare Allowance (later included in fees) - $415 "Fees" - $4,057
That's some pretty disconnected administration there. My focus was law and philosophy, but ended up having a passion for education and am currently working in TDM.
I have a friend who majored in aeronautical engineering and he's teaching in Queens. And another friend who majored in sociology and is current in nursing school. And yet another who majored in psychology and works in an academic department wrangling university faculty.
Too many assumptions by people too far removed from reality...
Good point, but I'm not speaking to student loans. I'm talking about segmented educational investment... like supplying more money to hire teachers... but only STEM teachers. Supplying more grants for research in higher education... but only in the sciences.
And tuition in state schools has gone up as a function of reduced state funding. but tuition isn't even the big concern. It's the "cost of living" for which loans, grants, and scholarships are adjusted.
For example, around the University of California, Irvine, property prices (apartments) have always gone up and only went up quicker during the bubble. The Irvine Company (which owns the vast majority of land and apartments in Irvine) intentionally makes it difficult for students to rent cheaper apartments away from the campus. That forces demand to skyrocket at the communities nearest to the campus.
They change their price per sq. ft. to "meet market demand" and the students end up paying over $2000 per 2 bedroom. That cost of living is calculated by the university and factored in to the amounts of funding that needs to be provided by grants, loans, and scholarships. Thus, the housing company is indirectly sucking on the federal and state teet by price-gouging the students. That's why the total cost of attendance has gone up from $14k/year in 2000 to over $30k for 2011.
"Which is why public policy should be directed to intercede. The public is short-sighted, like the markets that supply their fuel and "choose" which technologies to pursue. We can see the storm coming on the horizon, but when you've got so many people looking straight up, seeing the sun and proclaiming there's no danger it's hard to react to a future that many experts know is coming."
I agree. I prefer the idea of a gasoline price floor.
Real Price of Gasoline (RPoG): $2.50/g Gasoline Price Floor (GPF): $3.50/gF GPF - RPOG = $1.00/g, goes to fund supplying grants for research, establishment, or expansion of alternative energy sources and sustainable transportation.
Real Price of Gasoline (RPoG): $4.25/g Gasoline Price Floor (GPF): $3.25/g GPF - RPOG = 0 , no additional cost.
We're not lacking science-trained professionals nor academics. And the problem isn't that the science-trained are going into other fields. The problem is that politicians are trying to re-purpose education to be a means of fixing the economy... which it's not.
Students and education are not factory systems into which you can blindly invest capital with a rational expectation of getting more money out the other end. It may happen, but it's not of a very high nor reliable return. And if it doesn't turn out to be particularly profitable (additional investment into STEM), will all that invested support be taken away?
STEM investment is not a silver bullet to economic woes. There is no silver bullet. STEM investment is the result of the following logic: "Something must be done. This is something. It must be done."
Over-investment in STEM comes at the cost of the humanities, arts, and physical education all of which are necessary for a healthy society. Get your heads out of your collective asses and listen to actual educators. Fund each portion of academia as necessary to prepare students for a wide variety of career and life choices. Variety and preparation, not homogeneity and mandates, will advance our civilization.
I know the guy that brings pedantic perspective to the conversation is rarely the one invited to drinks afterward, but I don't think anyone's "suffering" at the hands of repetitive character backgrounds.
"Crimes are always the fault of the criminal, but I can't defend complete and utter ignorance of living in the real world."
Oddly enough, I don't have a problem defending genuine ignorance. Nor should you. Ignorance is the lack of knowledge, not denial of reality.
For example: I am ignorant to the intricacies of genetic manipulations required to make banana seeds negligibly small.
Children are ignorant to many things in the world and we forgive them. Often, so are those who grow up in homogeneous populations. I have no problem accepting/forgiving faux pas in such situations.
And I don't think you take issue with that either.
Instead, I think you're particularly annoyed by people you perceive to think themselves invincible or those who make nonchalant decisions in their lives regardless of information historically at their disposal. (Such as the person, say, who grows up in Los Angeles and leaves her keys in her car.) And it's even worse when those people act as though there was no way to predict that their actions would enable a criminal to take advantage of a situation.
You actually demonstrate the linguistic confusion most people who are thought to believe the Just World Fallacy really exhibit: confusing "just deserts" with "don't be surprised".
Most people don't actually believe that leaving one's keys in one's car genuinely deserves having that car removed from the owner's possession. Instead, when they say, "She deserves to get her car stolen...," they mean to convey, "She really shouldn't be surprised. Criminals are looking for the easiest means of profit and she created an extremely easy means for profit."
The Just World hypothesis is appropriately explained in the summary, but I don't think the excerpt describing the game actually works with the phenomenon.
(1) You see people of a certain uniform brutalizing people you assume are innocent. (2) When you harm the brutalizers, your justification is "eye for an eye" on a national level.
There is no issue there and such judgments are not noteworthy.
What the "Just World Hypothesis" (better referred to as the "Just World Fallacy") actually describes is that pattern of humans seeking a means to place blame on victims while ignoring the free will of the offender.
So, if we're going to actually use the Just World Fallacy appropriately in the context of this game, we would have to personally make the assumption that the dominated did something to deserve their plight.
"Wow, NK is dominating USA in the game. Well, the USA probably had it coming... just look at American Idol." --- Just World Fallacy
Other, more pertinent places we see the Just World Fallacy:
"Ya, you were robbed, but you left your door unlocked. You deserve what you got."
"Ya, she was sexually assaulted, but she was dressed like a whore..."
"The boy was killed while legally crossing a street in a crosswalk. But he was dressed in black, so he had it coming."
"Her car was stolen, but it was her fault-- she left her keys in car."
Slashdot Mirror
Money-ish. Most academically/philosophy-motivated people I know (inluding myself) are happy to have moderate income with high job security and substantial housing subsidization.
Really? What about the PSN and SOE /customers/? You know, the ones who just had their financial security compromised? Is that part of the karma and justification?
I swear, it's like no one's thinking of the MILLIONS of accounts, but focusing on "Oh snap! Corporate PR fiasco!"
Addendum: "The Sony rootkit was intended to prevent copyright infringement /through illegal means/."
No. I just have a minimum standard for vocabulary as it relates to crime.
Copying an album = copyright infringement, not theft.
The Sony rootkit was intended to prevent copyright infringement, not create a botnet or steal personal information.
You can't have a double standard for vocabulary AND expect people to take you seriously.
Touche. +1
Calling the Sony rootkit an attempt at computer takeover is like calling the duplication of an MP3 theft.
And that was a stupid decision of Sony's in an attempt to protect the revenue flow from their music division (illegally)-- but NOT to steal personal data.
SOE and the PS Network have never been info hungry.
SOE, Playstation, Sony/BMG while under the "SONY" umbrella are extremely separate entities. Screaming for joy for the harm of SOE users because Sony/BMG was stupid enough to put rootkits on musics CDs is like celebrating the disbanding of your local police department because the city is doing noisy road construction near your house. While the revenue eventually trickles up to the same source, they're operated separately with different goals and resources.
Credentials: I play EQ and DCUO.
WTF do you mean "SOE got what they deserved"? YOU are the one getting screwed by this. YOU are the victim of their hack. They'll build a stronger system, but it's YOUR personal information for sale by some hacker now.
Perspective, people.
I'm a fan of some SOE games. I played EQ until my recent break in November-Now. I beta'd and played DCUO. I'm disappointed in their security, but the blame still lays with the hacker. Sony may have had my data under less-than-perfect security, but it takes the will to hack and steal to commit an actual crime.
Get it right. Hackers attacked Sony (and SOE), but while their PR got hurt and they have to spend some money on some security consultants, it's the USERS (past and present) that will be experiencing the brunt of the damage.
This is an attack on PEOPLE, not a company. If a company was the target, then corporate account information would have been hacked.
Damn people blinded by the hip thing to hate...
Are you suggesting that millions of Sony Online Entertainment game subscribers over the past 4 years have pissed off a hacker? Because they're the ones that are going to get screwed, not SOE.
Riiight... so when someone wants to re-subscribe to one of their games, they'll get a pop-up message that says:
"Please wait. We totally got your credit card data conveniently backed-up and cataloged on one of these DVD-Rs. We've sent an email to Harold, our new intern, to fetch the disc and upload your old account information. This will only be like, 18 minutes. Promise."
How did this get modded "5, Insightful"? Are those who modded this post agreeing with sentiment (Sony hate) or do they actually believe Sony Online Entertainment wants to steal personal data?
"It should be illegal to collect and retain location data of any kind on anyone for any reason short of a duly issued warrant."
For whom? Are you suggesting it be illegal for anyone to retain the location of anyone else?
(Genuine. innocent question... not trying to troll.)
It's not Sony that may have irreparable damage done to them... it's the users.
You're kidding, right? It's irrational to think that an 18 year-old should have acquired sufficient life experience to accurately predict the effect of future life experiences (external and internal) and thus guide himself specifically along a singular path. Then entire assertion is just silly.
Everyone sets forth plans for themselves and then life happens. Things change. People learn and change with it. If they didn't, 90% of of America would identify "failed lottery winner" because we all thought we'd make a low-cost, high-risk gamble to strike it rich as children.
Public universities *aren't* supposed to charge tuition. It's constant budget cuts that have forced them to do so. This year, the University of California finally resolved to stop calling their tuition "fees" (which got them around the "we don't charge tuition" thing). It's now just "tuition" and the current cuts to the system have reduced state support to less than 50% the cost of tuition.
Note that "tuition" isn't the only cost.
Books and Supplies ~$1,550
Room and Board ~$9,500
Personal ~$1,700
Transportation ~$2,000
Systemwide Fees (Tuition) ~$11,000
Campus Fees ~$1,800
That's for the upcoming academic year.
Here's 2000-2001:
Books and Supplies - $1,162
Room and Board - $6,345
Personal - $1,542
Transportation - $978
Healthcare Allowance (later included in fees) - $415
"Fees" - $4,057
That's some pretty disconnected administration there. My focus was law and philosophy, but ended up having a passion for education and am currently working in TDM.
I have a friend who majored in aeronautical engineering and he's teaching in Queens. And another friend who majored in sociology and is current in nursing school. And yet another who majored in psychology and works in an academic department wrangling university faculty.
Too many assumptions by people too far removed from reality...
Good point, but I'm not speaking to student loans. I'm talking about segmented educational investment... like supplying more money to hire teachers... but only STEM teachers. Supplying more grants for research in higher education... but only in the sciences.
And tuition in state schools has gone up as a function of reduced state funding. but tuition isn't even the big concern. It's the "cost of living" for which loans, grants, and scholarships are adjusted.
For example, around the University of California, Irvine, property prices (apartments) have always gone up and only went up quicker during the bubble. The Irvine Company (which owns the vast majority of land and apartments in Irvine) intentionally makes it difficult for students to rent cheaper apartments away from the campus. That forces demand to skyrocket at the communities nearest to the campus.
They change their price per sq. ft. to "meet market demand" and the students end up paying over $2000 per 2 bedroom. That cost of living is calculated by the university and factored in to the amounts of funding that needs to be provided by grants, loans, and scholarships. Thus, the housing company is indirectly sucking on the federal and state teet by price-gouging the students. That's why the total cost of attendance has gone up from $14k/year in 2000 to over $30k for 2011.
"Which is why public policy should be directed to intercede. The public is short-sighted, like the markets that supply their fuel and "choose" which technologies to pursue. We can see the storm coming on the horizon, but when you've got so many people looking straight up, seeing the sun and proclaiming there's no danger it's hard to react to a future that many experts know is coming."
I agree. I prefer the idea of a gasoline price floor.
Real Price of Gasoline (RPoG): $2.50/g
Gasoline Price Floor (GPF): $3.50/gF
GPF - RPOG = $1.00/g, goes to fund supplying grants for research, establishment, or expansion of alternative energy sources and sustainable transportation.
Real Price of Gasoline (RPoG): $4.25/g
Gasoline Price Floor (GPF): $3.25/g
GPF - RPOG = 0 , no additional cost.
We're not lacking science-trained professionals nor academics. And the problem isn't that the science-trained are going into other fields. The problem is that politicians are trying to re-purpose education to be a means of fixing the economy... which it's not.
Students and education are not factory systems into which you can blindly invest capital with a rational expectation of getting more money out the other end. It may happen, but it's not of a very high nor reliable return. And if it doesn't turn out to be particularly profitable (additional investment into STEM), will all that invested support be taken away?
STEM investment is not a silver bullet to economic woes. There is no silver bullet. STEM investment is the result of the following logic: "Something must be done. This is something. It must be done."
Over-investment in STEM comes at the cost of the humanities, arts, and physical education all of which are necessary for a healthy society. Get your heads out of your collective asses and listen to actual educators. Fund each portion of academia as necessary to prepare students for a wide variety of career and life choices. Variety and preparation, not homogeneity and mandates, will advance our civilization.
I know the guy that brings pedantic perspective to the conversation is rarely the one invited to drinks afterward, but I don't think anyone's "suffering" at the hands of repetitive character backgrounds.
Try "bored with" or "uninspired by"...
Suffering? Really?
"Crimes are always the fault of the criminal, but I can't defend complete and utter ignorance of living in the real world."
Oddly enough, I don't have a problem defending genuine ignorance. Nor should you. Ignorance is the lack of knowledge, not denial of reality.
For example: I am ignorant to the intricacies of genetic manipulations required to make banana seeds negligibly small.
Children are ignorant to many things in the world and we forgive them. Often, so are those who grow up in homogeneous populations. I have no problem accepting/forgiving faux pas in such situations.
And I don't think you take issue with that either.
Instead, I think you're particularly annoyed by people you perceive to think themselves invincible or those who make nonchalant decisions in their lives regardless of information historically at their disposal. (Such as the person, say, who grows up in Los Angeles and leaves her keys in her car.) And it's even worse when those people act as though there was no way to predict that their actions would enable a criminal to take advantage of a situation.
You actually demonstrate the linguistic confusion most people who are thought to believe the Just World Fallacy really exhibit: confusing "just deserts" with "don't be surprised".
Most people don't actually believe that leaving one's keys in one's car genuinely deserves having that car removed from the owner's possession. Instead, when they say, "She deserves to get her car stolen...," they mean to convey, "She really shouldn't be surprised. Criminals are looking for the easiest means of profit and she created an extremely easy means for profit."
The Just World hypothesis is appropriately explained in the summary, but I don't think the excerpt describing the game actually works with the phenomenon.
(1) You see people of a certain uniform brutalizing people you assume are innocent.
(2) When you harm the brutalizers, your justification is "eye for an eye" on a national level.
There is no issue there and such judgments are not noteworthy.
What the "Just World Hypothesis" (better referred to as the "Just World Fallacy") actually describes is that pattern of humans seeking a means to place blame on victims while ignoring the free will of the offender.
So, if we're going to actually use the Just World Fallacy appropriately in the context of this game, we would have to personally make the assumption that the dominated did something to deserve their plight.
"Wow, NK is dominating USA in the game. Well, the USA probably had it coming... just look at American Idol." --- Just World Fallacy
Other, more pertinent places we see the Just World Fallacy:
"Ya, you were robbed, but you left your door unlocked. You deserve what you got."
"Ya, she was sexually assaulted, but she was dressed like a whore..."
"The boy was killed while legally crossing a street in a crosswalk. But he was dressed in black, so he had it coming."
"Her car was stolen, but it was her fault-- she left her keys in car."