While I agree with your analysis as to why the Apple iDevices sell so well, I have to state that "the geeks" aren't interested simply in buying from the company that has the best business model... we just want something that works the way we want. We couldn't care less if our purchase includes us in part of a smug team of iTards or anti-Mac... we just want to know if this tablet has the features we require. Example:
I don't need a camera. I need multi-tasking. I prefer to have a modable interface to save CPU/Battery power (less is more) I want an SD or USB port I need 3G I need a text and email program. I need it to be less than $600. I don't care what anyone else wants nor how successful the company will be (or if it "wins" in the tablet arena) etc...
Ok, I understand your prediction for the future if we continue on our current path... but do you have an idea or philosophy that would fix the problem?
Moreover, are you saying that spending anything into a deficit is bad?
Completely with you. Which is why the next step should be saying,
"OK guys, while we're rebalancing our priorities, we've also gotta tell you something. You pay for all the stuff you want now or you pay more for it later. I think we should pay less and pay now. Taxes are going up for a bit. And we're making sure everyone is actually paying their fair share. Hollywood, we're looking at you!"
Deficit spending in and of itself is not bad. I'm sure most of use will do it at one time or another to buy a car or a house. The crux of any issue regarding deficit spending is whether or not the expenditure will show expected returns. And I'm not talking about dollar-per-dollar returns.
Is spending money on science, discovery, and development worth the expenditure worth it? I'd say yes.
Is universal healthcare worth it? I'd say yes.
Is protecting ourselves from people who want to harm us worth it? I'd say yes.
Now, consider the balance of cost-per-return for each of those and the viability of each implementation of each endeavor. Which is most likely to actually succeed?
You've now brought another harm-causer into the mix. The criminal and the person who was hired to protect the company from the criminal. Again, the criminal would hold *fault* for the damage he causes because he would be the one choosing to cause damages. You, the person hired to protect the company, would be guilty of negligence of your duties in your position.
The difference is that you would still be guilty of negligence with or without the criminal spammer. The two actions (or inactions) interact but are still separate. The spammer would not receive reduced fault because it was easier-than-expected to commit a crime.
Most definitely, they should see it coming. I'm not saying they shouldn't be surprised. Everything gets cracked. However, "fault" is a very particular word. Fault attributes "cause of harm". In such a case, the potential cause of harm is not the maker of the nook, but the people that find and implement exploits of their products.
This is why it's irrational for a child to be at blame for abuse. For example: A child in poor circumstance may reliably be beaten when he doesn't do his chores. If one day, he decides to refrain from doing his chores and gets beaten, where does the blame, or fault, lay? With the child-- the victim of the crime? Or with the person who beats the child?
The fault is the the person who beats the child. The child, understanding his circumstance, should not be surprised when he gets beaten, but it's the external actor, the "beater" who is at fault for causing harm to the child.
Gotta disagree. The act would not happen on its own without the actor (the criminal). In every single crime, someone must act to make the crime happen.
You're confusing the concepts of "accident" where variables outside of control/observation come together to create an unfortunate circumstance.
No one accidentally steals a running car. No one accidentally hacks a Nook thus subjecting a company to many new costs. Those situations require people with intent to create them. Those people with intent are at fault for any ill-effects of their actions. Not the victims.
It is not your fault if you get shot in the leg and robbed while walking down a street. You shouldn't be *surprised* if it happens while you're wearing expensive clothing while walking in a war zone, but the fault lay with the person choosing to harm you.
Again, wrong. The fault lay with the thief. Things do not steal themselves. A running car at an intersection does not skip away merrily. The thief is the cause and catalyst... the fault lay with the thief. (Such is why we don't prosecute victims of crime.)
No... not really. Any "fault" comes from those actually hacking the Nook. I mean, unless it's your fault you got stabbed in the face walking down the street because you didn't bother to wear a steel mask.
Ya... I consumed 64GB per day. That's right. I also consumed a couch last night. And I consumed an apartment. And I consumed a 2009 Mazda MP3. And I consumed a Christmas tree.
You're right in that there's no way to completely stop the accumulation of biometric data, but given the extreme potential for misuse and the near-zero trust any of us have for anyone actually controlling the data, shouldn't we do our best to prevent the accumulation of data while we can?
1) A bit hypocritical for you to be angry about me reflecting your own logic. You said, "if you don't like it, leave", but when the same thing is said to you, you get offended? Why would you say something that you consider offensive yourself? Aren't we supposed to set the standards of our own treatment by the way we treat others?
2) There is no law saying you can't name your enemies, but there are laws against libel and slander. If you name all of a people (Muslims) as terrorists, then you're committing libel/slander as not all are, in fact, terrorists.
The truth is that our enemies are those who attack us. Those who support those who attack us are people we don't like. Those who say "all of category X" people are our enemies, just want your permission to do as they please.
3) Drop the whole "liberal/conservative" thing. This has nothing to do with over-simplified ideology. This is about facts. Exacting facts to get those who do harm and, with similar vigor, everything possible to protect the innocent. That's tough and requires much more effort than is required in the false dichotomy that is "liberal/conservative" banter.
No, but you need to adjust for their well-recorded bias. The noted industries (public and private) actually subsist on the capture of people and labeling them as criminals regardless of actual innocence. Of course they'd be willing to have a massive amount of false positives... it all helps to further validate their existences.
80% has had some sort of infraction, but nothing says that they were bled as a result of those actual infractions (or just erroneously picked up later) let alone if the crime was serious to make the gov't body think, "We better keep an eye on this wily-eyed criminal."
Moreover, 80% is acceptable? Seriously? 1 out of 5 completely innocent people abused by the system is completely acceptable? You either have extremely low standards or work in law enforcement, criminal prosecution, or corrections.
Oversight isn't a fix for something that shouldn't exist in the first place. If you can't trust the original owners to be ethical with something of such corruptible power, do you really want to risk trusting *anyone* with this?
Net Apps are useful in a pinch, but I don't think anyone here believes they can offer the speed and versatility of a full blow spreadsheet or word processor (like Word/Excel or Open Office).
They just won't put enough effort into development to make it a realistic substitute... on NETBOOK machinery.
Then there's the issue of not having an internet connection, but needing to work or wanting to read something.
The internet is a mass of data interconnected by address. Data is not an object, but the status of variables. Data has no more weight than any other abstract concept.
It's based on the assumption that the individual doesn't have the money to buy the things (software, entertainment media) they're told they need due to inequitable income or pricing structures while also assuming companies definitely have that money.
That of course stems from the philosophy (or at least subconscious mode of action that demonstrates the belief) that if something is needed but cannot be obtained legally, it's acceptable to obtain that thing illegally. (Strain theory derivative)
It's about having priorities. If you believe getting "far up the corporate ladder" is more important than your own ethics, then you're spineless.... or never had the ethics you thought you had. And you should be watched for malfeasance.
The corporate, administrative, and political systems all live by the "good ol' boys club", "blue wall of silence", and "team players" code. If you hate it... don't become a part of it. If you like it, then I don't want you in those industries.
Slashdot Mirror
While I agree with your analysis as to why the Apple iDevices sell so well, I have to state that "the geeks" aren't interested simply in buying from the company that has the best business model... we just want something that works the way we want. We couldn't care less if our purchase includes us in part of a smug team of iTards or anti-Mac... we just want to know if this tablet has the features we require. Example:
I don't need a camera.
I need multi-tasking.
I prefer to have a modable interface to save CPU/Battery power (less is more)
I want an SD or USB port
I need 3G
I need a text and email program.
I need it to be less than $600.
I don't care what anyone else wants nor how successful the company will be (or if it "wins" in the tablet arena)
etc...
... is a perfectly still part of the ocean with no wildlife and an entire supply system of ships to make sure everything goes right.
Ok, I understand your prediction for the future if we continue on our current path... but do you have an idea or philosophy that would fix the problem? Moreover, are you saying that spending anything into a deficit is bad?
Completely with you. Which is why the next step should be saying, "OK guys, while we're rebalancing our priorities, we've also gotta tell you something. You pay for all the stuff you want now or you pay more for it later. I think we should pay less and pay now. Taxes are going up for a bit. And we're making sure everyone is actually paying their fair share. Hollywood, we're looking at you!"
Deficit spending in and of itself is not bad. I'm sure most of use will do it at one time or another to buy a car or a house. The crux of any issue regarding deficit spending is whether or not the expenditure will show expected returns. And I'm not talking about dollar-per-dollar returns.
Is spending money on science, discovery, and development worth the expenditure worth it? I'd say yes.
Is universal healthcare worth it? I'd say yes.
Is protecting ourselves from people who want to harm us worth it? I'd say yes.
Now, consider the balance of cost-per-return for each of those and the viability of each implementation of each endeavor. Which is most likely to actually succeed?
You've now brought another harm-causer into the mix. The criminal and the person who was hired to protect the company from the criminal. Again, the criminal would hold *fault* for the damage he causes because he would be the one choosing to cause damages. You, the person hired to protect the company, would be guilty of negligence of your duties in your position. The difference is that you would still be guilty of negligence with or without the criminal spammer. The two actions (or inactions) interact but are still separate. The spammer would not receive reduced fault because it was easier-than-expected to commit a crime.
Most definitely, they should see it coming. I'm not saying they shouldn't be surprised. Everything gets cracked. However, "fault" is a very particular word. Fault attributes "cause of harm". In such a case, the potential cause of harm is not the maker of the nook, but the people that find and implement exploits of their products.
This is why it's irrational for a child to be at blame for abuse. For example: A child in poor circumstance may reliably be beaten when he doesn't do his chores. If one day, he decides to refrain from doing his chores and gets beaten, where does the blame, or fault, lay? With the child-- the victim of the crime? Or with the person who beats the child?
The fault is the the person who beats the child. The child, understanding his circumstance, should not be surprised when he gets beaten, but it's the external actor, the "beater" who is at fault for causing harm to the child.
Gotta disagree. The act would not happen on its own without the actor (the criminal). In every single crime, someone must act to make the crime happen.
You're confusing the concepts of "accident" where variables outside of control/observation come together to create an unfortunate circumstance.
No one accidentally steals a running car. No one accidentally hacks a Nook thus subjecting a company to many new costs. Those situations require people with intent to create them. Those people with intent are at fault for any ill-effects of their actions. Not the victims.
It is not your fault if you get shot in the leg and robbed while walking down a street. You shouldn't be *surprised* if it happens while you're wearing expensive clothing while walking in a war zone, but the fault lay with the person choosing to harm you.
Again, wrong. The fault lay with the thief. Things do not steal themselves. A running car at an intersection does not skip away merrily. The thief is the cause and catalyst... the fault lay with the thief. (Such is why we don't prosecute victims of crime.)
No... not really. Any "fault" comes from those actually hacking the Nook. I mean, unless it's your fault you got stabbed in the face walking down the street because you didn't bother to wear a steel mask.
Just-World Fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_phenomenon
Ya... I consumed 64GB per day. That's right. I also consumed a couch last night. And I consumed an apartment. And I consumed a 2009 Mazda MP3. And I consumed a Christmas tree.
Sensationalist weasel words...
Great, now I have to find out why, in the Benjamin Franklin text, all but the last S's in any word look like lower-case Fs.
You're right in that there's no way to completely stop the accumulation of biometric data, but given the extreme potential for misuse and the near-zero trust any of us have for anyone actually controlling the data, shouldn't we do our best to prevent the accumulation of data while we can?
1) A bit hypocritical for you to be angry about me reflecting your own logic. You said, "if you don't like it, leave", but when the same thing is said to you, you get offended? Why would you say something that you consider offensive yourself? Aren't we supposed to set the standards of our own treatment by the way we treat others?
2) There is no law saying you can't name your enemies, but there are laws against libel and slander. If you name all of a people (Muslims) as terrorists, then you're committing libel/slander as not all are, in fact, terrorists.
The truth is that our enemies are those who attack us. Those who support those who attack us are people we don't like. Those who say "all of category X" people are our enemies, just want your permission to do as they please.
3) Drop the whole "liberal/conservative" thing. This has nothing to do with over-simplified ideology. This is about facts. Exacting facts to get those who do harm and, with similar vigor, everything possible to protect the innocent. That's tough and requires much more effort than is required in the false dichotomy that is "liberal/conservative" banter.
No, but you need to adjust for their well-recorded bias. The noted industries (public and private) actually subsist on the capture of people and labeling them as criminals regardless of actual innocence. Of course they'd be willing to have a massive amount of false positives... it all helps to further validate their existences.
Profiling every single person from the Middle East.
Don't like it? Lucky for you the USA gives you the freedom to leave.
Actually, our laws and Constitution don't allow for it. If *you* don't like it, *you* need to leave.
Not necessarily.
80% has had some sort of infraction, but nothing says that they were bled as a result of those actual infractions (or just erroneously picked up later) let alone if the crime was serious to make the gov't body think, "We better keep an eye on this wily-eyed criminal."
Moreover, 80% is acceptable? Seriously? 1 out of 5 completely innocent people abused by the system is completely acceptable? You either have extremely low standards or work in law enforcement, criminal prosecution, or corrections.
Oversight isn't a fix for something that shouldn't exist in the first place. If you can't trust the original owners to be ethical with something of such corruptible power, do you really want to risk trusting *anyone* with this?
Net Apps are useful in a pinch, but I don't think anyone here believes they can offer the speed and versatility of a full blow spreadsheet or word processor (like Word/Excel or Open Office). They just won't put enough effort into development to make it a realistic substitute... on NETBOOK machinery. Then there's the issue of not having an internet connection, but needing to work or wanting to read something.
Storage has mass. The energy required to make notes in storage to denote data has mass. The data does not have mass. Data is a pattern not an object.
The electrons aren't the internet. The status of the electrons are. The status "here" has no mass/weight... just like the number 1 has no weight.
The internet is a mass of data interconnected by address. Data is not an object, but the status of variables. Data has no more weight than any other abstract concept.
Brilliant advice.
It's based on the assumption that the individual doesn't have the money to buy the things (software, entertainment media) they're told they need due to inequitable income or pricing structures while also assuming companies definitely have that money. That of course stems from the philosophy (or at least subconscious mode of action that demonstrates the belief) that if something is needed but cannot be obtained legally, it's acceptable to obtain that thing illegally. (Strain theory derivative)
Troll? I don't know. If so, I bite.
It's about having priorities. If you believe getting "far up the corporate ladder" is more important than your own ethics, then you're spineless.... or never had the ethics you thought you had. And you should be watched for malfeasance.
The corporate, administrative, and political systems all live by the "good ol' boys club", "blue wall of silence", and "team players" code. If you hate it... don't become a part of it. If you like it, then I don't want you in those industries.