It should also be pointed out that Al Jazeera did the same thing here, doing their best to validate that these were authentic. While they've been demonized in the US mainstream press (largely for not parroting the US view of the Israel-Palestine Conflict), they're the equivalent of CNN or the BBC in the Middle East. Is it 100% credibility? Heck no. But it's a good 95+% credible.
People tend to gravitate towards professions that pay better. For instance, your typical Wall St analyst has about the same level of education as an engineer. If somebody is looking at those two options (because they're good with numbers and analysis), and wants to make the big bucks, which one are they going to pick, the one that will pull in $120K a year or the one that will pull in $250K a year?
The wonderful thing about using the numbers here is that it's a completely objective measure. Unlike "respect" which is harder to quantify.
Are you at all familiar with the accounting practices rampant in the recording and film industries?
They typically keep at least 3 sets of books - 1 for the royalty payments (which will invariably state that the actual content earned nothing so nobody with net royalties earns a dime), 1 for the tax collectors (which will invariably state that the company owes no taxes), and 1 for the stockholders (which will show the massive profits they're making). That the math has never added up hasn't stopped the very small number of big conglomerates so far.
They have no authority over private cables owned by private companies purchased by private homeowners.
Yes they do, because those same cables rely on poles and underground tunnels on public land, and in some cases were built with public subsidies, and are considered a public resource. The FCC also has authority over land-line phones for similar reasons.
Nor do they have the authority to censor content on the private cables.
They are proposing no such thing. Net neutrality takes away the power of private cable companies to censor content, but it does not give the government authority to do so.
Mr Devious: Well, Father Morrison, in your terms of use (finds dogeared piece of paper in a coat pocket) you'll see quite clearly that none of your outbound packets will ever reach their destination. Father Morrison: Oh dear. Devious: You see, you unfortunately plumped for our 'Noconnect' network service, which, you know, if you never connect is very worthwhile...but you had to connect, and, well, there it is. Morrison: Oh dear, oh dear. Devious: Look... Father... I hate to see a man cry, so shove off out the office, there's a good chap. Morrison: (leaning out the window) Help, help! Bishop: Ok Devious, don't move! Devious: The Bishop!
Did you seriously expect the current incarnation of the US Supreme Court to do anything other than uphold more government intrusion? The only interesting part of this case is that it was basically unanimous.
I've discovered a system that allows sunlight, groundwater, airborne CO2, and a few other elements to be converted into substances which can easily be used for heating fuel, building materials, and even in some cases food. It's really amazing, and costs relatively little to set up and even less to maintain. It's also aesthetically pleasing, so you get very little complaint from the NIMBY crowd. In fact, this system is so simple that you'll often find it in the front and back yards of ordinary single-family homes, apartment buildings, and office complexes.
Not that this idea isn't potentially nifty, of course.
The only professions where young hot talent is necessarily better than an experienced person are those where appearance is a significant part of the job (actor, model, sex worker, etc). For all others, the experienced folks are a better bet.
In software, I'll take the 55+ developers, you take the 25- developers, and we'll give them both a task to do on a platform neither of them have seen before. Which one do you expect to develop a great application with a low bug count and maintainable code first?
I think GP was referring to wealth, not consumption. And in that case, he's reasonable accurate to say that the poorest 40% of Americans have a net worth of no more than $0. The average household savings rate has been negative for much of the last 2 decades, so what would be more surprising is if these families weren't running out of money.
Thing is, when they really started adding new features in earnest during the Renaissance, some guys (like Martin Luther and Henry VIII) started getting so pissed off about that they forked the project. This led to a highly fragmented market and conflicts almost as bad as the Unix Wars.
Let's say you have a dozen people living in a house that needs some roof repairs that will cost $6000. You discuss it over and try to figure out how to come up with the money. Person A says "Let's make it fair, we'll all chip in $500". Person B says "For you $500 is not too much, but for me that's way too much. Let's try to do things proportional to what everybody can contribute - I'll chip in $200, but that means other folks will have to pay more than $500." (and for the sake of example, let's assume that B isn't lying about this). So they negotiate, bluster, etc, and eventually come up with $6000, and everyone who chipped in benefits from having a roof that works. Or maybe they don't come up with $6000, and the roof collapses.
Now just scale up the concept: Instead of a dozen people, we have 300 million people. Instead of $6000, we have a much much bigger pile of problems that need to be dealt with. And the negotiating positions and discussions aren't much different, except that it's done through politics rather than directly. And the consequences of screwing it up similarly increase scale.
I think you have stumbled on what the entire point of this service would be - denyability.
I think it's something entirely different - artificially increasing their profile count for marketing purposes. The reason for this is that dating sites are subject to networking effects - the value of having a profile on a dating site depends heavily on how many other people of the appropriate sex have profiles on the site. A new attempt at a dating site will generally fail unless they can find a way to overcome that problem.
In further support of your argument: People were able to get across the Berlin Wall successfully. A relatively short, heavily guarded wall, with guards who were under orders to shoot first and then ask questions, and generally did just that. And that was probably one of the most aggressive border-sealing attempts in modern history.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you verb in your subject.
It should also be pointed out that Al Jazeera did the same thing here, doing their best to validate that these were authentic. While they've been demonized in the US mainstream press (largely for not parroting the US view of the Israel-Palestine Conflict), they're the equivalent of CNN or the BBC in the Middle East. Is it 100% credibility? Heck no. But it's a good 95+% credible.
Al Jazeera
New York Times
Any question on why Americans and Arabs have completely different perceptions of the same conflict?
People tend to gravitate towards professions that pay better. For instance, your typical Wall St analyst has about the same level of education as an engineer. If somebody is looking at those two options (because they're good with numbers and analysis), and wants to make the big bucks, which one are they going to pick, the one that will pull in $120K a year or the one that will pull in $250K a year?
The wonderful thing about using the numbers here is that it's a completely objective measure. Unlike "respect" which is harder to quantify.
Are you at all familiar with the accounting practices rampant in the recording and film industries?
They typically keep at least 3 sets of books - 1 for the royalty payments (which will invariably state that the actual content earned nothing so nobody with net royalties earns a dime), 1 for the tax collectors (which will invariably state that the company owes no taxes), and 1 for the stockholders (which will show the massive profits they're making). That the math has never added up hasn't stopped the very small number of big conglomerates so far.
They have no authority over private cables owned by private companies purchased by private homeowners.
Yes they do, because those same cables rely on poles and underground tunnels on public land, and in some cases were built with public subsidies, and are considered a public resource. The FCC also has authority over land-line phones for similar reasons.
Nor do they have the authority to censor content on the private cables.
They are proposing no such thing. Net neutrality takes away the power of private cable companies to censor content, but it does not give the government authority to do so.
People called "Romanes" they go the house?
Well, it all got started like this:
Mr Devious: Well, Father Morrison, in your terms of use (finds dogeared piece of paper in a coat pocket) you'll see quite clearly that none of your outbound packets will ever reach their destination.
Father Morrison: Oh dear.
Devious: You see, you unfortunately plumped for our 'Noconnect' network service, which, you know, if you never connect is very worthwhile...but you had to connect, and, well, there it is.
Morrison: Oh dear, oh dear.
Devious: Look... Father... I hate to see a man cry, so shove off out the office, there's a good chap.
Morrison: (leaning out the window) Help, help!
Bishop: Ok Devious, don't move!
Devious: The Bishop!
Did you seriously expect the current incarnation of the US Supreme Court to do anything other than uphold more government intrusion? The only interesting part of this case is that it was basically unanimous.
Also, people are not wearing enough hats.
I've discovered a system that allows sunlight, groundwater, airborne CO2, and a few other elements to be converted into substances which can easily be used for heating fuel, building materials, and even in some cases food. It's really amazing, and costs relatively little to set up and even less to maintain. It's also aesthetically pleasing, so you get very little complaint from the NIMBY crowd. In fact, this system is so simple that you'll often find it in the front and back yards of ordinary single-family homes, apartment buildings, and office complexes.
Not that this idea isn't potentially nifty, of course.
If you don't give up your freedom, the terrorists might come and take away your freedoms!
At least, that's what they keep telling me here in the USA.
If you need young hot talent then pay for it
The only professions where young hot talent is necessarily better than an experienced person are those where appearance is a significant part of the job (actor, model, sex worker, etc). For all others, the experienced folks are a better bet.
In software, I'll take the 55+ developers, you take the 25- developers, and we'll give them both a task to do on a platform neither of them have seen before. Which one do you expect to develop a great application with a low bug count and maintainable code first?
Alternately, hire the Hypnotoad to do the negotiating part for you.
What's the difference between a whorehouse and the White House? Both are full of people happy to screw you and will do almost anything for money.
Wait, that's not quite true: The whores have standards.
You can take that metaphor further: Read Management and Machiavelli, by Antony Jay, to see just that.
I think GP was referring to wealth, not consumption. And in that case, he's reasonable accurate to say that the poorest 40% of Americans have a net worth of no more than $0. The average household savings rate has been negative for much of the last 2 decades, so what would be more surprising is if these families weren't running out of money.
Maybe some thought that the poll was referring to Beck, purveyor of vaguely folkish alterna-rock?
Thing is, when they really started adding new features in earnest during the Renaissance, some guys (like Martin Luther and Henry VIII) started getting so pissed off about that they forked the project. This led to a highly fragmented market and conflicts almost as bad as the Unix Wars.
Forget LSL, this was kinda done for Leather Goddesses of Phobos using scratch-n-sniff.
Here's the way I generally look at it:
Let's say you have a dozen people living in a house that needs some roof repairs that will cost $6000. You discuss it over and try to figure out how to come up with the money. Person A says "Let's make it fair, we'll all chip in $500". Person B says "For you $500 is not too much, but for me that's way too much. Let's try to do things proportional to what everybody can contribute - I'll chip in $200, but that means other folks will have to pay more than $500." (and for the sake of example, let's assume that B isn't lying about this). So they negotiate, bluster, etc, and eventually come up with $6000, and everyone who chipped in benefits from having a roof that works. Or maybe they don't come up with $6000, and the roof collapses.
Now just scale up the concept: Instead of a dozen people, we have 300 million people. Instead of $6000, we have a much much bigger pile of problems that need to be dealt with. And the negotiating positions and discussions aren't much different, except that it's done through politics rather than directly. And the consequences of screwing it up similarly increase scale.
It's no use, John Clay
Forget bicycles - a lot of the school shooters in the United States enjoyed bowling. We clearly need to ban bowling immediate!
I think you have stumbled on what the entire point of this service would be - denyability.
I think it's something entirely different - artificially increasing their profile count for marketing purposes. The reason for this is that dating sites are subject to networking effects - the value of having a profile on a dating site depends heavily on how many other people of the appropriate sex have profiles on the site. A new attempt at a dating site will generally fail unless they can find a way to overcome that problem.
In further support of your argument: People were able to get across the Berlin Wall successfully. A relatively short, heavily guarded wall, with guards who were under orders to shoot first and then ask questions, and generally did just that. And that was probably one of the most aggressive border-sealing attempts in modern history.