If insufficient numbers of people vote for a pay-cut, they _will_ be in the position of having to do layoffs,
Nowhere did I see that this was a binding vote. I'd say it's more of a straw poll for Volt to see if they can get away with this. For instance, where did they come up with 10%?
Hell, if enough people vote yes, why not increase the cut to 15%? From the other posters comments I'd guess Volt doesn't really care about their employees and will try to squeeze them as much as possible. The "vote" is merely a means to figure out how hard to squeeze.
I'm not sure how old you are, but if you have enough experience watching the world, then it shouldn't be too strange to see old ideas come back after seeming to be "killed off".
Old enough to know that people who bring back failed ideas are really just people that haven't learned. but selling "copies" doesn't make sense now that an unlimited number of digital copies can be made for free (or at least virtually "free").So what's the business model going to be?
Making the copies may be free, but finding the copies is work. People are always willing to pay something to avoid work. It's the reason the Kindle is as successful as it is. It's convenient. Tying it into a proprietary format, with a single provider might work short term, but it's a poor business model to link yourself to long term. If Amazon/Hearst are really worried about piracy they've seriously got the wrong idea about how their business works.
This is very good advice, and said better than I could have said it. All too often people think of PV systems and think it's a way to be off the grid. That's pretty silly and wasteful.
I don't know if it's true everywhere, but I've heard several times that a PV system will cause your electric meter to run backwards. So your electric bill at the end of the month is based on power consumed - power produced. As you point out that creates a strong incentive to match your PV system with your consumption.
Some power companies are forced by law to buy the power back from you, but the rates are low compared to what you buy the same power for. (Actually it'd be very cool if you could sell the power to ANYONE at a market rate rather than the crappy rate the electric company will buy it for).
Does anyone else think this idea of trying to re-create the subscription based model of AOL, Compuserve, Prodigy, etc that the Internet successfully killed off 10 years ago is a bit strange?
The proposition is "we've come up with this great new wizz-bang technology to deliver "e-book/e-newspaper" to your living room. But then you lock it down into a single device->provider->Customer model. The entry costs are relatively high, so a few early adopters buy the thing. Most people don't because they're very cautious (rightly so) about the new wizz-bang technology.
I guess my quandry is, how can the device->provider->customer model compete with the open model of the internet? What happens when someone comes up with the equivalent wizz-bang device that uses your existing wireless internet connection, and can buy from anyone directly instead of a single provider, is an open platform, and winds up being cheaper?
I'm not seeing any difference between "digital rights management" and the MicroProse C=64 disks I used to buy which used digital errors to block copying.
Heh. And we all know how well _that_ worked to keep people from copying the games. Ever call up a C64 BBS in the 1980s? Today all these old titles are preserved and still playable on emulators because of the people who cracked the games 20 years ago.
I think it will give authors and publishers an opportunity to experiment to determine if T2S has any value to consumers.
Bah. I think it's just an easy way out for Amazon to avoid a potential court battle with the crazed Authors Guild. It's hard for me to believe Amazon wouldn't win, but it's also not really worth it. You'll notice that the publishers weren't making a big stink about this. For example, if the tech allows it, you could offer two tier pricing - with T2S costing a little more.
The voice apparently sounds like Stephen Hawking, so I'd say the added value to each individual book is as close to zero as possible. Nobody is going to pay more for a robotic reading of a book.
So I'm to understand that application programming has only occurred in the last 10 years? That's strange, as I distinctly remember using programs that don't necessarily communicate with each other via stdin/stdout more than 10 years ago.
Anyway, there's plenty of room for multi-language programming. One example of this is SOAP. Another example is CORBA.
This is obviously more complicated than simple standard IO programming with grep/awk/sed and the like, but how many programs outside of some simple shell scripts really use that?
If it really does displace the printing press (a very big if) I'd say it's much closer to a negative externality. e.g. Who pays for the effects on the workers displaced by this technology?
There's no way for your home provider to have a real time accounting of the calls that you make while roaming.
The technology is irrelevant. What you're talking about is a billing system between two differing parties. The important part is the business agreement between the two providers, and between the provider and the consumer.
Not having a real-time accounting and information exchange between the two providers doesn't preclude having set per-subscriber caps between them. (Or some other arrangement).
In other words, the existing technology and tracking systems exists because the providers believe they can simply pass the cost on to the subscriber, then try to extract as much money as possible later. It really has zero to do with technology, and everything to do with how the providers run their business.
The wireless provider obviously needs to do something about how much credit they issue people. Nobody is going to pay a $28,000 bill for cell phone usage.
There's a certain segment of people around here that like to play up "personal responsibility". What they often fail to address is the responsibility works both ways. Letting someone rack up a bill on the order of 1000x normal is utterly irresponsible of the provider.
I've been using Linux since the mid 90s, so a little longer. I've definitely seen problems with the RPM repository suddenly needing to be "rebuilt" on very old versions of Redhat, maybe circa 1999. I haven't really run across a problem involving the package management for maybe 7 years though.
www.tunes.org and many brainy researchers came to a respectable conclusion that the only true way to give users their usability is to give them the interface to program their computer themselves to suit their access and interaction habits,
I had this same thought when I heard about the latest sucky interface for MS Office. (They moved everything around, and everyone I've heard from, including myself, hates it). Why not make a skinnable interface, one of which is the old interface? Then let a community re-arrange the UI however they see fit, exchanging templates OSS style.
The real problem is the browser makers do not care about security. They only care about the appearance of security.
I largely agree. If I had a "secure" browser to use, I'd use it to do all my banking with. Online purchases I don't so much care about as the CC company is really the one taking all the risks.
I turn my computer off when I go home in the evening, too. What's so amusing about that?
Because it explains why Microsoft thinks that "Just Reboot!" is an acceptable solution to so many problems. Bill will likely never send out any "I had to reboot my computer for some dumb update, or to fix the computer" emails. My perspective is really one that I shouldn't have to reboot the machine, ever if possible. Going into a low power state to preserve the memory is just fine with me (which my home PC does well).
(BTW, I've been in a lot of small businesses, and some large institutions over the past decade. Most people DO NOT turn off their computer every night), so you can hopefully see the disconnect here with how people actually use Windows and how Microsoft sees people using it.
Look for the https:/// in the address bar and DON'T LOOK THERE (favicon.ico area) FOR THE PADLOCK
So great.. you teach everyone to LOOK FOR THE HTTPS, and that means you're safe!
Then, the attackers simply use a variant of the (similar URL method), and are sure to include SSL, so the URL is (for example) https://www.mybank.com.com.cn/ (or whatever fools the user).
Even if you could somehow re-train millions of people successfully to understand one particular attack mode, another one will always be right around the corner.
I'm not sure there is a really good solution to this problem. The obvious solution is a more secure browser. That's better, but the downside is of course the continuous update treadmill.
From the perspective of developers once it builds and there aren't any showstopper bugs, everything is fine.
Usability is likely one of the hardest things to get right because it forces (anyone really) to look outside of their own perspective. I don't see this as a disease of just software developers, but everyone. Different users want different things out of the software, and sometimes those ends are at cross purposes. I won't defend developers as a whole class here, because I've seen some (and worse) of what you're describing. I will point out that it's a grand generalization though.
The problems Bill describes seem pretty inexcusable. It seems more a systemic problem than a particular one. The point of Bill's email is that he tries new products and tries to make these 'dumb user' type critiques of it.
Heh. Dumb is an odd description for it. We've all experienced these same frustrations with using Microsoft software. Go to the horrible MS website, spend a lot of time looking for the DL, hopefully find it, wait wait wait while it DLs, machine locks up to being un-usable, finally install it.. but wait.. reboot! (assuming you survive the reboot).. now hope it works. No? Go to step 1.
If I had to identify the single biggest underlying problem here.. it'd be that the user doesn't have a single place to go to install new software that just handles it all for you (and doesn't make you reboot) like say..... a package manager under Linux;).
Bill's the guy that's responsible for creating this monster. Obviously he didn't do it all by himself, but he's ultimately the captain of the ship. He clearly saw the direction the ship was going and he couldn't turn it in time.
I actually don't really hate Bill (though I understand why some do). Even though I saw this email about a year ago I'm still greatly amused by it. It shows that even Bill Gates can't control the monster he's created. It's very interesting and amusing that Bill Gates, largest owner of Microsoft and (then) the person with the greatest control over it, reboots his computer nightly. That explains so much.
i've learned that if someone says "surely it doesn't have to be as complicated as all that", it's time to run like stink as fast as possible, out of the conversation and the room, and never look back.
So you've never encountered a situation where someone added complexity because they couldn't see a simpler way to do something? I sure have. Dismissing the idea that something is too complicated and could be made far simpler out of hand simply seems wrong to me. why is it so hard to then imagine that, given that the "browser" is doing everything that you can also do with desktop widget UI toolkits, why is it so hard to appreciate that you need the full range of OS technology to support that desktop
I could see a case for it. I could also see a case for doing it WITHOUT modifying the full range of OS technology. Why is it so hard to see that a secure browser could be done using existing operating systems?
I think you've kind of gone beyond the point the GP was trying to make (but seems to have failed because he couldn't multiply).
The point was that space launch costs are HIGH, and even if were available for the taking, it wouldn't be worth it.
Use gold, platinum, diamonds, whatever. If you start talking about the actual economics involved and how you'd never make money at it because you've started changing the market price.. you've kind of gone beyond the scope of the original exercise.
"People should be free to live their lives and take responsibility for their lives" become the "idiotic" party that screams "government control is bad bad bad"?
Because the libertarian party doesn't really just say that. They advocate for "small government", but never really address how they'll control greedy or foolish people that won't "take responsibility for their lives". I hear people like Ron Paul and how he wants to eliminate nearly every government regulatory agency. This is the leader a lot of libertarians identify with. It's pure ideology, with a naive belief that people will act like you hope, or wish they will act. There is nothing inherently wrong with the notion that people should be free to live their lives, and that people should be encouraged to take responsibility for their lives, and I tend to think that if you ask any American if they agree, they would say "yes".
If you make a question that open ended with SO much room for interpretation, sure, who wouldn't agree? But what if you start adding qualifiers like "Should people be free to pump toxic waste into the air and water as part of being "free to live their lives", I'd say the vast majority of people would say NO! So tell me this. Why do libertarians (if I can make a generalization) think everyone lives on their own private island, where their actions don't affect everyone else? But I still don't understand why the one party who claims to stand for that very thing is dismissed as a bunch of crackpots and lunatics who want everyone to be killed by unsafe food.
You seem to misunderstand. I'm sure the libertarians don't want people to be killed by unsafe food. They're dismissed as crackpots because the things they advocate have LEAD to unsafe food. If you really can't make the connection between lack of regulation, and poison in our food, then I can't really help you.
why is the Libertarian party so marginalized in America?
Maybe because they hold a lot of beliefs that mainstream americans don't identify with? Like say privatizing nearly everything, including roads, the fire department, the police department, etc? I've just never understood why "Libertarian" has become such a joke of a thing to be, when it essentially encompasses everything that Americans are "supposed" to cherish.
I don't know about you.. but I don't cherish salmonella in my peanut butter, Melamine in my milk, lead in my kids toys, arsenic in my shrimp, or salmonella in my peppers. Blind faith in the "free market" and "small goverment" is one thing Libertarians have been screaming their heads off for years. So far that seems to have gotten us poison in our food supply, the mortgage crisis, and blackouts in California.
Don't get me wrong.. This bill is idiotic and won't accomplish anything but pain. But simply going to the other extreme and saying "government control is bad bad bad!" is just as idiotic. How about we agree that "bad government control is bad", and then just fight about what "bad" is rather than treating control or no control as absolutes?
Part time job as an accountant. Volunteer work with Deaf people the rest of the time. Live in a one bedroom apartment with my wife. Nope, not important.
A hacking program designed to find exploits in your computer, at your ISP, or any of the internet infra-structure between you and doesn't really care how "important" you are. It only cares about the logic with which it was written.
Your internet connection is only the most easy thing to steal. If an automated program (you can call it a "virus" or "worm" if you really want) can get somewhere within the infrastruture, anytime you use a credit card, the CC# could be stolen. Do you ever bank online?
Importance only matters when an attacker has to pick and choose his targets do to a limit on his own attention. When the computer does the attack for him, "important" is irrelevant, and "ability to exploit" and return is a much bigger factor.
I think perhaps we are constantly entangled, but that our "consciousness"
Just because it's unusual to us doesn't mean it's mystical or magical. For your idea to actually be science and not philosophy you'd need a much better grasp of what you're actually saying. Saying something like "we're all constantly entangled" doesn't really mean a lot, since entanglement doesn't occur on a macro-scale.
People have tried to tie together mysticism, quantum mechanics, and consciousness before. At best it's an interesting exercise in thinking. At worst it's nonsense gibberish. To my knowledge it's never really produced anything approaching science.
I think he's saying he's probably smarter then the average program.
An attitude that can get you in a lot of trouble. Richard Feynman once said "I'm smart enough to know that I'm dumb." In other words, don't think you're so smart you can't be fooled. What you present is a low-hanging fruit argument.
There's some of that to be sure. But anyone can get hacked, even by an automated program. Do _YOU_ check the security link every time you login to your bank website? The biggest problem with ALL of this damn security is it partially relies on the user to be aware of the implications of everything. Reading through the various attack vectors, I'm not even certain _I_ could be 100% sure I'm not getting hacked in some way, and I'm a software developer with experience in web development, and an interest in security.
Slashdot Mirror
If insufficient numbers of people vote for a pay-cut, they _will_ be in the position of having to do layoffs,
Nowhere did I see that this was a binding vote. I'd say it's more of a straw poll for Volt to see if they can get away with this. For instance, where did they come up with 10%?
Hell, if enough people vote yes, why not increase the cut to 15%? From the other posters comments I'd guess Volt doesn't really care about their employees and will try to squeeze them as much as possible. The "vote" is merely a means to figure out how hard to squeeze.
I'm not sure how old you are, but if you have enough experience watching the world, then it shouldn't be too strange to see old ideas come back after seeming to be "killed off".
Old enough to know that people who bring back failed ideas are really just people that haven't learned.
but selling "copies" doesn't make sense now that an unlimited number of digital copies can be made for free (or at least virtually "free").So what's the business model going to be?
Making the copies may be free, but finding the copies is work. People are always willing to pay something to avoid work. It's the reason the Kindle is as successful as it is. It's convenient. Tying it into a proprietary format, with a single provider might work short term, but it's a poor business model to link yourself to long term. If Amazon/Hearst are really worried about piracy they've seriously got the wrong idea about how their business works.
This is very good advice, and said better than I could have said it. All too often people think of PV systems and think it's a way to be off the grid. That's pretty silly and wasteful.
I don't know if it's true everywhere, but I've heard several times that a PV system will cause your electric meter to run backwards. So your electric bill at the end of the month is based on power consumed - power produced. As you point out that creates a strong incentive to match your PV system with your consumption.
Some power companies are forced by law to buy the power back from you, but the rates are low compared to what you buy the same power for. (Actually it'd be very cool if you could sell the power to ANYONE at a market rate rather than the crappy rate the electric company will buy it for).
Does anyone else think this idea of trying to re-create the subscription based model of AOL, Compuserve, Prodigy, etc that the Internet successfully killed off 10 years ago is a bit strange?
The proposition is "we've come up with this great new wizz-bang technology to deliver "e-book/e-newspaper" to your living room. But then you lock it down into a single device->provider->Customer model. The entry costs are relatively high, so a few early adopters buy the thing. Most people don't because they're very cautious (rightly so) about the new wizz-bang technology.
I guess my quandry is, how can the device->provider->customer model compete with the open model of the internet? What happens when someone comes up with the equivalent wizz-bang device that uses your existing wireless internet connection, and can buy from anyone directly instead of a single provider, is an open platform, and winds up being cheaper?
I'm not seeing any difference between "digital rights management" and the MicroProse C=64 disks I used to buy which used digital errors to block copying.
Heh. And we all know how well _that_ worked to keep people from copying the games. Ever call up a C64 BBS in the 1980s? Today all these old titles are preserved and still playable on emulators because of the people who cracked the games 20 years ago.
I think it will give authors and publishers an opportunity to experiment to determine if T2S has any value to consumers.
Bah. I think it's just an easy way out for Amazon to avoid a potential court battle with the crazed Authors Guild. It's hard for me to believe Amazon wouldn't win, but it's also not really worth it. You'll notice that the publishers weren't making a big stink about this.
For example, if the tech allows it, you could offer two tier pricing - with T2S costing a little more.
The voice apparently sounds like Stephen Hawking, so I'd say the added value to each individual book is as close to zero as possible. Nobody is going to pay more for a robotic reading of a book.
So I'm to understand that application programming has only occurred in the last 10 years? That's strange, as I distinctly remember using programs that don't necessarily communicate with each other via stdin/stdout more than 10 years ago.
Anyway, there's plenty of room for multi-language programming. One example of this is SOAP. Another example is CORBA.
This is obviously more complicated than simple standard IO programming with grep/awk/sed and the like, but how many programs outside of some simple shell scripts really use that?
If it really does displace the printing press (a very big if) I'd say it's much closer to a negative externality. e.g. Who pays for the effects on the workers displaced by this technology?
Why is it the responsibility of the provider to monitor how much you use your cell phone?
Presumably most cell phone providers like to be paid.
There's no way for your home provider to have a real time accounting of the calls that you make while roaming.
The technology is irrelevant. What you're talking about is a billing system between two differing parties. The important part is the business agreement between the two providers, and between the provider and the consumer.
Not having a real-time accounting and information exchange between the two providers doesn't preclude having set per-subscriber caps between them. (Or some other arrangement).
In other words, the existing technology and tracking systems exists because the providers believe they can simply pass the cost on to the subscriber, then try to extract as much money as possible later. It really has zero to do with technology, and everything to do with how the providers run their business.
The wireless provider obviously needs to do something about how much credit they issue people. Nobody is going to pay a $28,000 bill for cell phone usage.
There's a certain segment of people around here that like to play up "personal responsibility". What they often fail to address is the responsibility works both ways. Letting someone rack up a bill on the order of 1000x normal is utterly irresponsible of the provider.
I've been using Linux since the mid 90s, so a little longer. I've definitely seen problems with the RPM repository suddenly needing to be "rebuilt" on very old versions of Redhat, maybe circa 1999. I haven't really run across a problem involving the package management for maybe 7 years though.
www.tunes.org and many brainy researchers came to a respectable conclusion that the only true way to give users their usability is to give them the interface to program their computer themselves to suit their access and interaction habits,
I had this same thought when I heard about the latest sucky interface for MS Office. (They moved everything around, and everyone I've heard from, including myself, hates it). Why not make a skinnable interface, one of which is the old interface? Then let a community re-arrange the UI however they see fit, exchanging templates OSS style.
The real problem is the browser makers do not care about security. They only care about the appearance of security.
I largely agree. If I had a "secure" browser to use, I'd use it to do all my banking with. Online purchases I don't so much care about as the CC company is really the one taking all the risks.
I turn my computer off when I go home in the evening, too. What's so amusing about that?
Because it explains why Microsoft thinks that "Just Reboot!" is an acceptable solution to so many problems. Bill will likely never send out any "I had to reboot my computer for some dumb update, or to fix the computer" emails. My perspective is really one that I shouldn't have to reboot the machine, ever if possible. Going into a low power state to preserve the memory is just fine with me (which my home PC does well).
(BTW, I've been in a lot of small businesses, and some large institutions over the past decade. Most people DO NOT turn off their computer every night), so you can hopefully see the disconnect here with how people actually use Windows and how Microsoft sees people using it.
Look for the https:/// in the address bar and DON'T LOOK THERE (favicon.ico area) FOR THE PADLOCK
So great.. you teach everyone to LOOK FOR THE HTTPS, and that means you're safe!
Then, the attackers simply use a variant of the (similar URL method), and are sure to include SSL, so the URL is (for example) https://www.mybank.com.com.cn/ (or whatever fools the user).
Even if you could somehow re-train millions of people successfully to understand one particular attack mode, another one will always be right around the corner.
I'm not sure there is a really good solution to this problem. The obvious solution is a more secure browser. That's better, but the downside is of course the continuous update treadmill.
From the perspective of developers once it builds and there aren't any showstopper bugs, everything is fine.
Usability is likely one of the hardest things to get right because it forces (anyone really) to look outside of their own perspective. I don't see this as a disease of just software developers, but everyone. Different users want different things out of the software, and sometimes those ends are at cross purposes. I won't defend developers as a whole class here, because I've seen some (and worse) of what you're describing. I will point out that it's a grand generalization though.
The problems Bill describes seem pretty inexcusable. It seems more a systemic problem than a particular one.
The point of Bill's email is that he tries new products and tries to make these 'dumb user' type critiques of it.
Heh. Dumb is an odd description for it. We've all experienced these same frustrations with using Microsoft software. Go to the horrible MS website, spend a lot of time looking for the DL, hopefully find it, wait wait wait while it DLs, machine locks up to being un-usable, finally install it.. but wait.. reboot! (assuming you survive the reboot).. now hope it works. No? Go to step 1.
If I had to identify the single biggest underlying problem here.. it'd be that the user doesn't have a single place to go to install new software that just handles it all for you (and doesn't make you reboot) like say..... a package manager under Linux ;).
I don't understand all the hate for Bill.
Bill's the guy that's responsible for creating this monster. Obviously he didn't do it all by himself, but he's ultimately the captain of the ship.
He clearly saw the direction the ship was going and he couldn't turn it in time.
I actually don't really hate Bill (though I understand why some do). Even though I saw this email about a year ago I'm still greatly amused by it. It shows that even Bill Gates can't control the monster he's created. It's very interesting and amusing that Bill Gates, largest owner of Microsoft and (then) the person with the greatest control over it, reboots his computer nightly. That explains so much.
i've learned that if someone says "surely it doesn't have to be as complicated as all that", it's time to run like stink as fast as possible, out of the conversation and the room, and never look back.
So you've never encountered a situation where someone added complexity because they couldn't see a simpler way to do something? I sure have. Dismissing the idea that something is too complicated and could be made far simpler out of hand simply seems wrong to me.
why is it so hard to then imagine that, given that the "browser" is doing everything that you can also do with desktop widget UI toolkits, why is it so hard to appreciate that you need the full range of OS technology to support that desktop
I could see a case for it. I could also see a case for doing it WITHOUT modifying the full range of OS technology. Why is it so hard to see that a secure browser could be done using existing operating systems?
I think you've kind of gone beyond the point the GP was trying to make (but seems to have failed because he couldn't multiply).
The point was that space launch costs are HIGH, and even if were available for the taking, it wouldn't be worth it.
Use gold, platinum, diamonds, whatever. If you start talking about the actual economics involved and how you'd never make money at it because you've started changing the market price.. you've kind of gone beyond the scope of the original exercise.
"People should be free to live their lives and take responsibility for their lives" become the "idiotic" party that screams "government control is bad bad bad"?
Because the libertarian party doesn't really just say that. They advocate for "small government", but never really address how they'll control greedy or foolish people that won't "take responsibility for their lives". I hear people like Ron Paul and how he wants to eliminate nearly every government regulatory agency. This is the leader a lot of libertarians identify with. It's pure ideology, with a naive belief that people will act like you hope, or wish they will act.
There is nothing inherently wrong with the notion that people should be free to live their lives, and that people should be encouraged to take responsibility for their lives, and I tend to think that if you ask any American if they agree, they would say "yes".
If you make a question that open ended with SO much room for interpretation, sure, who wouldn't agree? But what if you start adding qualifiers like "Should people be free to pump toxic waste into the air and water as part of being "free to live their lives", I'd say the vast majority of people would say NO! So tell me this. Why do libertarians (if I can make a generalization) think everyone lives on their own private island, where their actions don't affect everyone else?
But I still don't understand why the one party who claims to stand for that very thing is dismissed as a bunch of crackpots and lunatics who want everyone to be killed by unsafe food.
You seem to misunderstand. I'm sure the libertarians don't want people to be killed by unsafe food. They're dismissed as crackpots because the things they advocate have LEAD to unsafe food. If you really can't make the connection between lack of regulation, and poison in our food, then I can't really help you.
why is the Libertarian party so marginalized in America?
Maybe because they hold a lot of beliefs that mainstream americans don't identify with? Like say privatizing nearly everything, including roads, the fire department, the police department, etc?
I've just never understood why "Libertarian" has become such a joke of a thing to be, when it essentially encompasses everything that Americans are "supposed" to cherish.
I don't know about you.. but I don't cherish salmonella in my peanut butter, Melamine in my milk, lead in my kids toys, arsenic in my shrimp, or salmonella in my peppers. Blind faith in the "free market" and "small goverment" is one thing Libertarians have been screaming their heads off for years. So far that seems to have gotten us poison in our food supply, the mortgage crisis, and blackouts in California.
Don't get me wrong.. This bill is idiotic and won't accomplish anything but pain. But simply going to the other extreme and saying "government control is bad bad bad!" is just as idiotic. How about we agree that "bad government control is bad", and then just fight about what "bad" is rather than treating control or no control as absolutes?
Part time job as an accountant. Volunteer work with Deaf people the rest of the time. Live in a one bedroom apartment with my wife. Nope, not important.
A hacking program designed to find exploits in your computer, at your ISP, or any of the internet infra-structure between you and doesn't really care how "important" you are. It only cares about the logic with which it was written.
Your internet connection is only the most easy thing to steal. If an automated program (you can call it a "virus" or "worm" if you really want) can get somewhere within the infrastruture, anytime you use a credit card, the CC# could be stolen. Do you ever bank online?
Importance only matters when an attacker has to pick and choose his targets do to a limit on his own attention. When the computer does the attack for him, "important" is irrelevant, and "ability to exploit" and return is a much bigger factor.
I think perhaps we are constantly entangled, but that our "consciousness"
Just because it's unusual to us doesn't mean it's mystical or magical. For your idea to actually be science and not philosophy you'd need a much better grasp of what you're actually saying. Saying something like "we're all constantly entangled" doesn't really mean a lot, since entanglement doesn't occur on a macro-scale.
People have tried to tie together mysticism, quantum mechanics, and consciousness before. At best it's an interesting exercise in thinking. At worst it's nonsense gibberish. To my knowledge it's never really produced anything approaching science.
I think he's saying he's probably smarter then the average program.
An attitude that can get you in a lot of trouble. Richard Feynman once said "I'm smart enough to know that I'm dumb." In other words, don't think you're so smart you can't be fooled.
What you present is a low-hanging fruit argument.
There's some of that to be sure. But anyone can get hacked, even by an automated program. Do _YOU_ check the security link every time you login to your bank website? The biggest problem with ALL of this damn security is it partially relies on the user to be aware of the implications of everything. Reading through the various attack vectors, I'm not even certain _I_ could be 100% sure I'm not getting hacked in some way, and I'm a software developer with experience in web development, and an interest in security.