That campaign really had a lot of success. The only people who buy AMD are geeks who only do it when it gives a good price performance ratio.
I just can't let that one go. The only people who buy AMD are geeks who are aware of computers beyond Dell-made ones. A number of OEM manufacturers have an exclusive agreement with Intel. That's the part that let Intel win, not marketing.
Yes, I have no doubt that some organic farmers are being caught up unfairly in the dragnet.
Hm... where have I heard this before? Oh, yes, MegaUpload was a scummy company that dealt in copyrighted material. So they should be taken down and scattered to the wind (before a trial happens is even better!). And who cares about some stupid legitimate customers that got "caught in the dragnet"? There is probably a car analogy somewhere in here, too.
Coming back to the original topic -- my understanding is that Monsanto was under no obligation to prove that farmers have purposely bought and bred their products. Apparently the presence of patented seeds (that could happen naturally) was enough to win. No one is arguing they should not be able to have right to their product. But they should at least be required to prove intent on the farmers' part.
Pictures don't need to be so shapely to determine if they're carrying something deadly.
What problem are you _you_ trying to solve here? I am also still waiting for the health study to show whether the machines are safe (I don't know if they are unsafe, but I see no reason to assume it). Also, I am still waiting for the studies that show how effective those machines are for, you know, catching terrorists. Germany decided that false-negative rates are too ridiculously high, maybe US can come to the same conclusion. The whole gender-biased screening selection is at most my 3rd concern in this list.
I claim that removing these machines and going back to metal detectors would solve all problems with those machines.
Folks, you can ask not to go through the scanners. Just say "OPT OUT". You get the pat down, of course, but from my experience, it seems to bother them more than it bothers me. And it sends a message.
I always take that option. Last time I flew it took at least 5-7 minutes to find an agent for pat down. All the meanwhile my brand new, expensive laptop was sitting on the other end of the x-ray line, out of the bag and out of my eyesight. I'll keep opting out, but they are not making it easy.
Remove the people in the "back room", and have the back of the person doing the scanning visible to the people waiting in line to be scanned...AND have the display from the scan visible to those waiting.
Remove the damn scanners instead! They are not solving any problems (has even one person been apprehended as a result of this?). Germany had concluded that the number of false negatives is too high for these machines to be of any use. The health studies are still lacking (probably safe, maybe not. some were _definitely_ unsafe and are currently being phased out). And the contractors already got their 250K/pop for most airports. So can we just scrap them now and go back to metal detectors??
I think everyone agrees that one type of the machines that are now being phased out was not safe. Why isn't that fact alone enough to end the program and jail everyone responsible for not doing extensive health studies before forcing hundred of thousands of people through unsafe machines? How is "replace it with new, certainly more safe, but still not evaluated machine" an appropriate response?
A number of his policies are beyond impractical, venturing into batshit crazy.
Name five.
It is not really that hard. I would say
total elimination of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and Internal Revenue Service and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
Repeal the Dodd-Frank and Sarbanes-Oxley financial services and banking regulations
Slash congressional pay (if anything, maybe they should raise the salaries to make it a little harder to buy congressmen)
In his 1987 book, Freedom Under Siege, Ron Paul expressed the view that those who experience sexual harassment in the work force should remedy the situation by quitting their jobs.
Paul sought in the 1980s and 1990s to eventually abolish all public schools. As of 2008 he is may be gravitating towards a more moderate stance
And this is just from the first 3rd of the Wikipedia article on his political positions. Now, he does have some very good ideas and I admire him for that. But I think some of his other convictions cannot be implemented without significant damage to society as we know it.
seeing how Democrats forgotten that they are supposed to be (relatively, compared to Republicans, which does not say much) anti-war.
How do you figure?
Ok, you got me there. Maybe this was just a theory since Obama strongly campaigned on ending the Iraq war. He forgot to mention his plans to start at least 4 more wars...
Safety nets are fine, just not when people use them as hammocks.
You have been brainwashed (or are trying to brainwash people here). I think this is about the least of our worries at the moment. Despite all the Republican rhetoric, I am yet to see people luxuriously living on safety nets. Unemployment benefits are not that much money, it's not something you want to rely on long term. And no one is arguing to increase the unemployment benefit, just to extend them. I believe you are required to demonstrate that you are _looking_ for work to get those benefits, no?
BUT a great leader like Regan, or Clinton just stared down other politicians. Obama makes bold statments and then backs off in a major way.
What makes you think that Obama is honest about those bold statements? If a politician makes a bold statement about (a popular) IssueA and then allows IssueA to fail without a fight, there are actually three possible conclusions.
1. The politician wanted the issue to pass.
2. The politician didn't care about issue either way.
3. The politician wanted the issue to fail, but thought they'd be more popular claiming to be for it.
You immediately jump to conclusion #1. Based on the number of compromises that have happened in the recent years, I wonder if #2 and #3 are not more appropriate here. There had been on-the-record incidents (such as warrant-less surveillance) where Obama campaigned on "never supporting it", but went with it anyway.
Rick Santorum has chosen, for whatever reason, to make gay marriage a centerpiece of his campaign.
Interesting perspective. From what I can tell all of the Republicans do this (with Ron Paul excepted). What Rick Santorum has chosen to do is push towards the puritan law. I mean he strongly advocates that married couples should not be using any contraceptives. Few politicians go that far. That allows him to stand out among other anti-gay-marriage Republicans.
How many troll points do I get for pointing out that despite that, Ron Paul is still fourth behind Romney, Santorum and Gingrich?
There is two reasons for that
First, Ron Paul is a nutjob too, and some of his policies clearly incorporate the fact that he has no chance of winning. A number of his policies are beyond impractical, venturing into batshit crazy. He wouldn't be able to implement them even if he were president.
Second, Ron Paul espouses some good ideas that used to belong in Democratic party and are thus anathema to Republicans (stop military action in 5-10 countries, stop PATRIOT act, etc). Maybe he'd have a better chance running as Democrat seeing how Democrats forgotten that they are supposed to be (relatively, compared to Republicans, which does not say much) anti-war.
Why do you always assume somebody that refuses to be on Facebook has no friends? It's a curious bit of fallacious logic that I encounter quite often.
Well, I hear that Facebook creates ghost profiles out of posts made by members. Therefore you are only not on Facebook if you have no friends signed up on Facebook (otherwise you just don't know that you basically have an account).
Also, what can I assume about a person who's reaction is not "Facebook violates privacy, we should force them to be more respectful of their users's information" but rather, "Ha, ha, you signed up for Facebook, you deserve all the crap that may happen to you now". I mean the latter reaction screams of asshole-ness.
The number of 'o's is inversely proportional to the IQ of the target audience.
You laugh, but this is certainly part of the consideration. If you are looking for popularity, you want the lowest-denominator popularity, not just something with unique or niche-targeted humor.
RIAA becoming greedy? That's what these brokers/ facilitators do. It's a service industry that's quickly becoming obsolete.
Hardly obsolete - perhaps less relevant. RIAA has many, many faults, but internet has not magically removed the need for middle-man and promotion.
Just because you can distribute your music world-wide does not replace the need to market yourself and achieve the initial recognition. That is still expensive to do, perhaps more so nowdays. All of the self-published successes tend to come from bands that were first made famous by the very same RIAA. Just saying...
No one is stopping people from making a personal choice about the software they use. No one is forcing people to use MS Office.
Maybe on your planet. On my planet, everyone assumes and uses MS Office files. My battle is down to trying to get people to use 2007 (doc/xls/etc) files, because not all of my computers have new MS Office installed. And even that battle is being lost. I could swear that new PowerPoint purposely makes "compatible" saves bloated and damages things (formulas/animations) in conversion.
I dare you to start responding "I've chosen to use open software" to every MS Office attachment you see in your inbox. See if you can last more than an hour before you are forced to use MS Word/Excel/Powerpoint.
That same statement is made, instead ending with "to support a local business" or "to buy an American-made product" or "to support a good cause". But in the end it's just words, words that most often are not backed up by action.
I think quite a few people would pay extra for good service/local product/etc. These things are just getting impossible to do. Hard to back things up with action when it isn't possible
I would gladly pay some extra for American-made products. Have you _tried_ to do that? My last two laptops (Fujitsu a few years ago and Sony recently) were made in Japan. Beyond that I don't remember seeing _any_ electronic product that was not made in Japan. There just aren't any.
And, to continue my point, neither of these laptops could be found in-store to even see it first hand. A few years ago I could not find a store that carried the Fujitsu one. Sony laptop that I bought could only be seen in a store that's almost an hour away, with no direct public transport route (that's from Chicago downtown, mind you). All the nearby electronics stores mostly carry the same 400-dollar cheap laptops. And I don't even know if any laptops are made in America (?)
perhaps we should consider to label corporate privacy intrusion with the term "voyeurism" or something similar.
This is the ONE case where privacy is not violated. Looking/using this data isn't buried in EULA/TOS. They are offering to buy info from you, with specific, clear opt-in. That is perhaps the one and only case where I see no problem.
Insurance companies have always profiled drivers and charged them as much as they can get away with in a competitive market. The only change here is they'll have better information for profiling the driver. Good news if you're a lower risk driver, and vice versa.
I like your optimism:) I was with you until the last sentence. There is no chance in hell that you would see lower rates, at least not in the long run. Unless you mean that they may not jack up your rates if you are a lower risk driver? None of those schemes ever benefit the customers - the lucky ones will pay the same rate as before, other's rate will go higher, given an excuse.
All privacy questions aside, are sat nav devices reliable enough for this purpose?
Nope. They are not.
They are reliable enough to pick up instances of you speeding, however. That's what they are likely to use. Won't be long before they work with local PDs to issue some speeding fines, as well. Everybody wins!
I'd put heavy cash down on the outcome being you're a fucking idiot.
Oh, yeah, that is frigging insightful. +4 already. 'Cause there is nothing more insightful than calling someone else an idiot.
Still, I am going to resist the temptation to take this route and instead say that I do not have enough data on GP's statement. It is unlikely but conceivable that speeding drivers are reasonably safe on average (or at least a lesser risk than may others, non-speeding, drivers). People who insist on driving at 60 miles/hour max in the left lane when everyone else goes 75+ are likely causing quite a few accidents.
Is there a EULA that comes with TomTom devices that allows monitoring me in perpetuity with no restrictions? If I promise to send some candy to good drivers, can I also have all the TomTom GPS data for their customers?
But no they only want to put the last 3 to 5 episodes off the current season.
It's a mystery where a content provider is simply not interested in supplying what the customer wants. Hulu introduced a paid package where you have access to full seasons of shows. However, they explicitly refused to make the experience ad-free. I would be quite interested to try out a fee-based subscription, but I will not pay money to be bombarded with ads. There are three ad breaks (beginning and 2 in the middle) per 22 minute episode!
And, need I point out, that downloaded shows that cost nothing have no ads. With Hulu I can't even seem to get rid of the ads if I offer to pay!
From now on proper terrorists will put their weapons/bombs up their butts.
Don't give them ideas! If any clever contractor invents an automatic prostate examiner, they will be installed next in the airports!
It was never about protecting us. TSA has very little to show (so far passengers have been apprehending odd individuals with no external help) for the last decade. Since they don't seem to need to justify their existence or show a single major terrorist plot thwarted per at least 5-10 years, a workaround vs the machines appears to be irrelevant...
As I posted further up in the comments, this is due to requirements laid down by the US for all flights to the US or that go via US airspace
We sorta understand that this a combination of US and clever lobbying by the contractor firm
But what explains the non-opt-out nature of scans? I'd like to believe (as unlikely as that is) that the outrage was somewhat stemmed by the opt-out option here. Pat-downs are still annoying, but it is a better choice.
An unproven-safety machine that can store images despite all the lies claiming otherwise...
They're using millimetre wave body scanners, so no ionising radiation.
I don't see how much difference that makes.
So the point here is that they are using something that is much safer than some other scanners that most certainly do cause cancer? As in, only 1/10000 will get cancer instead of 1/1000 or 1/100? How consoling.
There is a high risk with no noticeable benefit to me. millimeter scanners have medium to low risk still without any benefit to me. So, I am not going to step into one of those machines. In US I have been opting out and thinking sad thoughts about people who just go through.
Slashdot Mirror
That campaign really had a lot of success. The only people who buy AMD are geeks who only do it when it gives a good price performance ratio.
I just can't let that one go. The only people who buy AMD are geeks who are aware of computers beyond Dell-made ones. A number of OEM manufacturers have an exclusive agreement with Intel. That's the part that let Intel win, not marketing.
Intel just succeeded HUGE.
Mixed in somewhere in that "HUGE" success were also exclusive OEM agreements (with Dell among others) that prevented AMD from properly competing.
Yes, I have no doubt that some organic farmers are being caught up unfairly in the dragnet.
Hm... where have I heard this before?
Oh, yes, MegaUpload was a scummy company that dealt in copyrighted material. So they should be taken down and scattered to the wind (before a trial happens is even better!). And who cares about some stupid legitimate customers that got "caught in the dragnet"? There is probably a car analogy somewhere in here, too.
Coming back to the original topic -- my understanding is that Monsanto was under no obligation to prove that farmers have purposely bought and bred their products. Apparently the presence of patented seeds (that could happen naturally) was enough to win. No one is arguing they should not be able to have right to their product. But they should at least be required to prove intent on the farmers' part.
Pictures don't need to be so shapely to determine if they're carrying something deadly.
What problem are you _you_ trying to solve here? I am also still waiting for the health study to show whether the machines are safe (I don't know if they are unsafe, but I see no reason to assume it). Also, I am still waiting for the studies that show how effective those machines are for, you know, catching terrorists. Germany decided that false-negative rates are too ridiculously high, maybe US can come to the same conclusion. The whole gender-biased screening selection is at most my 3rd concern in this list.
I claim that removing these machines and going back to metal detectors would solve all problems with those machines.
Folks, you can ask not to go through the scanners. Just say "OPT OUT". You get the pat down, of course, but from my experience, it seems to bother them more than it bothers me. And it sends a message.
I always take that option. Last time I flew it took at least 5-7 minutes to find an agent for pat down. All the meanwhile my brand new, expensive laptop was sitting on the other end of the x-ray line, out of the bag and out of my eyesight. I'll keep opting out, but they are not making it easy.
Remove the people in the "back room", and have the back of the person doing the scanning visible to the people waiting in line to be scanned...AND have the display from the scan visible to those waiting.
Remove the damn scanners instead! They are not solving any problems (has even one person been apprehended as a result of this?). Germany had concluded that the number of false negatives is too high for these machines to be of any use. The health studies are still lacking (probably safe, maybe not. some were _definitely_ unsafe and are currently being phased out). And the contractors already got their 250K/pop for most airports. So can we just scrap them now and go back to metal detectors??
I think everyone agrees that one type of the machines that are now being phased out was not safe. Why isn't that fact alone enough to end the program and jail everyone responsible for not doing extensive health studies before forcing hundred of thousands of people through unsafe machines? How is "replace it with new, certainly more safe, but still not evaluated machine" an appropriate response?
A number of his policies are beyond impractical, venturing into batshit crazy.
Name five.
It is not really that hard. I would say
And this is just from the first 3rd of the Wikipedia article on his political positions. Now, he does have some very good ideas and I admire him for that. But I think some of his other convictions cannot be implemented without significant damage to society as we know it.
seeing how Democrats forgotten that they are supposed to be (relatively, compared to Republicans, which does not say much) anti-war.
How do you figure?
Ok, you got me there. Maybe this was just a theory since Obama strongly campaigned on ending the Iraq war. He forgot to mention his plans to start at least 4 more wars...
Safety nets are fine, just not when people use them as hammocks.
You have been brainwashed (or are trying to brainwash people here). I think this is about the least of our worries at the moment. Despite all the Republican rhetoric, I am yet to see people luxuriously living on safety nets. Unemployment benefits are not that much money, it's not something you want to rely on long term. And no one is arguing to increase the unemployment benefit, just to extend them. I believe you are required to demonstrate that you are _looking_ for work to get those benefits, no?
BUT a great leader like Regan, or Clinton just stared down other politicians. Obama makes bold statments and then backs off in a major way.
What makes you think that Obama is honest about those bold statements? If a politician makes a bold statement about (a popular) IssueA and then allows IssueA to fail without a fight, there are actually three possible conclusions.
1. The politician wanted the issue to pass.
2. The politician didn't care about issue either way.
3. The politician wanted the issue to fail, but thought they'd be more popular claiming to be for it.
You immediately jump to conclusion #1. Based on the number of compromises that have happened in the recent years, I wonder if #2 and #3 are not more appropriate here. There had been on-the-record incidents (such as warrant-less surveillance) where Obama campaigned on "never supporting it", but went with it anyway.
Rick Santorum has chosen, for whatever reason, to make gay marriage a centerpiece of his campaign.
Interesting perspective. From what I can tell all of the Republicans do this (with Ron Paul excepted). What Rick Santorum has chosen to do is push towards the puritan law. I mean he strongly advocates that married couples should not be using any contraceptives. Few politicians go that far. That allows him to stand out among other anti-gay-marriage Republicans.
How many troll points do I get for pointing out that despite that, Ron Paul is still fourth behind Romney, Santorum and Gingrich?
There is two reasons for that
First, Ron Paul is a nutjob too, and some of his policies clearly incorporate the fact that he has no chance of winning. A number of his policies are beyond impractical, venturing into batshit crazy. He wouldn't be able to implement them even if he were president.
Second, Ron Paul espouses some good ideas that used to belong in Democratic party and are thus anathema to Republicans (stop military action in 5-10 countries, stop PATRIOT act, etc). Maybe he'd have a better chance running as Democrat seeing how Democrats forgotten that they are supposed to be (relatively, compared to Republicans, which does not say much) anti-war.
Why do you always assume somebody that refuses to be on Facebook has no friends? It's a curious bit of fallacious logic that I encounter quite often.
Well, I hear that Facebook creates ghost profiles out of posts made by members. Therefore you are only not on Facebook if you have no friends signed up on Facebook (otherwise you just don't know that you basically have an account).
Also, what can I assume about a person who's reaction is not "Facebook violates privacy, we should force them to be more respectful of their users's information" but rather, "Ha, ha, you signed up for Facebook, you deserve all the crap that may happen to you now". I mean the latter reaction screams of asshole-ness.
You laugh, but this is certainly part of the consideration. If you are looking for popularity, you want the lowest-denominator popularity, not just something with unique or niche-targeted humor.
Hardly obsolete - perhaps less relevant. RIAA has many, many faults, but internet has not magically removed the need for middle-man and promotion.
Just because you can distribute your music world-wide does not replace the need to market yourself and achieve the initial recognition. That is still expensive to do, perhaps more so nowdays. All of the self-published successes tend to come from bands that were first made famous by the very same RIAA. Just saying...
Maybe on your planet. On my planet, everyone assumes and uses MS Office files. My battle is down to trying to get people to use 2007 (doc/xls/etc) files, because not all of my computers have new MS Office installed. And even that battle is being lost. I could swear that new PowerPoint purposely makes "compatible" saves bloated and damages things (formulas/animations) in conversion.
I dare you to start responding "I've chosen to use open software" to every MS Office attachment you see in your inbox. See if you can last more than an hour before you are forced to use MS Word/Excel/Powerpoint.
I think quite a few people would pay extra for good service/local product/etc. These things are just getting impossible to do. Hard to back things up with action when it isn't possible
I would gladly pay some extra for American-made products. Have you _tried_ to do that? My last two laptops (Fujitsu a few years ago and Sony recently) were made in Japan. Beyond that I don't remember seeing _any_ electronic product that was not made in Japan. There just aren't any.
And, to continue my point, neither of these laptops could be found in-store to even see it first hand. A few years ago I could not find a store that carried the Fujitsu one. Sony laptop that I bought could only be seen in a store that's almost an hour away, with no direct public transport route (that's from Chicago downtown, mind you). All the nearby electronics stores mostly carry the same 400-dollar cheap laptops. And I don't even know if any laptops are made in America (?)
This is the ONE case where privacy is not violated. Looking/using this data isn't buried in EULA/TOS. They are offering to buy info from you, with specific, clear opt-in. That is perhaps the one and only case where I see no problem.
I like your optimism :) I was with you until the last sentence. There is no chance in hell that you would see lower rates, at least not in the long run. Unless you mean that they may not jack up your rates if you are a lower risk driver? None of those schemes ever benefit the customers - the lucky ones will pay the same rate as before, other's rate will go higher, given an excuse.
Nope. They are not.
They are reliable enough to pick up instances of you speeding, however. That's what they are likely to use. Won't be long before they work with local PDs to issue some speeding fines, as well. Everybody wins!
Oh, yeah, that is frigging insightful. +4 already. 'Cause there is nothing more insightful than calling someone else an idiot.
Still, I am going to resist the temptation to take this route and instead say that I do not have enough data on GP's statement. It is unlikely but conceivable that speeding drivers are reasonably safe on average (or at least a lesser risk than may others, non-speeding, drivers). People who insist on driving at 60 miles/hour max in the left lane when everyone else goes 75+ are likely causing quite a few accidents.
Is there a EULA that comes with TomTom devices that allows monitoring me in perpetuity with no restrictions? If I promise to send some candy to good drivers, can I also have all the TomTom GPS data for their customers?
It's a mystery where a content provider is simply not interested in supplying what the customer wants. Hulu introduced a paid package where you have access to full seasons of shows. However, they explicitly refused to make the experience ad-free. I would be quite interested to try out a fee-based subscription, but I will not pay money to be bombarded with ads. There are three ad breaks (beginning and 2 in the middle) per 22 minute episode!
And, need I point out, that downloaded shows that cost nothing have no ads. With Hulu I can't even seem to get rid of the ads if I offer to pay!
Don't give them ideas! If any clever contractor invents an automatic prostate examiner, they will be installed next in the airports!
It was never about protecting us. TSA has very little to show (so far passengers have been apprehending odd individuals with no external help) for the last decade. Since they don't seem to need to justify their existence or show a single major terrorist plot thwarted per at least 5-10 years, a workaround vs the machines appears to be irrelevant...
We sorta understand that this a combination of US and clever lobbying by the contractor firm
But what explains the non-opt-out nature of scans? I'd like to believe (as unlikely as that is) that the outrage was somewhat stemmed by the opt-out option here. Pat-downs are still annoying, but it is a better choice.
An unproven-safety machine that can store images despite all the lies claiming otherwise...
I don't see how much difference that makes. So the point here is that they are using something that is much safer than some other scanners that most certainly do cause cancer? As in, only 1/10000 will get cancer instead of 1/1000 or 1/100? How consoling.
There is a high risk with no noticeable benefit to me. millimeter scanners have medium to low risk still without any benefit to me. So, I am not going to step into one of those machines. In US I have been opting out and thinking sad thoughts about people who just go through.