I've also noticed this month that controllers for the Wii are readily available which wasn't the case last month, so maybe things are slowing down a bit.
Yeah, I've noticed that too. My guess is that the supply is catching up to demand, and the demand is limited by who is able to buy a Wii. At first that was large demand, since people would want several extra controllers, but most of them have the extras they need, and the limited amount of new Wii owners means a limited demand for controllers.
As to your point 2). I think it is probably true for the majority of people but it certainly wasn't for me.
I wouldn't even say that. If I lumped in people who would just blow off buying any console at all -- which was really my intent, since that's almost as bad for Nintendo -- then maybe it's a majority. The Wii is attracting a lot of non-gamers. I can only imagine how the non-gamer thinks, but I think that if they were excited about trying this new game system that excitement might wear off after half a year of being unable to buy one, and they may start re-thinking their need to buy a console at all. I'm a gamer and Nintendo fan, so obviously I can wait six months, but Random Soccer Mom probably not.
It just makes no sense to not try to get Random Soccer Mom's sale now if they could, because she might change her mind. Whether she is a minority or majority the fact is Nintendo wants her money.
E.g., simultaneously that (1) Mary's virgin conception was such a unique and inexplicable thing that can only possibly be explained by divine intervention, yet at the same time (2) thousands of other virgin girls got pregnant too, e.g., via incubi.
1) Virgin conception was never claimed to be unique, only divine. Jesus' ressurection wasn't unique either, but also of divine origin. 2) I'm not an expert on the subject of medieval mythologies, but weren't incubi demons who took the form of men? I don't think you could call the women who got pregnant from them "virgins"; the whole point was that they were demons of carnal lust.
If you want to take issue with these, I think the easier way to do it would be to propose the obvious explanation for both: there wasn't any "incubi", there were just "the guy from the next village over that she doesn't want to tell her parents about", and similar with Mary. "Oh yeah, Joseph, it was totally the Holy Spirit that knocked me up." Doesn't that make more sense than trying to create a contradiction where none exists?
If you have 25 pieces that are each 1cm^3 in size, the total size is NOT 25cm^3. (25cm^3 is huge!).
Yes the total 25 pieces 1cm^3 in size is 25cm^3, because that's what cm^3 means - number of 1 cm^3 pieces. Perhaps you were thinking of it as being (25 cm)^3? That would be huge, but that isn't what 25 cm^3 means. 25 cm^3 is the volume of an object that is 1cm x 1cm x 25cm. Not that big, but also much bigger than 0.18in^3.
The original density unit was given as g/cm^3. You were performing an unecessary cube root, and the result is you are off by a power of 3.
Pfft. Canada has burned down the White House once before, we can do it again.
Okay, so you caught us off guard once. We figured you wouldn't be able to use torches because they'd catch your tuques on fire. We won't make the same mistake again.
And don't try the ol' "Look out behind you! TERRORISTS!" trick, as we've already fallen for that one before too.
If Nintendo was really intentionally choking the supply, it would make them the biggest idiots of all time. There is a short window after launch where you are everybody's baby - if you don't make it then, then your platform will fail. Cutting off supply during this period would be beyond idiocy.
How many times have we discussed on/. the importance of momentum and marketshare? Despite a very healthy start and the apparent success of getting non-gamers to buy the Wii, Nintendo is still sitting at less than half the market share of the 360. You are absolutely right; deliberately stunting their marketshare would be utterly retarded as it would hurt them in 3 ways: 1) Lower marketshare means less appealing to 3rd parties 2) People unable to buy a Wii would perhaps buy another console 3) Word-of-mouth advertising that gets the non-gamer interested in the Wii would be cut short.
I think they simply underestimated demand, and now it's both difficult and expensive to try to meet it.
It makes perfect sense. Investors would much rather see a company make their goals for two years in a row, then to have one high year, followed by a dissapointing year. Consistency is rewarded. Nintendo would rather stall for a few weeks then sell everything they can *after* April 1st so fiscal 2007 looks as good as 2006.
Like I said, that only appiles if the next year is going to be dissapointing, otherwise having an exceptional year is a good thing as far as investors are concerned. There is little reason to think there is going to be a slacking of demand that wouldn't be exacerbated by people frustrated at being unable to buy the console buying an alternative instead. If the goal is to avoid a dissapointing 2007 fiscal year, deliberately witholding supply now would be shooting themselves in the foot.
There is no sense behind Nintendo deliberately reducing supply given that they could increase it at minimal cost. If the cost to increase supply is substantial, then there is a financial argument, which I made in my last paragraph.
But I'm not sure this makes a lot of sense. "Making goal" for the quarter isn't exactly the most important issue in the world, in comparison to the livelyhood of an entire console generation.
It doesn't make any sense at all. The claim is that Nintendo, having easily met their fiscal goals, deliberately clamped production/shipments. First, so long as you don't appear to be sacrificing long term stability, investors would love for you to exceed your goal. Nobody complains about making more money, and I can't see why Nintendo would. The theory is that they want to move what would-be current-fiscal-year sales into the next fiscal year to make those numbers look better. That theory implies Nintendo thinks the demand for Wii is going to slack, which it doesn't show any sign of, and also that they think they aren't at any risk of frustrated customers buying one of the competitor's consoles. I think the opposite applies -- demand for Wii will continue to be strong, but only if people can actually buy one. The best advertising for the Wii is word of mouth (as in "come over and play Wii Sports"), and that only works if people can get them.
It would be a dangerous market game for Nintendo to play, and I see them as too conservative. If they can make a sale today, they will, because you never know if that sale is going to be around in six months.
Probably a more practical reason is to short the supply of units during the innitial games draught, a game release slump which is simply unavoidable for any console.
I think the Wii is more immune to a game slump than most consoles, simply because the mom/grandpa non-gamer demographic that is the whole "expanded market" thing the Wii is after is probably going to be happy with just Wii Sports for longer than any traditional gamer. This is also why the Wii is still very vulnerable to 3rd party issues, since if game uptake is low for the Wii despite the large number of systems out there 3rd parties may still be wary. Which means that right now not having a large number of Nintendo-published games for the Wii is good for 3rd parties; every sale of Trauma Center or Elebits or Rayman helps show the Wii as a 3rd party friendly platform.
Anyway, I know I personally am much more frustrated by my inability to play any Wii games than I would be if I owned the console and had to deal with a drought. If I owned a Wii and was pissed at the games drought, well, I already gave Nintendo my money and they made a profit on it. If I don't own a Wii because I can't find one, then if I don't like the lack of games I can go buy a different console and Nintendo has gained nothing. I really can't see this as being a rational reason for Nintendo to limit supply.
Here's the only thing that makes sense to me: Nintendo paid for an amount of manufacturing capacity based on their expected sales, and had every intention of meeting that demand. Actual demand far outstripped their expectations, so this supply was inadequate. Now they could have tried to increase their manufacturing capacity, and may have decided not to for two reasons: One, to keep the one-time costs of tooling up the factories off this year's report; and two, because they aren't sure in the long term that such capacity is really going to be needed. You can spend a ton of money building factories, but if demand trails off then you just blew that money for no reason. I'm betting this is the real reason -- again, being conservative, Nintendo isn't going to look at the higher-than-expected sales for a couple months and jump off the deep end constructing new factories.
The theory that Nintendo has the capability to make more Wii at will, but isn't due to some desire to manipulate the market, just doesn't hold any sanity-water.
Next you'll be telling me they won't be bolting the machines into epoxy-filled holes in the ceiling!
Well they weren't going to, but then the ceiling-hole-epoxyers' union sued them. I'd expect the selection of which ladder company to purchase ladders so voters can reach the voting machine to result in more lawsuits.
For the consumer on a budget, The GentleMouse EZ. Any mouse click or motion shuts the computer off, saving you not only the energy of clicking but also of moving the mouse. Now go outside!
An editorial in Network Performance Daily tries to take a (1d6) stab at explaining why geeky engineering types are also typically the types that enjoy a rousing game of D&D
Honestly. You were wondering why? Maybe because they're both geeks. Geek takes geek profession, news at 11! And D&D is to a large extent generational, anyway. Later it's the collectible card game or video game geek, and before D&D it was the, I don't know, transistor radio geek. You get my point. Not all engineers are geeks, as time goes on especially, but it takes a mentality that was often found in the, say, socially unacustomed?
That doesn't seem to be what the article is about. It seems to be more about how you can get geeks to work better within well specified rules, with D&D as an explanation or example. Not that I really agree; the cool thing about D&D with a real DM was that you could do whatever you wanted even if the rules didn't say how. It's only computer RPGs that have rigid limitations. But it's probably good advice in general anyway, to have some well specified goals and restrictions. Goals that aren't well specified is a fun way to mess with player's heads if you're an evil dungeon master, maybe not a good way to manage.
Unless a "huge fucking disaster" is what they have in mind...
Well I don't buy the whole "Bush wants to bring about the Second Coming" theory; he's only a fundamentalist when he needs to be to rally his "base".
Which leaves the regular motivations of desire for continuing wealth and power for him, his family, and his friends, and that pretty much depends on the U.S. continuing to be a world power politically and economically. Both of which would be in serious jeopardy if we invaded Iran, and he and his advisors know it.
"I am not free to own slaves. Am I restricted, or is everyone else more free?"
It's not an either/or proposition. Total freedom means I can rape murder and enslave to the limits of my capability.
I realized my error. I meant to say "Am I less free, or is everyone else more free?" It was not my intent to create a dichotomy between restriction/freedom, since that is what I'm arguing against.
Total freedom does not mean you can rape and murder. Total freedom means everyone is free from rape and murder. To achieve this state, restrictions are necessary. They are not opposites.
Yes, and I realize now that sentence was poorly worded.
My whole point is that "restriction" is NOT the opposite of "freedom". "Oppression" is the opposite of "freedom", and to be free of oppression would-be oppressors -- which includes you and me -- must be restricted.
I should have said "I am not free to own slaves. Am I less free because of this, or is everyone more free? The answer is everyone is more free because nobody can own slaves."
But the fact that the purposes of freedom are served does not make the restrictions other than restrictions.
Not what I'm saying. I'm saying it's orthogonal, and that maximum freedom requires certain restrictions, namely the restriction that you can't take freedom.
Don't know what extreme you thought I was arguing (total absence of restriction? definitely not in my post), but I'm not.
"Restrictive" is not the opposite of "free" though, which is what the GGP was implying.
I am not free to own slaves. Am I restricted, or is everyone else more free? The answer is everyone is more free because nobody can own slaves.
Similarly, the GPL only restricts your ability to restrict others. This means the fewest restrictions for all. Isn't that the most freedom possible? Free to do anything but take freedom from others.
The GPL's restrictions are only anti-free to those who think only of themselves. The GPL is not for them.
Seriously, it's about time Congress did something that affected me, and what could be better than making sure we get some decent games? I'm sick of all the shite games on the shelves these days, which based solely on their packaging are indistinguishable from the good games sitting right next to them. They cost just as much, but are complete crap, blatant shovelware designed to sucker people into buying them. The makers of garbage like Turok: Evolution should be held accountable. Good for you Congress for supporting decent games.
Thank you, thank you, thank you for properly spelling and capitalizing the real name of the USAPATRIOT act. Every single time someone simply calls it the "Patriot" act, it buys into the misdirection that it's somehow "patriotic."
Thanks! I don't think calling it Patriot Act actually endorses the act as being patriotic; it's still a ridiculous appeal to patriotism, and the name can still be used ironically by people who don't buy it. It's just that USAPATRIOT emphasises what a truly stupid backronym it really is -- I mean they even found a way to work 'USA' into it -- and I'm all for accuracy when it maximizes the embarassment to our legislators.
Yeah, that's the term, though I'm not certain that covers every situation USAPATRIOT permits. The whole problem with 'exigent circumstances' is that at the time that the FBI is requesting the information, you pretty much have to take their word for it that it is such a circumstance. As far as the follow up, there's nothing to follow up on. These situations do not require warrants, they only require a note be made that the warrantless search power was used, and these notes are internal to the FBI and do not have to be shown to a judge much less the person or entity that was searched. This news is about how the FBI wasn't even doing that much.
Does this sound fucked up? Yes it is. Does it sound like something the system shouldn't allow? Of course! In fact the 4th Ammendment to the U.S. Constitution covers this, and that's a big reason why a lot of people (especially around/.) feel USAPATRIOT is unconstitutional.
I don't get this.. do you not have privacy laws in the U.S.? I work (through three contractor levels of abstraction) for a telco here in Aus, and there are laws and BIG penalties for giving out customer records to anyone, including the police, who doesn't have the correct authority What I'm trying to say is, aren't the US telco's here breaking a few laws?
No, because the USAPATRIOT Act gives the FBI the authority to get this information from the telcos.
Now USAPATRIOT only grants that authority under certain circumstances, and given that the FBI takes certain actions such as filing the correct paperwork afterward, but the telco has no way of knowing that the situation is really how the FBI says, nor does it have any idea that the FBI is not producing the correct paperwork for accountability. Basically, they have little choice but to comply.
Normally in the United States if you want to know if an agent of the law has the proper authority to get information or search your premises, you ask to see the warrant.
The whole problem with USAPATRIOT is that it makes warrants unecessary in certain circumstances, and worse it allows the FBI to decide what those circumstances are, and even worse it does not at any point require a judge to verify that the circumstances were such that a warrant could be bypassed. It basically grants law enforcement super-powers, then puts them on the honor system for not abusing those powers.
Making this into a problem of the telcos is tempting, and yeah I would love it if they fought back, but this is at its heart a problem of our government and expecting the telcos to fight the government for us is naive.
I agree completely. Even George W. Bush and his sycophantic advisors -- and realize I'm making a very strong statement here -- even they are not stupid enough to invade Iran. Even they can picture what a huge fucking disaster that would be.
The sad part is that it's pretty clear that Iran knows that, which is why they keep calling our bluffs. Yes, that is a vastly better outcome than war, which is why Bush is and will continue to let them get away with it.
Where does the other $293,000 come from? The manufacturing energy costs should contribute to the final cost of the vehicle, unless they're heavily subsidized by someone. Toyota would not manufacture the car if they were taking that big of a loss.
They include the cost of building and tooling up the factory, amortized over the number of cars produced. The Prius is newer, ergo that cost is divided among fewer cars than the Hummer.
I would bet that Toyota is still in the red over the Prius when you take into account R&D and one-time manufacturing/construction costs. They certainly price the Prius such that it covers the operating costs of manufacturing that Prius, plus enough profit to recoup those one-time costs eventually (and then start making the phat lewt). Doesn't really matter, it's still ridiculous to attribute the entire cost of the manufacturing facilities to only those Prius that have left the assembly line so far.
Every single detail of this study (that is available) seems to stack it against the hybrids. I'd happily believe that the Prius is not a one-stop solution to global warming, but I think it would take a hell of a lot of overt bias to make it worse than a Hummer.
Well yeah. If you were going to use the powers of the USAPATRIOT act inappropriately, why would you keep a paper trail? That way the worst you can be accused of is not keeping the record, not whatever it is you actually did.
Insufficient accountability morphs directly into a complete lack of accountability. Who is surprised by this? Who did not anticipate this over five years ago? Those who were blinded by fear. Everyone else was either outraged by the potential -- and thus innevitable -- abuse, or lying and appealing to the fearful. Don't worry, there doesn't need to be any safeguards because we promise to use our powers wisely and justly, and besides, don't you hate Terrorists?!
Slashdot Mirror
I've also noticed this month that controllers for the Wii are readily available which wasn't the case last month, so maybe things are slowing down a bit.
Yeah, I've noticed that too. My guess is that the supply is catching up to demand, and the demand is limited by who is able to buy a Wii. At first that was large demand, since people would want several extra controllers, but most of them have the extras they need, and the limited amount of new Wii owners means a limited demand for controllers.
As to your point 2). I think it is probably true for the majority of people but it certainly wasn't for me.
I wouldn't even say that. If I lumped in people who would just blow off buying any console at all -- which was really my intent, since that's almost as bad for Nintendo -- then maybe it's a majority. The Wii is attracting a lot of non-gamers. I can only imagine how the non-gamer thinks, but I think that if they were excited about trying this new game system that excitement might wear off after half a year of being unable to buy one, and they may start re-thinking their need to buy a console at all. I'm a gamer and Nintendo fan, so obviously I can wait six months, but Random Soccer Mom probably not.
It just makes no sense to not try to get Random Soccer Mom's sale now if they could, because she might change her mind. Whether she is a minority or majority the fact is Nintendo wants her money.
E.g., simultaneously that (1) Mary's virgin conception was such a unique and inexplicable thing that can only possibly be explained by divine intervention, yet at the same time (2) thousands of other virgin girls got pregnant too, e.g., via incubi.
1) Virgin conception was never claimed to be unique, only divine. Jesus' ressurection wasn't unique either, but also of divine origin.
2) I'm not an expert on the subject of medieval mythologies, but weren't incubi demons who took the form of men? I don't think you could call the women who got pregnant from them "virgins"; the whole point was that they were demons of carnal lust.
If you want to take issue with these, I think the easier way to do it would be to propose the obvious explanation for both: there wasn't any "incubi", there were just "the guy from the next village over that she doesn't want to tell her parents about", and similar with Mary. "Oh yeah, Joseph, it was totally the Holy Spirit that knocked me up." Doesn't that make more sense than trying to create a contradiction where none exists?
If you have 25 pieces that are each 1cm^3 in size, the total size is NOT 25cm^3. (25cm^3 is huge!).
Yes the total 25 pieces 1cm^3 in size is 25cm^3, because that's what cm^3 means - number of 1 cm^3 pieces. Perhaps you were thinking of it as being (25 cm)^3? That would be huge, but that isn't what 25 cm^3 means. 25 cm^3 is the volume of an object that is 1cm x 1cm x 25cm. Not that big, but also much bigger than 0.18in^3.
The original density unit was given as g/cm^3. You were performing an unecessary cube root, and the result is you are off by a power of 3.
Pfft. Canada has burned down the White House once before, we can do it again.
Okay, so you caught us off guard once. We figured you wouldn't be able to use torches because they'd catch your tuques on fire. We won't make the same mistake again.
And don't try the ol' "Look out behind you! TERRORISTS!" trick, as we've already fallen for that one before too.
If Nintendo was really intentionally choking the supply, it would make them the biggest idiots of all time. There is a short window after launch where you are everybody's baby - if you don't make it then, then your platform will fail. Cutting off supply during this period would be beyond idiocy.
/. the importance of momentum and marketshare? Despite a very healthy start and the apparent success of getting non-gamers to buy the Wii, Nintendo is still sitting at less than half the market share of the 360. You are absolutely right; deliberately stunting their marketshare would be utterly retarded as it would hurt them in 3 ways: 1) Lower marketshare means less appealing to 3rd parties 2) People unable to buy a Wii would perhaps buy another console 3) Word-of-mouth advertising that gets the non-gamer interested in the Wii would be cut short.
How many times have we discussed on
I think they simply underestimated demand, and now it's both difficult and expensive to try to meet it.
It makes perfect sense. Investors would much rather see a company make their goals for two years in a row, then to have one high year, followed by a dissapointing year. Consistency is rewarded. Nintendo would rather stall for a few weeks then sell everything they can *after* April 1st so fiscal 2007 looks as good as 2006.
Like I said, that only appiles if the next year is going to be dissapointing, otherwise having an exceptional year is a good thing as far as investors are concerned. There is little reason to think there is going to be a slacking of demand that wouldn't be exacerbated by people frustrated at being unable to buy the console buying an alternative instead. If the goal is to avoid a dissapointing 2007 fiscal year, deliberately witholding supply now would be shooting themselves in the foot.
There is no sense behind Nintendo deliberately reducing supply given that they could increase it at minimal cost. If the cost to increase supply is substantial, then there is a financial argument, which I made in my last paragraph.
But I'm not sure this makes a lot of sense. "Making goal" for the quarter isn't exactly the most important issue in the world, in comparison to the livelyhood of an entire console generation.
It doesn't make any sense at all. The claim is that Nintendo, having easily met their fiscal goals, deliberately clamped production/shipments. First, so long as you don't appear to be sacrificing long term stability, investors would love for you to exceed your goal. Nobody complains about making more money, and I can't see why Nintendo would. The theory is that they want to move what would-be current-fiscal-year sales into the next fiscal year to make those numbers look better. That theory implies Nintendo thinks the demand for Wii is going to slack, which it doesn't show any sign of, and also that they think they aren't at any risk of frustrated customers buying one of the competitor's consoles. I think the opposite applies -- demand for Wii will continue to be strong, but only if people can actually buy one. The best advertising for the Wii is word of mouth (as in "come over and play Wii Sports"), and that only works if people can get them.
It would be a dangerous market game for Nintendo to play, and I see them as too conservative. If they can make a sale today, they will, because you never know if that sale is going to be around in six months.
Probably a more practical reason is to short the supply of units during the innitial games draught, a game release slump which is simply unavoidable for any console.
I think the Wii is more immune to a game slump than most consoles, simply because the mom/grandpa non-gamer demographic that is the whole "expanded market" thing the Wii is after is probably going to be happy with just Wii Sports for longer than any traditional gamer. This is also why the Wii is still very vulnerable to 3rd party issues, since if game uptake is low for the Wii despite the large number of systems out there 3rd parties may still be wary. Which means that right now not having a large number of Nintendo-published games for the Wii is good for 3rd parties; every sale of Trauma Center or Elebits or Rayman helps show the Wii as a 3rd party friendly platform.
Anyway, I know I personally am much more frustrated by my inability to play any Wii games than I would be if I owned the console and had to deal with a drought. If I owned a Wii and was pissed at the games drought, well, I already gave Nintendo my money and they made a profit on it. If I don't own a Wii because I can't find one, then if I don't like the lack of games I can go buy a different console and Nintendo has gained nothing. I really can't see this as being a rational reason for Nintendo to limit supply.
Here's the only thing that makes sense to me: Nintendo paid for an amount of manufacturing capacity based on their expected sales, and had every intention of meeting that demand. Actual demand far outstripped their expectations, so this supply was inadequate. Now they could have tried to increase their manufacturing capacity, and may have decided not to for two reasons: One, to keep the one-time costs of tooling up the factories off this year's report; and two, because they aren't sure in the long term that such capacity is really going to be needed. You can spend a ton of money building factories, but if demand trails off then you just blew that money for no reason. I'm betting this is the real reason -- again, being conservative, Nintendo isn't going to look at the higher-than-expected sales for a couple months and jump off the deep end constructing new factories.
The theory that Nintendo has the capability to make more Wii at will, but isn't due to some desire to manipulate the market, just doesn't hold any sanity-water.
Next you'll be telling me they won't be bolting the machines into epoxy-filled holes in the ceiling!
Well they weren't going to, but then the ceiling-hole-epoxyers' union sued them. I'd expect the selection of which ladder company to purchase ladders so voters can reach the voting machine to result in more lawsuits.
For the consumer on a budget, The GentleMouse EZ. Any mouse click or motion shuts the computer off, saving you not only the energy of clicking but also of moving the mouse. Now go outside!
An editorial in Network Performance Daily tries to take a (1d6) stab at explaining why geeky engineering types are also typically the types that enjoy a rousing game of D&D
Honestly. You were wondering why? Maybe because they're both geeks. Geek takes geek profession, news at 11! And D&D is to a large extent generational, anyway. Later it's the collectible card game or video game geek, and before D&D it was the, I don't know, transistor radio geek. You get my point. Not all engineers are geeks, as time goes on especially, but it takes a mentality that was often found in the, say, socially unacustomed?
That doesn't seem to be what the article is about. It seems to be more about how you can get geeks to work better within well specified rules, with D&D as an explanation or example. Not that I really agree; the cool thing about D&D with a real DM was that you could do whatever you wanted even if the rules didn't say how. It's only computer RPGs that have rigid limitations. But it's probably good advice in general anyway, to have some well specified goals and restrictions. Goals that aren't well specified is a fun way to mess with player's heads if you're an evil dungeon master, maybe not a good way to manage.
You see, I'd say that was more "utopian" than "free".
Fine with me. The GPL is more about utopia than any individual's notion of absolute free action.
Unless a "huge fucking disaster" is what they have in mind ...
Well I don't buy the whole "Bush wants to bring about the Second Coming" theory; he's only a fundamentalist when he needs to be to rally his "base".
Which leaves the regular motivations of desire for continuing wealth and power for him, his family, and his friends, and that pretty much depends on the U.S. continuing to be a world power politically and economically. Both of which would be in serious jeopardy if we invaded Iran, and he and his advisors know it.
"I am not free to own slaves. Am I restricted, or is everyone else more free?"
It's not an either/or proposition. Total freedom means I can rape murder and enslave to the limits of my capability.
I realized my error. I meant to say "Am I less free, or is everyone else more free?" It was not my intent to create a dichotomy between restriction/freedom, since that is what I'm arguing against.
Total freedom does not mean you can rape and murder. Total freedom means everyone is free from rape and murder. To achieve this state, restrictions are necessary. They are not opposites.
Yes, and I realize now that sentence was poorly worded.
My whole point is that "restriction" is NOT the opposite of "freedom". "Oppression" is the opposite of "freedom", and to be free of oppression would-be oppressors -- which includes you and me -- must be restricted.
I should have said "I am not free to own slaves. Am I less free because of this, or is everyone more free? The answer is everyone is more free because nobody can own slaves."
But the fact that the purposes of freedom are served does not make the restrictions other than restrictions.
Not what I'm saying. I'm saying it's orthogonal, and that maximum freedom requires certain restrictions, namely the restriction that you can't take freedom.
Don't know what extreme you thought I was arguing (total absence of restriction? definitely not in my post), but I'm not.
"Restrictive" is not the opposite of "free" though, which is what the GGP was implying.
I am not free to own slaves. Am I restricted, or is everyone else more free? The answer is everyone is more free because nobody can own slaves.
Similarly, the GPL only restricts your ability to restrict others. This means the fewest restrictions for all. Isn't that the most freedom possible? Free to do anything but take freedom from others.
The GPL's restrictions are only anti-free to those who think only of themselves. The GPL is not for them.
Seriously, it's about time Congress did something that affected me, and what could be better than making sure we get some decent games? I'm sick of all the shite games on the shelves these days, which based solely on their packaging are indistinguishable from the good games sitting right next to them. They cost just as much, but are complete crap, blatant shovelware designed to sucker people into buying them. The makers of garbage like Turok: Evolution should be held accountable. Good for you Congress for supporting decent games.
Uh, wait, I think I missed something...
Thank you, thank you, thank you for properly spelling and capitalizing the real name of the USAPATRIOT act. Every single time someone simply calls it the "Patriot" act, it buys into the misdirection that it's somehow "patriotic."
Thanks! I don't think calling it Patriot Act actually endorses the act as being patriotic; it's still a ridiculous appeal to patriotism, and the name can still be used ironically by people who don't buy it. It's just that USAPATRIOT emphasises what a truly stupid backronym it really is -- I mean they even found a way to work 'USA' into it -- and I'm all for accuracy when it maximizes the embarassment to our legislators.
Here's a comic I think of whenever I think of USAPATRIOT: http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/images/war.118.gif
Grown-ups did that. Never forget that.
Yeah, that's the term, though I'm not certain that covers every situation USAPATRIOT permits. The whole problem with 'exigent circumstances' is that at the time that the FBI is requesting the information, you pretty much have to take their word for it that it is such a circumstance. As far as the follow up, there's nothing to follow up on. These situations do not require warrants, they only require a note be made that the warrantless search power was used, and these notes are internal to the FBI and do not have to be shown to a judge much less the person or entity that was searched. This news is about how the FBI wasn't even doing that much.
/.) feel USAPATRIOT is unconstitutional.
Does this sound fucked up? Yes it is. Does it sound like something the system shouldn't allow? Of course! In fact the 4th Ammendment to the U.S. Constitution covers this, and that's a big reason why a lot of people (especially around
I don't get this.. do you not have privacy laws in the U.S.?
I work (through three contractor levels of abstraction) for a telco here in Aus, and there are laws and BIG penalties for giving out customer records to anyone, including the police, who doesn't have the correct authority
What I'm trying to say is, aren't the US telco's here breaking a few laws?
No, because the USAPATRIOT Act gives the FBI the authority to get this information from the telcos.
Now USAPATRIOT only grants that authority under certain circumstances, and given that the FBI takes certain actions such as filing the correct paperwork afterward, but the telco has no way of knowing that the situation is really how the FBI says, nor does it have any idea that the FBI is not producing the correct paperwork for accountability. Basically, they have little choice but to comply.
Normally in the United States if you want to know if an agent of the law has the proper authority to get information or search your premises, you ask to see the warrant.
The whole problem with USAPATRIOT is that it makes warrants unecessary in certain circumstances, and worse it allows the FBI to decide what those circumstances are, and even worse it does not at any point require a judge to verify that the circumstances were such that a warrant could be bypassed. It basically grants law enforcement super-powers, then puts them on the honor system for not abusing those powers.
Making this into a problem of the telcos is tempting, and yeah I would love it if they fought back, but this is at its heart a problem of our government and expecting the telcos to fight the government for us is naive.
I agree completely. Even George W. Bush and his sycophantic advisors -- and realize I'm making a very strong statement here -- even they are not stupid enough to invade Iran. Even they can picture what a huge fucking disaster that would be.
The sad part is that it's pretty clear that Iran knows that, which is why they keep calling our bluffs. Yes, that is a vastly better outcome than war, which is why Bush is and will continue to let them get away with it.
Where does the other $293,000 come from? The manufacturing energy costs should contribute to the final cost of the vehicle, unless they're heavily subsidized by someone. Toyota would not manufacture the car if they were taking that big of a loss.
They include the cost of building and tooling up the factory, amortized over the number of cars produced. The Prius is newer, ergo that cost is divided among fewer cars than the Hummer.
I would bet that Toyota is still in the red over the Prius when you take into account R&D and one-time manufacturing/construction costs. They certainly price the Prius such that it covers the operating costs of manufacturing that Prius, plus enough profit to recoup those one-time costs eventually (and then start making the phat lewt). Doesn't really matter, it's still ridiculous to attribute the entire cost of the manufacturing facilities to only those Prius that have left the assembly line so far.
Every single detail of this study (that is available) seems to stack it against the hybrids. I'd happily believe that the Prius is not a one-stop solution to global warming, but I think it would take a hell of a lot of overt bias to make it worse than a Hummer.
Two legs good, third leg BETTER!
Four legs good, two legs BETTER!
Yeah, you heard me, this is just another example of the FBI's deep and ingrained bipedalism.
Well yeah. If you were going to use the powers of the USAPATRIOT act inappropriately, why would you keep a paper trail? That way the worst you can be accused of is not keeping the record, not whatever it is you actually did.
Insufficient accountability morphs directly into a complete lack of accountability. Who is surprised by this? Who did not anticipate this over five years ago? Those who were blinded by fear. Everyone else was either outraged by the potential -- and thus innevitable -- abuse, or lying and appealing to the fearful. Don't worry, there doesn't need to be any safeguards because we promise to use our powers wisely and justly, and besides, don't you hate Terrorists?!