I really have to question what "evil behavior" is. Even Mother Theresa was known to manipulate situations for her own gain (as well as the gain of the impoverished).
I have a strong sensibility that says perhaps what you consider moral might not jell with what seems like an eternity of Confucianism and Taoist thought.
Many thousands of years, and some of the best and brightest put to task for it, and we are maybe a little better than a gut instinct as to the dividing line between good and evil.
Just maybe the pedophile gives away the lollipops because she can, maybe Mr. Gates is consistent with his own moral code; just maybe the distinction isn't as clear as you think.
I'm certain even the Dali Lama entertains a few ill thoughts towards the Chinese. If he didn't, that wouldn't make him moral, just inhuman.
Count me in as those who think the highest morality is the ability to choose for yourself.
The problem isn't really simplicity vs. complexity (as far as the consumer goes). It is an inability to customize at a reasonable cost.
It is infinitely easier to make one product with every bell and whistle known to mankind, than build several products to fill a nitch markets (economies of scale and so forth). Manufacturers are keeping it simple as far as production goes: build One with Everything. Every feature a consumer (god I hate that word) wants is included, and that same model fills the demands of another consumer even though their needs are different.
Well, except for simplicity, but that is a really small segment of the market.
Also, price of admission. Value is sometimes denoted by how many features I could buy with x amount of dollars. As the list of features goes up, the perceived value also increases. It doesn't matter if I use those features or not; I am getting more for the same amount of money; an increase in value.
Scaling that backwards, a simple product becomes nearly worthless to sell. If x product has all these features, a person (much better word) nearly expects a significant reduction in price if product y doesn't have all those features. Except product x was sold with a specific price point in mind. To sell below that is unprofitable.
Example: when I was shopping around for a HD, the best price I could find for a 20GB (what I needed) and a 120GB were nearly the same. To sell the 20 GB at a comparative price would be around $24. Not even worth the cost of shipping at that point. Regardless of the number of features, the entry price of any product stays relatively static. A good CPU would cost the same today as five years ago (around $400). Except I can't even give my old one away. Scaling backwards makes it completely worthless.
Most networks/databases in hospitals are designed by techs who really don't understand how hospitals function. Also, most hospitals are VERY behind as far as computer systems go.
You have the advantage of previously being an end user. You would have tremendous insight in the design and implementation of said systems, how they should operate... right down to the software used. Especially with HIPPA regulations, the networks are ill-conceived and insecure, or unuser-friendly. You could help remedy that.
Imagining and physics based medicine have really cool toys:) Even forensics could combine the two successfully.
Hang with the IT department and see what they do, and figure out ways to improve the current system.
Medicine has been rather sketchy as far as cohesiveness of all the technical aspects; there's lots of ground to cover. With a little bit of moxie, and a bit of creativity, you could literally turn the two into damn near anything you wanted.
It seems there is a fine link between privacy and anonymity with regards to data mining; you can collect a wealth of information about a specific person as long as a degree of anonymity is maintained.
For example, sex offender registration. It would be enough to notify the population that there are indeed a certain number of sex offenders in a given area without having to list specifics. The population is at least aware, but privacy is maintained.
Should there be a sex crime, the police have enough leads to concentrate their searches to specific areas, but no smoking gun will be laid at their feet. They will still have to go through an investigation (and this should help to sort out bias), but it is better than starting blind. Privacy is maintained, but enough information is available to link a crime.
I'm not certain how this would play out in other areas, but it seems the best compromise between the security zealots and the privacy zealots.
Um, no. Can you explain why CBS (as well as other broadcast networks) have to make allowances for children's programming, equal time for opposing political points of view, etc.? Why does the gov. have special considerations for broadcast networks as far as ownership, content, and saturation by a single owner? They are a special case. Any argument that proceeds as if they aren't loses its validity (and hey, if the Superbowl were on ESPN, you'd hear no argument from me).
Monopoly wasn't the best choice of words (which is why it was prefaced by "in a manner of speaking"). Oligarchy. Good.
But it's not exactly as clear-cut as that. In a matter of speaking, CBS is a government dervived monopoly (the airwaves are public, and CBS is lisenced to use those airwaves). What if your power company decided not to conduct business with you anymore? Fact of the matter is they can't (they are also a government dervived monopoly). As I am nearly forced in to a business partnership with my utility company (by virtue of not being able to form my own utilty), the power company is forced into a relationship with me (and they have certain responcibilities to bear). This is closer to the situation at hand. CBS does not appear to be holding their end of the bargain _after_ being granted monopoly status. Until CBS gives up those privledges (or the government recinds)... in the truest sense CBS is violating their contract with the public.
You are attempting to apply a principle when the other ramifications of said principle are not in place... apples and oranges.
By your same logic, a drug company who refused to sell you a medication would be okay because it is their medication (right of a business to do business with whomever they wish).
While I understand your point, I think it is perfectly within my rights to notify CBS that I am not pleased with their decision; the rest of your arguments be damned.
And while CBS is not my political watchdog, what is so wrong with notifying CBS that I _am_ their political watchdog, and I note bias in their approach?
Well, except for the fact that the ad is contrary to your politics, but certainly you are courageous enough to withstand a contrary point of view?
Please excuse: I have had the benefit of reading other posts (some of which are yours) and my response is perhaps an amalgamation.
It is not specific to who cooks what, it's cited as an example of mentality.
For example: my purchasing a sewing machine. It is unknown whether I was acting like a cad, the gender of the sales person, or where this took place.
It is an isolated event, and people draw their own conclusions. Would it make any difference if the sales person was male, if I were black, or if this took place in Alabama?
They study suffers from the same problem, because the "why" is never investigated; it is assumed (and everyone takes their own personal experiences and fills in the gaps). Kind of like guys cooking, women and technology, or even the gender of the sales person.
For all the women who suffer at the hands of a sales person, there are some who don't. The possible reasons for this aren't explored (except for when being accompanied by a man or an inherent bias of a manufacturer; that is the only explanation given).
To even put forth a study that is that specific and yet anonymous kind of denotes an agenda. Do guys experience similar problems? Do blacks? Do Spanish-speaking people? These questions aren't answered because they are never asked.
Beyond your personal experiences, I cite sexism.
Specifically, as you put it, it was in the context of a product designed, in your opinion, for a woman. So where is it placed: in the kitchen.
So exactly how do kitchen items translate into something you would only expect a woman to be interested in (what, does it have beefcake written all over it? What defines it as being specific to women?). I have yet to run across his and hers cutlery sets. I'm not even certain that you can define a product as utilitarian as a kitchen product specific to any gender. It seems to be a prejudice in your own head.
And if I were to turn it around and say most of the women *I* know haven't got the foggiest concerning tech products, what's wrong with that?
Well, several of your other posts basically point out (and rightfully so) that there are women who are technologically capable and they shouldn't be treated as otherwise, so knock it off already (three times fast).
Just like how there are men who enjoy cooking (bar-b-que anyone), and perhaps some savvy marketer might place an item specific to a guy in the kitchen, if they were that certain of their target group.
Hard to say, because most marketing does tend to be lowest common denominator (in which case you justify every prejudice because that is where the numbers lie. Some may be offended, but they ain't the majority, so who cares). Condemn Mad. Ave. for promoting a stereotype, just not your stereotype. Yeah right.
Let me tell you about my experiences purchasing a sewing machine... are there even surveys that cover the opposite extreme? No? Excuse me if I cite bias and disregard it completely then.
If you go searching for monsters, you are most certain to find them. Or as the bard pointed out, evil to him who thinks evil. Good day.
I think it's quaint you can decry women with a technical background being misconstrued as Jessica Simpson clones, but men who cook well (or take an interest in) are usually gay.
Pot-kettle-black. Sexism rides again.
*Why yes, I can change my own oil, assemble my own computer, and make a pretty functional roux. What's it to ya*
In a word, no. To begin with, most economists are not music enthusiasts. I rarely heed their recommendations as far as what makes a great album. This is why the Grammies are piss-poor indicators of music today, and why the RIAA is in the dire straits that it's in.
Besides that whole Mozart effect... I really can't stand Mozart. Franck, Hayden, Bach, Beethoven, and AC/DC... Less accountants, more poetry.
My general happiness at purchasing a CD and my unhappiness at being broke doesn't factor in as much as you would think. Some purchases are crapshoots (kind of like eating at Hung Fat take-out. Could be something good; could be a wild night in the bathroom.), but in all cases, I have retained use of the CD (i.e.- the music) for nothing (the CD still retains it's value whether I use it or not). The CD and the music are distinct entities. If I could whistle with more vim, I wouldn't need to purchase CDs at all. Alas, my orthodontic care wasn't great; my whistling quite poor.
Put in those terms, a CD seems like quite a value. A used CD even more (the price of admission has now dropped. The content is the same.).
Or in other terms, what if I purchased the CD for less than market value? Has the store's happiness increased? What if I stole the CD? Again, the use arguments apply; the happiness arguments do not.
But that is not even a point where I agree with KFG (well, at least not whole-heartedly). Protecting the intellectual property. Now that's a pretty nice insight. It's kind of like being party to a secret. By purchasing a CD, I've become party to that intellectual property. I can share it with my friends. I can piss off the neighbors. I can travel back in time and play it for the King of England. The ideas are a part of my vocabulary and anyone else in earshot. Can't regulate it: I know what I know. I think this is the part that aggravates the RIAA.
It also puts the intellectual property thingy into context: you can patent the use of an idea, but you can't patent the idea itself without severely regulating who has access to it (and by limiting access, you limit its' profitability). As soon as you present it, everyone can improvise off of the idea; the RIAA is akin to a plumber trying to take credit for the entire house.
All of which I hadn't really considered before reading KFG's post (god, I sound like such a suck-up). In short, I've always been impressed by what s/he has to say (here and otherwise) suck-up or not.
Your arguments however...;)
Besides, why would you care? Attempting to impress a neer-do-well. There are better uses for your time.
I am consistently impressed by your views, sir. Not necessarily that I agree with you (well, usually it's by degree), but I could never fault the arguments.
I've actually had horror story scenarios based on this. Imagine someone else's' ID integrating with yours and steady state of info feeding it. Combined neurosis and being unable to differentiate your thoughts from someone else's', and starting to lose any point of referrence. ("why do I want to kill my child? I don't even have a child.")...
It was never addressed how the Borg would respond assimilating a mental ward. Would you really want your thoughts intermingling with Dahlmer's?
Bringing the equivalent of the godhead into a singular consciousness... Looking into the abyss and all it entails.
*Yawn*- same thing played out in the 1950s concerning comic books, communism and rock & roll. Can't really say much about the 60's and 70's (there was enough crap going on that people didn't need to create new boogiemen). In the 80's, it was everything from drugs, D&D, more of that damn rock music, Satanist and...Heh, maybe they had a point about the drugs.
And now it's video games.
Can you say Generation Gap? Can you say power grab? Can you say neurosis? I knew you could.
You can cite study and statistics stating that video games are mostly harmless (and maybe even beneficial) until you're blue in the face, and it wouldn't do a damn bit of good.
You can't have a rational debate with those who are irrational (equating game playing with molestation... I guess Michael Jackson isn't so creepy after all). If god himself came down from on high and stated he got a kick from jacking FBI cars, they'd only say that the FBI were the tools of Satan. You can't win.
So forget mentioning the game was displayed at a major museum as a work of art, forget mentioning that with the sheer number of copies sold you'd expect at least a slight blip in the number of crimes being committed, forget that several generations of youth have grown up with comic books, video games, and rock music without seemingly any adverse effects: they wouldn't understand you.
This isn't about video game violence. It's about control.
And I shove it right back in their face: "Where are all the damn Satanist? Where are the Communists? Where is this Legion of Doom sent to corrupt the youth? Where the fuck are they? You've been WRONG so many other times, why should I believe you now?"
We are a schizophrenic nation: we want the freedom to take away everyone else's freedom; we want freedom from freedom.
So no, let's not talk about video game violence. Let's talk about how many serial killers have read the New York Times. Coincidence? I think not. Let's talk about how people fear technology and change. Let's talk about how easy it is to gain political leverage by enforcing arbitrary rules against those most defenseless: the children. Let's talk about that.
Video games? Never touch the stuff personally, why do you ask? Ooh look, did you know the murder rate goes up with every unsavory editorial piece the New York Post does? See, look at my graph, it's true. Just between you and me, I hear if you run the Times backwards through your fax machine, it tells you to invite NAMBLA to cater your child's next birthday in Gaelic. I read it in the Washington Post, so it must be true.
Upon reading the Times article, I went up to a little girl and asked if she would rather be raped, or prefer me to continue playing GTA. She said she'd rather me continue playing the game, but she could still kick my ass in Virtua Fighter 4.
Considering that Xbox and PS? Will be shooting it out for the top tier market, and Nintendo will pretty much retain their core market from their various franchises; their could very well be a place for the Apex.
Cost of developing for any of the big three consoles is pretty much through the roof, enough to where any of the smaller publishing houses would never have a chance to develop for the current console market. This has translated into stale games overall... I own over 50 PS1 games. I own less than 10 PS2.
Given that Apex could never hope to compete with Sony head to head, they might be able to carve a niche market by having a more diverse creative pool, lower priced games, less cost of development, and being able to take more risks as far new games are concerned.
You wouldn't need tremendous hardware to do that, and since Apex already has positive cash flow from their other ventures; they can ride out building a user base.
All they need is one killer game that is unique to their system. All the other things it can do would just be icing on the cake.
This could very well be a giant killer.
Re:Best examples of heresy I can think of
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Just as a generality concerning proof:
Investigation is a curious thing. If a group of people have a particular notion in their head, they will most likely find enough evidence to justify any outcome (flight being impossible to disease being the work of the devil). Opposing arguments will be accounted for, and the glass bubble is maintained.
Not necessarily heinous in its' intent: it just saves a bunch of legwork to find a working theory that fits your frame of reference. Rarely, if ever, does any evidence set the course for an investigation. Most investigations are merely filling in the holes of what is most probable (but not necessarily true).
Call it prejudice, wisdom, pattern recognition, or science; it's expedient and the way most things are done.
So when Sagan states "extraordinary proof", well, why? What extraordinary proof was needed to set the current framework of reality (other than being first)? Why does the inertia of one idea have to be overcome in order to consider another? Is it possible to examine other evidence based upon its' own merits without initially disqualifying any outcome?
That being said, how is it that your particular position is accepted as truth? What proof do _you_ have? And could it bear the same scrutiny that you are now applying to this new idea?
The point is not so much that I would be so bold as to (for example) say that Newton's theories were a crock, but their is a growing body of evidence that states he wasn't exactly right either (tongue-in-cheek).
I don't necessarily need to put forth a competing theory in order to point out all the holes in an existing one.
Sun Tzu also stated that a commander should be subject to the same rules/penalties as imposed on the other soldiers (Bad! Mr. Ellison Bad!). GPL anyone?
The idea is to rule from mutual respect and discipline (moreso a trademark of OSS than disfocus of resourse utilization now)... tyrannies always end in revolt.
At the risk of sounding preachy, have you ever seen a person with cancer die?
Ever been to an oncology ward? It smells like rotting death. And the patients aren't quite sure which is worse, the cancer or the treatments.
Bodies and faces deform in grotesquely humourous ways. And the pain. The most potent pain killers are used on a cancer floor. Picture a pain so severe that fentanyl (which is 100 times more powerful than morphine) isn't effective.
On top of this misery, the cost. Any clue how much it takes to half-assed treat cancer? Some people choose to die rather than leave their families destitute.
Yes sir, certainly everyone should have the right to control and profit from their work. But let's not forget the shoulders they had to stand on to get there.
The story is wonderful news, and I can only hope those persons who make the discoveries are wise enough to really understand what they have.
I remember seeing the Columbine thingy on TV. My first reaction was some geeks decided to see how their intelligence could be used to kill a bunch of people instead of building the latest greatest gizmo. Intelligence can be funny that way. While not making excuses for what happened, I was a bit dumbfound that people were shocked that such a thing could happen. Like years of taunting wouldn't produce some kind of reaction. Don't pick on the jock 'cause he'll kick the shit out of you. Don't pick on the pasty white kid 'cause he knows how to build bombs.
The news broadcast as made it a point to emphasize that whatever sporting event scheduled for that night was not going to be cancelled due to the shooting. That blew my mind. I felt divorced from reality, and pretty much quit watching TV from that point on.
Then my kid got sent home from school. In the aftermath of so much blame and stratifications, and seeing the end result; my kid gets sent home for a freakin t-shirt. I pointed out that said t-shirt wasn't against the dress code before the shooting, I didn't really see the justification after. The school board cited sensitivity to the other students (pot-kettle-black).
At the time I was working in an area where I had a fair amount of contact with the victims of the shooting. They were pretty messed up. And all of this wandered around my head for a conclusion that was never there. Just so much pain... It was the epitome of senseless violence.
And then I got call in for dress code violations. I was going to a trade school that was affiliated with the Denver Public School System. The school was not pleased with my trench coat. At this point, I'd had enough. What was most disturbing was not the shooting itself, but everyone politicizing it to further an agenda. Marginalize the geeks even more and see if that helps the situation. Zero tolerance for school violence, yet getting beaten-up at school is still pretty much a forgone ritual. No one even grasping the irony of KMFDM. I'm certain if they knew what it supposedly stood for, they would flip (even more than the bug-a-bear at the time, Mr. Manson).
I pointed out that I was well beyond the age of consent, and since I had forked out good cash to go to this school, uh-uh, no. The good citizens of Denver will have to come to grips that every person with a trench coat isn't a crazed killer, and the sooner the better. And in the end, we compromised.
I grew up in CO off and on. Colorado, especially Colorado Springs, is a strange state of mind. They say the US has a westward tilt, because everything that is unhinged ends up in California. My theory is the Rocky Mountains ends up as a strainer catching the biggest of the flakes (what am I doing here?). Mix in the highest Satanist per capita, Focus on the Family, two military bases, the USAFA, and NORAD and what do you get?
Or a city that would rather raise taxes to build a new football stadium instead of improving (admittedly poor) schools?
I've been around, and everything is as good as you make it, but Columbine could have only happened in CO.
The world was nearly deprived F.W. Murnau's Nosferatu when Stoker's wife demanded all copies of the film be destroyed for copyright violation. Luckily she didn't succeed and bootleg copies were made. But the prints that were hand inked (Hand inked for godsakes! State of the art special effects for 1922) with a blue tint were all destroyed. No copies exist today.
"London After Midnight" sadly no longer exists, even though it was considered one of Lon Chaney's signature make-up effects. Lost the last remaining copy to a fire.
Those are two I know of (partial to old horror films). I'm certain there are probably thousands more.
I would also hope you are aware of Hollywood's disregard for their old film stock. Several films literally rotting away since the studios refuse to allow anyone to attempt to restore the films for fear of loosing a potential profit if the film is ever remade. This is greed of the worse sort.
And so now we have the MPAA asking everyone to narc on their neighbors. Cherubs of Justice running wild through the isles. Yes, the law is perfectly acceptable except that it is an assumption of guilt. Extrapolate a bit more in that direction; will possession of a pocket knife constitute conspiracy to commit murder. Well, why else do you have a pocket knife in a movie theatre?
And I wonder how many bootlegged copies of a film might end up being the definitive version as with Nosferatu.
In short, I wonder not so much about how much piracy is costing them, but how much this insane copyright policy is robbing the culture at large.
So instead of a preoccupation with wattage, consumer electronics should have a preoccupation with THD?;)
Um, wattage can also denote the quality of the dynamic range of a system. It's not specific only to "loudness", although more watts and things get louder.
Convey the dynamic extremes of a symphony (or pipe organ) with only 10 watts, can't be done (unless you are using extremely efficient speakers). Ever hear a organ go from a single tone to feeling the floor rumble in a church when it really kicks in? That's moving a lot of air. It's visceral and can't really be conveyed with low power.
1% THD is perfectly acceptable given what a system was designed to do (are you trying to move a lot of air or hear a perfect square wave... everything is a compromise).
Specs confirm what a person hears, not the other way around (systems with nearly identical specs can sound vastly different). 100 watts can sound just as crappy as 500. Just not as loud.
I find it particularly telling that while the US seems to be nearly paranoid about possible "terrorist" (TM) uses of the EU's GPS, the EU doesn't seem to have the same concerns. Welcome to siege mentality.
It is idiotic to maintain superiority through bullying tactics. It leaves you open to get stabbed in the back. And people question animosity towards the US.
I've noticed that the time/energy required to keep things well organized just ain't working. The more complex the organization, the more energy required until it becomes self-feeding. More important to actually use/play with the stuff. Won't even go into the "Brave Little Toaster" implications (why yes, it is a Marantz Quad connected to the video games. Why keep it? It still works.).
Most systems tend to self-organize. I figure you want to keep the organization just at the functional level; if I can find it and no one is tripping over it, good enough. I will not be a party to the tyranny of Martha Stewart.
And collapsible shelves. And free beer when you move $]
Diamonds. SUVs. Hell, Harley-Davidsons for that matter. If prices are sufficently high, the item becomes a status symbol and even more desirable. Gas guzzling Amercan autos are major status symbols overseas, and logic be damned in the face of keeping up with the Jones.
I tend to think scarcity or overabundance isn't the problem per se, it's a mindset of wanting to attach dollar signs to everything; trying equate everything in terms of a common scale.
And for the most part, it works out okay until you start getting mailorder brides and liposuction... Can you really tell me how much loyalty is worth?
So no, we won't consume ourselves to death, but we will fail to notice the bridge is out while indulging our egos.
Slashdot Mirror
Gosh, and with that, I have to say wiser than I. Goodday.
I really have to question what "evil behavior" is. Even Mother Theresa was known to manipulate situations for her own gain (as well as the gain of the impoverished).
I have a strong sensibility that says perhaps what you consider moral might not jell with what seems like an eternity of Confucianism and Taoist thought.
Many thousands of years, and some of the best and brightest put to task for it, and we are maybe a little better than a gut instinct as to the dividing line between good and evil.
Just maybe the pedophile gives away the lollipops because she can, maybe Mr. Gates is consistent with his own moral code; just maybe the distinction isn't as clear as you think.
I'm certain even the Dali Lama entertains a few ill thoughts towards the Chinese. If he didn't, that wouldn't make him moral, just inhuman.
Count me in as those who think the highest morality is the ability to choose for yourself.
The problem isn't really simplicity vs. complexity (as far as the consumer goes). It is an inability to customize at a reasonable cost.
It is infinitely easier to make one product with every bell and whistle known to mankind, than build several products to fill a nitch markets (economies of scale and so forth). Manufacturers are keeping it simple as far as production goes: build One with Everything. Every feature a consumer (god I hate that word) wants is included, and that same model fills the demands of another consumer even though their needs are different.
Well, except for simplicity, but that is a really small segment of the market.
Also, price of admission. Value is sometimes denoted by how many features I could buy with x amount of dollars. As the list of features goes up, the perceived value also increases. It doesn't matter if I use those features or not; I am getting more for the same amount of money; an increase in value.
Scaling that backwards, a simple product becomes nearly worthless to sell. If x product has all these features, a person (much better word) nearly expects a significant reduction in price if product y doesn't have all those features. Except product x was sold with a specific price point in mind. To sell below that is unprofitable.
Example: when I was shopping around for a HD, the best price I could find for a 20GB (what I needed) and a 120GB were nearly the same. To sell the 20 GB at a comparative price would be around $24. Not even worth the cost of shipping at that point. Regardless of the number of features, the entry price of any product stays relatively static. A good CPU would cost the same today as five years ago (around $400). Except I can't even give my old one away. Scaling backwards makes it completely worthless.
Addendum:
:) Even forensics could combine the two successfully.
Most networks/databases in hospitals are designed by techs who really don't understand how hospitals function. Also, most hospitals are VERY behind as far as computer systems go.
You have the advantage of previously being an end user. You would have tremendous insight in the design and implementation of said systems, how they should operate... right down to the software used. Especially with HIPPA regulations, the networks are ill-conceived and insecure, or unuser-friendly. You could help remedy that.
Imagining and physics based medicine have really cool toys
Hang with the IT department and see what they do, and figure out ways to improve the current system.
Medicine has been rather sketchy as far as cohesiveness of all the technical aspects; there's lots of ground to cover. With a little bit of moxie, and a bit of creativity, you could literally turn the two into damn near anything you wanted.
Actually, I've been considering this too.
It seems there is a fine link between privacy and anonymity with regards to data mining; you can collect a wealth of information about a specific person as long as a degree of anonymity is maintained.
For example, sex offender registration. It would be enough to notify the population that there are indeed a certain number of sex offenders in a given area without having to list specifics. The population is at least aware, but privacy is maintained.
Should there be a sex crime, the police have enough leads to concentrate their searches to specific areas, but no smoking gun will be laid at their feet. They will still have to go through an investigation (and this should help to sort out bias), but it is better than starting blind. Privacy is maintained, but enough information is available to link a crime.
I'm not certain how this would play out in other areas, but it seems the best compromise between the security zealots and the privacy zealots.
Um, no. Can you explain why CBS (as well as other broadcast networks) have to make allowances for children's programming, equal time for opposing political points of view, etc.? Why does the gov. have special considerations for broadcast networks as far as ownership, content, and saturation by a single owner? They are a special case. Any argument that proceeds as if they aren't loses its validity (and hey, if the Superbowl were on ESPN, you'd hear no argument from me).
Monopoly wasn't the best choice of words (which is why it was prefaced by "in a manner of speaking"). Oligarchy. Good.
Your original argument does not stand.
But it's not exactly as clear-cut as that. In a matter of speaking, CBS is a government dervived monopoly (the airwaves are public, and CBS is lisenced to use those airwaves). What if your power company decided not to conduct business with you anymore? Fact of the matter is they can't (they are also a government dervived monopoly). As I am nearly forced in to a business partnership with my utility company (by virtue of not being able to form my own utilty), the power company is forced into a relationship with me (and they have certain responcibilities to bear). This is closer to the situation at hand. CBS does not appear to be holding their end of the bargain _after_ being granted monopoly status. Until CBS gives up those privledges (or the government recinds)... in the truest sense CBS is violating their contract with the public.
You are attempting to apply a principle when the other ramifications of said principle are not in place... apples and oranges.
By your same logic, a drug company who refused to sell you a medication would be okay because it is their medication (right of a business to do business with whomever they wish).
While I understand your point, I think it is perfectly within my rights to notify CBS that I am not pleased with their decision; the rest of your arguments be damned.
And while CBS is not my political watchdog, what is so wrong with notifying CBS that I _am_ their political watchdog, and I note bias in their approach?
Well, except for the fact that the ad is contrary to your politics, but certainly you are courageous enough to withstand a contrary point of view?
Your point again?
Please excuse: I have had the benefit of reading other posts (some of which are yours) and my response is perhaps an amalgamation. It is not specific to who cooks what, it's cited as an example of mentality. For example: my purchasing a sewing machine. It is unknown whether I was acting like a cad, the gender of the sales person, or where this took place. It is an isolated event, and people draw their own conclusions. Would it make any difference if the sales person was male, if I were black, or if this took place in Alabama? They study suffers from the same problem, because the "why" is never investigated; it is assumed (and everyone takes their own personal experiences and fills in the gaps). Kind of like guys cooking, women and technology, or even the gender of the sales person. For all the women who suffer at the hands of a sales person, there are some who don't. The possible reasons for this aren't explored (except for when being accompanied by a man or an inherent bias of a manufacturer; that is the only explanation given). To even put forth a study that is that specific and yet anonymous kind of denotes an agenda. Do guys experience similar problems? Do blacks? Do Spanish-speaking people? These questions aren't answered because they are never asked. Beyond your personal experiences, I cite sexism.
Specifically, as you put it, it was in the context of a product designed, in your opinion, for a woman. So where is it placed: in the kitchen.
So exactly how do kitchen items translate into something you would only expect a woman to be interested in (what, does it have beefcake written all over it? What defines it as being specific to women?). I have yet to run across his and hers cutlery sets. I'm not even certain that you can define a product as utilitarian as a kitchen product specific to any gender. It seems to be a prejudice in your own head.
And if I were to turn it around and say most of the women *I* know haven't got the foggiest concerning tech products, what's wrong with that?
Well, several of your other posts basically point out (and rightfully so) that there are women who are technologically capable and they shouldn't be treated as otherwise, so knock it off already (three times fast).
Just like how there are men who enjoy cooking (bar-b-que anyone), and perhaps some savvy marketer might place an item specific to a guy in the kitchen, if they were that certain of their target group.
Hard to say, because most marketing does tend to be lowest common denominator (in which case you justify every prejudice because that is where the numbers lie. Some may be offended, but they ain't the majority, so who cares). Condemn Mad. Ave. for promoting a stereotype, just not your stereotype. Yeah right.
Let me tell you about my experiences purchasing a sewing machine... are there even surveys that cover the opposite extreme? No? Excuse me if I cite bias and disregard it completely then.
If you go searching for monsters, you are most certain to find them. Or as the bard pointed out, evil to him who thinks evil. Good day.
I think it's quaint you can decry women with a technical background being misconstrued as Jessica Simpson clones, but men who cook well (or take an interest in) are usually gay.
Pot-kettle-black. Sexism rides again.
*Why yes, I can change my own oil, assemble my own computer, and make a pretty functional roux. What's it to ya*
In a word, no. To begin with, most economists are not music enthusiasts. I rarely heed their recommendations as far as what makes a great album. This is why the Grammies are piss-poor indicators of music today, and why the RIAA is in the dire straits that it's in.
;)
Besides that whole Mozart effect... I really can't stand Mozart. Franck, Hayden, Bach, Beethoven, and AC/DC... Less accountants, more poetry.
My general happiness at purchasing a CD and my unhappiness at being broke doesn't factor in as much as you would think. Some purchases are crapshoots (kind of like eating at Hung Fat take-out. Could be something good; could be a wild night in the bathroom.), but in all cases, I have retained use of the CD (i.e.- the music) for nothing (the CD still retains it's value whether I use it or not). The CD and the music are distinct entities. If I could whistle with more vim, I wouldn't need to purchase CDs at all. Alas, my orthodontic care wasn't great; my whistling quite poor.
Put in those terms, a CD seems like quite a value. A used CD even more (the price of admission has now dropped. The content is the same.).
Or in other terms, what if I purchased the CD for less than market value? Has the store's happiness increased? What if I stole the CD? Again, the use arguments apply; the happiness arguments do not.
But that is not even a point where I agree with KFG (well, at least not whole-heartedly). Protecting the intellectual property. Now that's a pretty nice insight. It's kind of like being party to a secret. By purchasing a CD, I've become party to that intellectual property. I can share it with my friends. I can piss off the neighbors. I can travel back in time and play it for the King of England. The ideas are a part of my vocabulary and anyone else in earshot. Can't regulate it: I know what I know. I think this is the part that aggravates the RIAA.
It also puts the intellectual property thingy into context: you can patent the use of an idea, but you can't patent the idea itself without severely regulating who has access to it (and by limiting access, you limit its' profitability). As soon as you present it, everyone can improvise off of the idea; the RIAA is akin to a plumber trying to take credit for the entire house.
All of which I hadn't really considered before reading KFG's post (god, I sound like such a suck-up). In short, I've always been impressed by what s/he has to say (here and otherwise) suck-up or not.
Your arguments however...
Besides, why would you care? Attempting to impress a neer-do-well. There are better uses for your time.
I am consistently impressed by your views, sir. Not necessarily that I agree with you (well, usually it's by degree), but I could never fault the arguments.
/. worth reading.
Definitely makes
I've actually had horror story scenarios based on this. Imagine someone else's' ID integrating with yours and steady state of info feeding it. Combined neurosis and being unable to differentiate your thoughts from someone else's', and starting to lose any point of referrence. ("why do I want to kill my child? I don't even have a child.")...
It was never addressed how the Borg would respond assimilating a mental ward. Would you really want your thoughts intermingling with Dahlmer's?
Bringing the equivalent of the godhead into a singular consciousness... Looking into the abyss and all it entails.
*Yawn*- same thing played out in the 1950s concerning comic books, communism and rock & roll. Can't really say much about the 60's and 70's (there was enough crap going on that people didn't need to create new boogiemen). In the 80's, it was everything from drugs, D&D, more of that damn rock music, Satanist and...Heh, maybe they had a point about the drugs.
And now it's video games.
Can you say Generation Gap? Can you say power grab? Can you say neurosis? I knew you could.
You can cite study and statistics stating that video games are mostly harmless (and maybe even beneficial) until you're blue in the face, and it wouldn't do a damn bit of good.
You can't have a rational debate with those who are irrational (equating game playing with molestation... I guess Michael Jackson isn't so creepy after all). If god himself came down from on high and stated he got a kick from jacking FBI cars, they'd only say that the FBI were the tools of Satan. You can't win.
So forget mentioning the game was displayed at a major museum as a work of art, forget mentioning that with the sheer number of copies sold you'd expect at least a slight blip in the number of crimes being committed, forget that several generations of youth have grown up with comic books, video games, and rock music without seemingly any adverse effects: they wouldn't understand you.
This isn't about video game violence. It's about control.
And I shove it right back in their face: "Where are all the damn Satanist? Where are the Communists? Where is this Legion of Doom sent to corrupt the youth? Where the fuck are they? You've been WRONG so many other times, why should I believe you now?"
We are a schizophrenic nation: we want the freedom to take away everyone else's freedom; we want freedom from freedom.
So no, let's not talk about video game violence. Let's talk about how many serial killers have read the New York Times. Coincidence? I think not. Let's talk about how people fear technology and change. Let's talk about how easy it is to gain political leverage by enforcing arbitrary rules against those most defenseless: the children. Let's talk about that.
Video games? Never touch the stuff personally, why do you ask? Ooh look, did you know the murder rate goes up with every unsavory editorial piece the New York Post does? See, look at my graph, it's true. Just between you and me, I hear if you run the Times backwards through your fax machine, it tells you to invite NAMBLA to cater your child's next birthday in Gaelic. I read it in the Washington Post, so it must be true.
Upon reading the Times article, I went up to a little girl and asked if she would rather be raped, or prefer me to continue playing GTA. She said she'd rather me continue playing the game, but she could still kick my ass in Virtua Fighter 4.
Who ya gonna believe?
God bless insomnia.
Considering that Xbox and PS? Will be shooting it out for the top tier market, and Nintendo will pretty much retain their core market from their various franchises; their could very well be a place for the Apex.
Cost of developing for any of the big three consoles is pretty much through the roof, enough to where any of the smaller publishing houses would never have a chance to develop for the current console market. This has translated into stale games overall... I own over 50 PS1 games. I own less than 10 PS2.
Given that Apex could never hope to compete with Sony head to head, they might be able to carve a niche market by having a more diverse creative pool, lower priced games, less cost of development, and being able to take more risks as far new games are concerned.
You wouldn't need tremendous hardware to do that, and since Apex already has positive cash flow from their other ventures; they can ride out building a user base.
All they need is one killer game that is unique to their system. All the other things it can do would just be icing on the cake.
This could very well be a giant killer.
Just as a generality concerning proof:
Investigation is a curious thing. If a group of people have a particular notion in their head, they will most likely find enough evidence to justify any outcome (flight being impossible to disease being the work of the devil). Opposing arguments will be accounted for, and the glass bubble is maintained.
Not necessarily heinous in its' intent: it just saves a bunch of legwork to find a working theory that fits your frame of reference. Rarely, if ever, does any evidence set the course for an investigation. Most investigations are merely filling in the holes of what is most probable (but not necessarily true).
Call it prejudice, wisdom, pattern recognition, or science; it's expedient and the way most things are done.
So when Sagan states "extraordinary proof", well, why? What extraordinary proof was needed to set the current framework of reality (other than being first)? Why does the inertia of one idea have to be overcome in order to consider another? Is it possible to examine other evidence based upon its' own merits without initially disqualifying any outcome?
That being said, how is it that your particular position is accepted as truth? What proof do _you_ have? And could it bear the same scrutiny that you are now applying to this new idea?
The point is not so much that I would be so bold as to (for example) say that Newton's theories were a crock, but their is a growing body of evidence that states he wasn't exactly right either (tongue-in-cheek).
I don't necessarily need to put forth a competing theory in order to point out all the holes in an existing one.
Sun Tzu also stated that a commander should be subject to the same rules/penalties as imposed on the other soldiers (Bad! Mr. Ellison Bad!). GPL anyone?
The idea is to rule from mutual respect and discipline (moreso a trademark of OSS than disfocus of resourse utilization now)... tyrannies always end in revolt.
Your interpretation is very much out of context.
At the risk of sounding preachy, have you ever seen a person with cancer die?
Ever been to an oncology ward? It smells like rotting death. And the patients aren't quite sure which is worse, the cancer or the treatments.
Bodies and faces deform in grotesquely humourous ways. And the pain. The most potent pain killers are used on a cancer floor. Picture a pain so severe that fentanyl (which is 100 times more powerful than morphine) isn't effective.
On top of this misery, the cost. Any clue how much it takes to half-assed treat cancer? Some people choose to die rather than leave their families destitute.
Yes sir, certainly everyone should have the right to control and profit from their work. But let's not forget the shoulders they had to stand on to get there.
The story is wonderful news, and I can only hope those persons who make the discoveries are wise enough to really understand what they have.
Schadenfreude
I remember seeing the Columbine thingy on TV. My first reaction was some geeks decided to see how their intelligence could be used to kill a bunch of people instead of building the latest greatest gizmo. Intelligence can be funny that way. While not making excuses for what happened, I was a bit dumbfound that people were shocked that such a thing could happen. Like years of taunting wouldn't produce some kind of reaction. Don't pick on the jock 'cause he'll kick the shit out of you. Don't pick on the pasty white kid 'cause he knows how to build bombs.
The news broadcast as made it a point to emphasize that whatever sporting event scheduled for that night was not going to be cancelled due to the shooting. That blew my mind. I felt divorced from reality, and pretty much quit watching TV from that point on.
Then my kid got sent home from school. In the aftermath of so much blame and stratifications, and seeing the end result; my kid gets sent home for a freakin t-shirt. I pointed out that said t-shirt wasn't against the dress code before the shooting, I didn't really see the justification after. The school board cited sensitivity to the other students (pot-kettle-black).
At the time I was working in an area where I had a fair amount of contact with the victims of the shooting. They were pretty messed up. And all of this wandered around my head for a conclusion that was never there. Just so much pain... It was the epitome of senseless violence.
And then I got call in for dress code violations. I was going to a trade school that was affiliated with the Denver Public School System. The school was not pleased with my trench coat. At this point, I'd had enough. What was most disturbing was not the shooting itself, but everyone politicizing it to further an agenda. Marginalize the geeks even more and see if that helps the situation. Zero tolerance for school violence, yet getting beaten-up at school is still pretty much a forgone ritual. No one even grasping the irony of KMFDM. I'm certain if they knew what it supposedly stood for, they would flip (even more than the bug-a-bear at the time, Mr. Manson).
I pointed out that I was well beyond the age of consent, and since I had forked out good cash to go to this school, uh-uh, no. The good citizens of Denver will have to come to grips that every person with a trench coat isn't a crazed killer, and the sooner the better. And in the end, we compromised.
I grew up in CO off and on. Colorado, especially Colorado Springs, is a strange state of mind. They say the US has a westward tilt, because everything that is unhinged ends up in California. My theory is the Rocky Mountains ends up as a strainer catching the biggest of the flakes (what am I doing here?). Mix in the highest Satanist per capita, Focus on the Family, two military bases, the USAFA, and NORAD and what do you get?
Or a city that would rather raise taxes to build a new football stadium instead of improving (admittedly poor) schools?
I've been around, and everything is as good as you make it, but Columbine could have only happened in CO.
The world was nearly deprived F.W. Murnau's Nosferatu when Stoker's wife demanded all copies of the film be destroyed for copyright violation. Luckily she didn't succeed and bootleg copies were made. But the prints that were hand inked (Hand inked for godsakes! State of the art special effects for 1922) with a blue tint were all destroyed. No copies exist today.
"London After Midnight" sadly no longer exists, even though it was considered one of Lon Chaney's signature make-up effects. Lost the last remaining copy to a fire.
Those are two I know of (partial to old horror films). I'm certain there are probably thousands more.
I would also hope you are aware of Hollywood's disregard for their old film stock. Several films literally rotting away since the studios refuse to allow anyone to attempt to restore the films for fear of loosing a potential profit if the film is ever remade. This is greed of the worse sort.
And so now we have the MPAA asking everyone to narc on their neighbors. Cherubs of Justice running wild through the isles. Yes, the law is perfectly acceptable except that it is an assumption of guilt. Extrapolate a bit more in that direction; will possession of a pocket knife constitute conspiracy to commit murder. Well, why else do you have a pocket knife in a movie theatre?
And I wonder how many bootlegged copies of a film might end up being the definitive version as with Nosferatu.
In short, I wonder not so much about how much piracy is costing them, but how much this insane copyright policy is robbing the culture at large.
So instead of a preoccupation with wattage, consumer electronics should have a preoccupation with THD? ;)
Um, wattage can also denote the quality of the dynamic range of a system. It's not specific only to "loudness", although more watts and things get louder.
Convey the dynamic extremes of a symphony (or pipe organ) with only 10 watts, can't be done (unless you are using extremely efficient speakers). Ever hear a organ go from a single tone to feeling the floor rumble in a church when it really kicks in? That's moving a lot of air. It's visceral and can't really be conveyed with low power.
1% THD is perfectly acceptable given what a system was designed to do (are you trying to move a lot of air or hear a perfect square wave... everything is a compromise).
Specs confirm what a person hears, not the other way around (systems with nearly identical specs can sound vastly different). 100 watts can sound just as crappy as 500. Just not as loud.
I find it particularly telling that while the US seems to be nearly paranoid about possible "terrorist" (TM) uses of the EU's GPS, the EU doesn't seem to have the same concerns. Welcome to siege mentality.
It is idiotic to maintain superiority through bullying tactics. It leaves you open to get stabbed in the back. And people question animosity towards the US.
I've noticed that the time/energy required to keep things well organized just ain't working. The more complex the organization, the more energy required until it becomes self-feeding. More important to actually use/play with the stuff. Won't even go into the "Brave Little Toaster" implications (why yes, it is a Marantz Quad connected to the video games. Why keep it? It still works.).
Most systems tend to self-organize. I figure you want to keep the organization just at the functional level; if I can find it and no one is tripping over it, good enough. I will not be a party to the tyranny of Martha Stewart.
And collapsible shelves. And free beer when you move $]
Diamonds. SUVs. Hell, Harley-Davidsons for that matter. If prices are sufficently high, the item becomes a status symbol and even more desirable. Gas guzzling Amercan autos are major status symbols overseas, and logic be damned in the face of keeping up with the Jones.
I tend to think scarcity or overabundance isn't the problem per se, it's a mindset of wanting to attach dollar signs to everything; trying equate everything in terms of a common scale.
And for the most part, it works out okay until you start getting mailorder brides and liposuction... Can you really tell me how much loyalty is worth?
So no, we won't consume ourselves to death, but we will fail to notice the bridge is out while indulging our egos.