Shhh, this is Slashdot. If a company did two things at any point in its history they are obviously contemporaneous and can be used together to attack/defend any point one makes.
Not a single part of that patent, alone or in conjunction with any/all other parts, is novel or non-obvious. It is how devices were managed before, the only difference being they were connected to a cord. Deploying a wireless network would obviate the need for a cord, and the next step is to perform that management over the wireless data link on the device.
Now, perhaps if they had patented the idea of putting a wireless link into a device for the purpose of managing it, and submitted that patent a decade earlier, it would be new and-or non-obvious.
In terms of total virus load in human populations, the number of zoonotic viruses (as most of the organisms on that list are not viruses) is incredibly small.
There wouldn't necessarily be alarms. After all, the use of Cisco's IOS backdoors, last I saw, had the problem of being so quiet that surreptitious use by black hats could not be detected easily. If the people who actually constructed the backdoors were using them appropriately and designed them for completel transparency, I wouldn't make a bet against them being able to use them unnoticed. It's been done before, as recently as 2010 (the last time I read an updated report of IOS LEA intercept problems).
Cognitive dissonance is a catch-all term used to describe mental discomfort as a result of believing two mutually exclusive things (whether you understand them to be contradictory or are aware only subconsciously).
The post I replied to was an attempt to create some sort of consistency between the understanding that alcohol is highly destructive, but that prohibition created even greater evils and the belief that prohibition of something which is less destructive but suffers the same evils-creation as alcohol prohibition is justified. The justification is not actually spelled out, so they have a ways to go in order to integrate the two beliefs.
They may successfully create a better integration, thus allowing for more comfortable belief in these opposing beliefs. Or, they may go down any number of other paths to create something more logically consistent. As they posted AC, we'll probably never know, but it's an interesting data point nonetheless.
Superficially in general, and in very specific finished types less generally, I would agree with cigarette companies. With the exception of trucks (and even they are outfitted completely differently), the supply chain for alcohol production has almost nothing in common with any tobacco product (and thus with any non-bottled marijuana product). It's also a vastly more refined product, and the major expenses and technical hurdles are in the refinement process.
To be clear, in regard to cigarette companies, my contention has more to do with the economics of the bulk raw ingredient. For those looking for finished, pre-rolled products, they have a clear advantage. However, they face pressures re marijuana that do not exist in their current business: independent growers (this could be expanded into a novella), and a massive culture of trading and self-rolling. I'm not really interested in writing a treatise on the agricultural differences and the likely conclusions to be drown from each of them, but suffice to say marijuana's much lower barriers to entry would likely limit the interest of cigarette suppliers a great deal. They have massive amounts of infrastructure and capital deployed specifically to deal with tobacco's unique hurdles, and the profit potential is quite likely not worth the cost required to realign to support an agricultural product lacking almost all those hurdles (plus adding several with no tobacco analogue).
Only in certain types of markets. The idea that they would have anywhere near as much control over marijuana production and distribution doesn't take into account the culture around marijuana and the ease with which it is grown (and as popular as it is to grow despite still being illegal). The differences fundamentally alter the economic factors a company would have to consider vs the tobacco markets.
California makes some excellent wines; the lack of French, Spanish, or Italian names does not preclude this. Well, unless you ignore international awards from anywhere but old-world wine-producing regions in Europe.
I do agree with your general tone, however. The notion that making excellent alcohols is trivial is easily disabused by the most cursory examination of the process. Some are certainly easier relative to others, but none are trivial. Even making pure, characterless ethanol is not trivial, though it is far more straightforward than most of the processes involved in creating alcohol as a drink.
My comment was specifically in relation to a potential market being capitalized by two existing industries, not as a complete treatise on the lack of ability for anyone to capitalize on the market at all. I do not believe the latter to be the case, for most of the reasons you bring up here.
That's actually another point in favor of my overall point of barrier to entry, though if you actually believe tobacco and alcohol would take a hit commercially from the legal availability of marijuana there's probably not much point in even typing this reply.
That's a personal choice though, and has nothing to do with the inherent difficulties of each task.
I don't refine crude oil to make gasoline or make my own ceramic dishes, but that says nothing about the vast differences in cost and opportunity required of each task.
Oh, I didn't mean to say they were trying to get a contract signed on a lie. Rather, I meant that the approximation they publicly put forth is in their best interest from a publicity perspective, as this is a very public dispute now.
Regardless of the sleaziness of the technique used, both are salesmen and neither appear to be telling the entire truth. The latter is what leads me to believe neither of them.
The argument would boil down to the fact that 0.19 lbs and 0.16 inches are worth the massive inflation in costs, and the anecdotal evidence that the hardware lasts longer.
Personally, I think paying that much more is a horrible deal, but appearances matter to a lot of people. Sometimes to the tune of hundreds, thousands, or millions of dollars.
Out of curiosity, how much does it cost a month to get zero deductible insurance which covers wear-and-tear breakage of everything in your house from a company that doesn't raise your rates after you make claims on the policy?
To be fair, that's Viacom's estimate, and it's in their best interest to estimate as low as they can get away with. By their estimate, it's something like $144M, whereas DirecTV is calling it $1B.
Based on my experience with people who display little regard for the truth, the argument indicates the amount is likely right around $400M. Whether that's close to it or not, I don't know. It would surprise me if it was near either quoted figure though.
I would love it if DirectTV let me buy the few channels they have we still watch ala carte for a small fraction of what they are charging for their packages.
They'd go out of business, because all the networks that produce those channels will not license them to DirecTV (or anyone else) in anything but a complete package deal.
So, if DirecTV (or anyone else) actually offered an a la carte service that was proportionally priced, they'd still have to eat the cost of all those worthless networks that nobody wants access to.
The lack of a la carte programming is 100% the fault of content producers like Viacom. If delivery services all stood up and refused to license content the way it currently is, they'd more than likely be charged with collusion or some such by the DOJ. This isn't to say video providers would start offering a la carte if they were financially capable of doing so; that's something we'd only find out once producers stopped tying their crap to the products people are actually willing to pay for.
This post is absolutely classic for anyone interested in cognitive dissonance and methods by which its effects are mitigated by those who experience it.
Sadly, sense like that contained in your post is entirely too uncommon.
I say this as someone who is completely against recreational drug use (including the drug alcohol) personally, but believe societal prohibitions on them are pointless, merit-less, and entirely without justification. I do, however, support mandatory treatment or punishment (depending on the circumstances) for people who commit crimes as a result of impaired mental function. The reason one cannot control themselves is irrelevant. If they choose to engage in that behavior, the criminal justice system is the answer. If they engage in the behavior because of mental defect, then mandatory treatment is the answer. Drug prohibitions aren't going to solve either of those things though, and just further fuck up an already fucked-up criminal justice system.
I'm certain there's a lot of insider influence, but I'd also agree there's a lot of "stupid" and "tradition" going on as well to maintain the status quo.
No they're not. Marijuana is too easy to produce in finished form. They'd have to continue to outlaw the private production of it, and that would be incredibly difficult for politicians to rationalize (much less enforce) once the drug itself was legal.
Alcohol and tobacco are easier to control because production of a high quality finished product is much more difficult.
Slashdot Mirror
Shhh, this is Slashdot. If a company did two things at any point in its history they are obviously contemporaneous and can be used together to attack/defend any point one makes.
Not a single part of that patent, alone or in conjunction with any/all other parts, is novel or non-obvious. It is how devices were managed before, the only difference being they were connected to a cord. Deploying a wireless network would obviate the need for a cord, and the next step is to perform that management over the wireless data link on the device.
Now, perhaps if they had patented the idea of putting a wireless link into a device for the purpose of managing it, and submitted that patent a decade earlier, it would be new and-or non-obvious.
Not to mention it wouldn't take someone skilled in the art to see managing wireless devices would more than likely be done ... drumroll ... wirelessly!
In terms of total virus load in human populations, the number of zoonotic viruses (as most of the organisms on that list are not viruses) is incredibly small.
There wouldn't necessarily be alarms. After all, the use of Cisco's IOS backdoors, last I saw, had the problem of being so quiet that surreptitious use by black hats could not be detected easily. If the people who actually constructed the backdoors were using them appropriately and designed them for completel transparency, I wouldn't make a bet against them being able to use them unnoticed. It's been done before, as recently as 2010 (the last time I read an updated report of IOS LEA intercept problems).
Sounds like the NW USA.
Cognitive dissonance is a catch-all term used to describe mental discomfort as a result of believing two mutually exclusive things (whether you understand them to be contradictory or are aware only subconsciously).
The post I replied to was an attempt to create some sort of consistency between the understanding that alcohol is highly destructive, but that prohibition created even greater evils and the belief that prohibition of something which is less destructive but suffers the same evils-creation as alcohol prohibition is justified. The justification is not actually spelled out, so they have a ways to go in order to integrate the two beliefs.
They may successfully create a better integration, thus allowing for more comfortable belief in these opposing beliefs. Or, they may go down any number of other paths to create something more logically consistent. As they posted AC, we'll probably never know, but it's an interesting data point nonetheless.
Superficially in general, and in very specific finished types less generally, I would agree with cigarette companies. With the exception of trucks (and even they are outfitted completely differently), the supply chain for alcohol production has almost nothing in common with any tobacco product (and thus with any non-bottled marijuana product). It's also a vastly more refined product, and the major expenses and technical hurdles are in the refinement process.
To be clear, in regard to cigarette companies, my contention has more to do with the economics of the bulk raw ingredient. For those looking for finished, pre-rolled products, they have a clear advantage. However, they face pressures re marijuana that do not exist in their current business: independent growers (this could be expanded into a novella), and a massive culture of trading and self-rolling. I'm not really interested in writing a treatise on the agricultural differences and the likely conclusions to be drown from each of them, but suffice to say marijuana's much lower barriers to entry would likely limit the interest of cigarette suppliers a great deal. They have massive amounts of infrastructure and capital deployed specifically to deal with tobacco's unique hurdles, and the profit potential is quite likely not worth the cost required to realign to support an agricultural product lacking almost all those hurdles (plus adding several with no tobacco analogue).
Only in certain types of markets. The idea that they would have anywhere near as much control over marijuana production and distribution doesn't take into account the culture around marijuana and the ease with which it is grown (and as popular as it is to grow despite still being illegal). The differences fundamentally alter the economic factors a company would have to consider vs the tobacco markets.
California makes some excellent wines; the lack of French, Spanish, or Italian names does not preclude this. Well, unless you ignore international awards from anywhere but old-world wine-producing regions in Europe.
I do agree with your general tone, however. The notion that making excellent alcohols is trivial is easily disabused by the most cursory examination of the process. Some are certainly easier relative to others, but none are trivial. Even making pure, characterless ethanol is not trivial, though it is far more straightforward than most of the processes involved in creating alcohol as a drink.
My comment was specifically in relation to a potential market being capitalized by two existing industries, not as a complete treatise on the lack of ability for anyone to capitalize on the market at all. I do not believe the latter to be the case, for most of the reasons you bring up here.
That's actually another point in favor of my overall point of barrier to entry, though if you actually believe tobacco and alcohol would take a hit commercially from the legal availability of marijuana there's probably not much point in even typing this reply.
That's a personal choice though, and has nothing to do with the inherent difficulties of each task.
I don't refine crude oil to make gasoline or make my own ceramic dishes, but that says nothing about the vast differences in cost and opportunity required of each task.
Oh, I didn't mean to say they were trying to get a contract signed on a lie. Rather, I meant that the approximation they publicly put forth is in their best interest from a publicity perspective, as this is a very public dispute now.
Regardless of the sleaziness of the technique used, both are salesmen and neither appear to be telling the entire truth. The latter is what leads me to believe neither of them.
The argument would boil down to the fact that 0.19 lbs and 0.16 inches are worth the massive inflation in costs, and the anecdotal evidence that the hardware lasts longer.
Personally, I think paying that much more is a horrible deal, but appearances matter to a lot of people. Sometimes to the tune of hundreds, thousands, or millions of dollars.
Out of curiosity, how much does it cost a month to get zero deductible insurance which covers wear-and-tear breakage of everything in your house from a company that doesn't raise your rates after you make claims on the policy?
To be fair, that's Viacom's estimate, and it's in their best interest to estimate as low as they can get away with. By their estimate, it's something like $144M, whereas DirecTV is calling it $1B.
Based on my experience with people who display little regard for the truth, the argument indicates the amount is likely right around $400M. Whether that's close to it or not, I don't know. It would surprise me if it was near either quoted figure though.
Unfortunately, not enough people understand this and/or are willing to go without immediate access to the newest episode of whatever.
I've already done my part and cut the cord to traditional networks. Now we just need another 25 million or so to follow...
I would love it if DirectTV let me buy the few channels they have we still watch ala carte for a small fraction of what they are charging for their packages.
They'd go out of business, because all the networks that produce those channels will not license them to DirecTV (or anyone else) in anything but a complete package deal.
So, if DirecTV (or anyone else) actually offered an a la carte service that was proportionally priced, they'd still have to eat the cost of all those worthless networks that nobody wants access to.
The lack of a la carte programming is 100% the fault of content producers like Viacom. If delivery services all stood up and refused to license content the way it currently is, they'd more than likely be charged with collusion or some such by the DOJ. This isn't to say video providers would start offering a la carte if they were financially capable of doing so; that's something we'd only find out once producers stopped tying their crap to the products people are actually willing to pay for.
This post is absolutely classic for anyone interested in cognitive dissonance and methods by which its effects are mitigated by those who experience it.
Just rhetoric, huh?
How are you posting this without using a gateway?
*ducks*
Sadly, sense like that contained in your post is entirely too uncommon.
I say this as someone who is completely against recreational drug use (including the drug alcohol) personally, but believe societal prohibitions on them are pointless, merit-less, and entirely without justification. I do, however, support mandatory treatment or punishment (depending on the circumstances) for people who commit crimes as a result of impaired mental function. The reason one cannot control themselves is irrelevant. If they choose to engage in that behavior, the criminal justice system is the answer. If they engage in the behavior because of mental defect, then mandatory treatment is the answer. Drug prohibitions aren't going to solve either of those things though, and just further fuck up an already fucked-up criminal justice system.
I'm certain there's a lot of insider influence, but I'd also agree there's a lot of "stupid" and "tradition" going on as well to maintain the status quo.
No they're not. Marijuana is too easy to produce in finished form. They'd have to continue to outlaw the private production of it, and that would be incredibly difficult for politicians to rationalize (much less enforce) once the drug itself was legal.
Alcohol and tobacco are easier to control because production of a high quality finished product is much more difficult.
Only if it's nun porn.