The capital doesn't have any opinions, of course. It just perpetuates
itself. It's potential energy; when it's spent on the mass media, it
drags youth culture in its wake, and through some miracle perpetual
motion machine, that energy is recaptured in the sale of T-shirts, CDs,
movie tickets, Gap vests, makeup, and shoes.
Woah! What happened to the thought in your first sentence?
The anthropomorphization of the dollar sign is nothing more than a
misleading metaphor. It's people that make the decisions and do the
purchasing. People have opinions, and people act on them. You're upset
that neither capital nor business has emotions and opinions. Well,
they don't have brains either. People make all of the actions, and
in any bureaucratic organization, capitalist, communist, or democratic,
things snowball from there.
Your argument with corporate marketing teams is not that they have
influence over us, but rather that they have too much influence.
That's never going to change. There is entirely too much information
out there for it to be any other way. It would be impossible to make
conscious decisions about everything we do. It would just take too long,
I'd never even make it all the way to work. We have to make snap decisions
all day long, otherwise we'd never get anyway in both the metaphorical
and literal sense. That's one of the things the subconscious does.
Marketing, in the most basic sense, is the act of getting attention.
In this case, it the attention to the ends of purchasing an item. I don't
have time to determine what the best of class item is that I need in
my price range, marketing tells me. They may not be straight forward,
or even right, but I don't have to do the research on everything I buy.
Marketing/Consumption is a feedback loop. We want to be cool and
different, and marketing tries to give that to us. Not having enough
time to learn everything for ourselves, marketing shows us some examples.
What we buy goes back into the research for the marketing groups.
They then present it bigger-better-fast-more right back to us.
Look at how much more "Xtreme" things are in recent years. It's the same
thing we all heard growing up, "You kids are so [fill in] these days."
The music industry is a perfect example. When jazz first began making it
to the mainstream it was hedonistic, sinful, and the work of the devil.
Now, Jelly Roll Morton is tame by all but the most strict of standards.
Now what's wrong with this? We like the next thing. We like new.
If we didn't we'd still be fighting for daily sustenance instead of
reading/. If there were no marketing, I'd never have learned about
much of the music I enjoy, the books I read, the places I like to eat,
and who knows what else. Do you have the resources to discover and
publish every author you ever want to read? Every musician you want to
listen to? Marketing only becomes dangerous when you take it as gospel.
The problem is that despite what we may say, most of us do.
We have to accept that capital does not perpetuate itself. It is often
treated and modeled as such, but again it's just a metaphor to help us
understand the way we, as consumers, affect economic markets. It all
comes down to whether or not you are will to take responsibility for
your actions. If you are in a marketing team, will you refuse to over-
or mis-represent your products, even if it means your job? Probably not.
As a consumer are you willing to refuse to buy something because it
offends the smallest sliver of your sensibilities. Probably not. If you are, good for you, convince more of us.
Walk down 7th avenue in the low twenties. You'll see it on the sidewalks there too.
There's graffiti and then there's art. This is graffiti and astroturf advertising to boot. While it would be nice, I don't expect companies to play "nice." I do, however, expect them not to mess up my neighborhood.
According to Merriam-Webster, the word Adultery was first used in the 15th century to mean voluntary sexual intercourse between a married man and someone other than his wife or between a married woman and someone other than her husband; also : an act of adultery.
I'm guessing that was (is?) the definition of the Christian church from the time. As the population drifts from the political power of the church, we use our own definitions of morality. It's really up to the couple involved. I honestly doubt that other than those in an open relationship, few would consider the above definition not to be adultery.
Listen, I'm willing to credit Sandra Bullock with many things, but the movie wasn't THAT good. I doubt it's playing often enough to even cause a brown out.
Taco, just because you don't have a Jet Pack, doesn't mean you should speak for every else.
Invented by Bell Labs in the early 60's(?), and called the Rocketbelt, it could only maintain airborne for less than a minute, so you can imagine the altitude this puppy could get.
Does it strike anyone else odd that a judge is trying to define a computer function? I understand what he's trying to do by suggesting the statue of limitations, but c'mon. What if the roles were reversed?
<parody>
In a related story, prominent Silicon Valley computer engineer John Q. Programmer has written an article that legal briefs, should be brief.
Mr. Programmer has written, "Too long have we be burdened by misnamed legal 'briefs.' Brief should mean brief." He went on to write, "I am proposing a technical solution to this problem, we should develop a data structure to hold all legal briefs in a data field of char[256]."
</parody>
When you order something and pay with a credit card, the company is cannot legally "capture" the money until the item is ready to be shipped. In the mean time, they can place an authorization or hold on the money, but they don't get it until they've actually captured.
Because of this, Amazon will not have the money to invest, and while not losing money on the deal, are making less because they will be charged for reauthorizing the CC.
The value is in this name is not the name, it's the reoccurant traffic it receives. From the eBay link provided in the original quip:
Traffic stats according to PC Data, the authority on Internet traffic:
o Ranked #2250 of all sites on the Internet and climbing
o 124,000 unique users per week
o 2,646,000 page views per week
o Users spend an average 46 minutes per week on the site
Ok, so I think we have established that there are not many schools that will train you to become a good at IT. Mine didn't, the jobs I've had did.
I think that we can also argue that school is not a prerequisite for learning how to become good at IT. What ever criteria are needed to do so can be learned elsewhere given motivation.
However, even given the hypothetical situation where I could have gotten the same jobs without the degree and without the connections I got from school, given the option, I would have gone to school anyway. Nowhere else will I have the opportunity to have tackled so many strictly academic problems as simply mind exercises. Nowhere else will I have the opportunity to expore so many fields outside of CS.
College might not make you an IT guru, but then, that's not the point of college is it?
It would be great if we could put the onus of responsibility taking care of email on the users, as in the example SEWilco raises. However, email is not currently regulated by the same set of laws. I believe that postal mail is protected from tampering in the U.S. by federal statue, e.g., it's against the law to read postal mail not addressed/delivered to you.
Why is email treated differently? Email is not handled exclusively by federal employees. Does that mean that Joe User should trust their local postal employees more than their email admins? I suppose that depends on the employees and their email admins, but while immoral and probably subject to civil court, it is not a federal crime to read someone else's email.
If you don't like it, write your senators, representatives, and everyone else who can affect a legal change.
Here in the U.S., the Constitution (via Ammendment 2) guarentees the right of its citizens to bear arms. This is not a surprise. However, as computer warfare becomes more prevalent and recognized by local authorities as something they are going to have to respond to, things are going to change.
As it is used in computer warfare, I would consider L0phtcrack a weapon. Ignoring the very difficult problem of what should be considered a weapon under this new definition, should the tools of computer warfare be regulated as are other arms?
In the view that security guards have to be licensed if carry firearms, should sysadmins have to be licensed to posess and use <fill in your favorite security testing tool here>?
Hmmm. Let's see if I have this straight. I promote one of their products on my time. Then if someone buys something of theirs through me, then I get a commision. Isn't that the job description of a salesman? Or at least of a sales rep?
Now I could be wrong, but haven't salesmen and sales reps (or at least the process of selling which is relevant to the patent) been around a while? Maybe even since before Amazon?
Of course! It all makes sense now! Microsoft really pioneered distributed.net, and is using MS Office as a client to process Echelon data. I wondered my PC kept getting slower.
It has nothing to do with "Van Eck" or "Tempest" radiation, because those read the image off of the CRT tube's electron beam.
Actually it could. While the protection against video cable signal leakage may not be the intended effect, it is relevant. Van Eck phreaking can be used on any leaky signal. See this article by Peter Smulders about Tempest and RS232.
While it may have not been the original intention, showing interest in security is showing responsibility. By showing that MP3.com is taking active interest in attempting to solve some of the problems over which they have been criticized they will get big brownie points.
Slashdot Mirror
I've been following Conan's "In the Year 2000" for some time now. You can imagine my surprise upon learning the gov't is now sponsoring the routine.
While they deserve it, they are not entitled to it. That's the difference between morality and law.
Woah! What happened to the thought in your first sentence? The anthropomorphization of the dollar sign is nothing more than a misleading metaphor. It's people that make the decisions and do the purchasing. People have opinions, and people act on them. You're upset that neither capital nor business has emotions and opinions. Well, they don't have brains either. People make all of the actions, and in any bureaucratic organization, capitalist, communist, or democratic, things snowball from there.
Your argument with corporate marketing teams is not that they have influence over us, but rather that they have too much influence. That's never going to change. There is entirely too much information out there for it to be any other way. It would be impossible to make conscious decisions about everything we do. It would just take too long, I'd never even make it all the way to work. We have to make snap decisions all day long, otherwise we'd never get anyway in both the metaphorical and literal sense. That's one of the things the subconscious does. Marketing, in the most basic sense, is the act of getting attention. In this case, it the attention to the ends of purchasing an item. I don't have time to determine what the best of class item is that I need in my price range, marketing tells me. They may not be straight forward, or even right, but I don't have to do the research on everything I buy.
Marketing/Consumption is a feedback loop. We want to be cool and different, and marketing tries to give that to us. Not having enough time to learn everything for ourselves, marketing shows us some examples. What we buy goes back into the research for the marketing groups. They then present it bigger-better-fast-more right back to us.
Look at how much more "Xtreme" things are in recent years. It's the same thing we all heard growing up, "You kids are so [fill in] these days." The music industry is a perfect example. When jazz first began making it to the mainstream it was hedonistic, sinful, and the work of the devil. Now, Jelly Roll Morton is tame by all but the most strict of standards.
Now what's wrong with this? We like the next thing. We like new. If we didn't we'd still be fighting for daily sustenance instead of reading /. If there were no marketing, I'd never have learned about
much of the music I enjoy, the books I read, the places I like to eat,
and who knows what else. Do you have the resources to discover and
publish every author you ever want to read? Every musician you want to
listen to? Marketing only becomes dangerous when you take it as gospel.
The problem is that despite what we may say, most of us do.
We have to accept that capital does not perpetuate itself. It is often treated and modeled as such, but again it's just a metaphor to help us understand the way we, as consumers, affect economic markets. It all comes down to whether or not you are will to take responsibility for your actions. If you are in a marketing team, will you refuse to over- or mis-represent your products, even if it means your job? Probably not. As a consumer are you willing to refuse to buy something because it offends the smallest sliver of your sensibilities. Probably not. If you are, good for you, convince more of us.
What next? A decent application for Forth? Ada? Eiffel? C++? Oops. What that out loud?
There's graffiti and then there's art. This is graffiti and astroturf advertising to boot. While it would be nice, I don't expect companies to play "nice." I do, however, expect them not to mess up my neighborhood.
$ ./a.out
Hello Wor
(core dumped)
$
IETF SECSH papers
I'm guessing that was (is?) the definition of the Christian church from the time. As the population drifts from the political power of the church, we use our own definitions of morality. It's really up to the couple involved. I honestly doubt that other than those in an open relationship, few would consider the above definition not to be adultery.
Anyone know the legal definition?
Listen, I'm willing to credit Sandra Bullock with many things, but the movie wasn't THAT good. I doubt it's playing often enough to even cause a brown out.
You shoot 10 men and you're a murderer.
You shoot 1000000 men and you're a god.
You shoot 1 comet and you get an article on slashdot.
See, even "retro" books can be cool. My 10th grade English teacher would be so proud.
Invented by Bell Labs in the early 60's(?), and called the Rocketbelt, it could only maintain airborne for less than a minute, so you can imagine the altitude this puppy could get.
More info here and here.
<parody>
In a related story, prominent Silicon Valley computer engineer John Q. Programmer has written an article that legal briefs, should be brief.
Mr. Programmer has written, "Too long have we be burdened by misnamed legal 'briefs.' Brief should mean brief." He went on to write, "I am proposing a technical solution to this problem, we should develop a data structure to hold all legal briefs in a data field of char[256]."
</parody>
Well, for a loose definition of "long" anyways.
http://ipv8.vrx.net/spec/
When you order something and pay with a credit card, the company is cannot legally "capture" the money until the item is ready to be shipped. In the mean time, they can place an authorization or hold on the money, but they don't get it until they've actually captured.
Because of this, Amazon will not have the money to invest, and while not losing money on the deal, are making less because they will be charged for reauthorizing the CC.
The value is in this name is not the name, it's the reoccurant traffic it receives. From the eBay link provided in the original quip:
Traffic stats according to PC Data, the authority on Internet traffic:
o Ranked #2250 of all sites on the Internet and climbing
o 124,000 unique users per week
o 2,646,000 page views per week
o Users spend an average 46 minutes per week on the site
Ok, so I think we have established that there are not many schools that will train you to become a good at IT. Mine didn't, the jobs I've had did.
I think that we can also argue that school is not a prerequisite for learning how to become good at IT. What ever criteria are needed to do so can be learned elsewhere given motivation.
However, even given the hypothetical situation where I could have gotten the same jobs without the degree and without the connections I got from school, given the option, I would have gone to school anyway. Nowhere else will I have the opportunity to have tackled so many strictly academic problems as simply mind exercises. Nowhere else will I have the opportunity to expore so many fields outside of CS.
College might not make you an IT guru, but then, that's not the point of college is it?
It would be great if we could put the onus of responsibility taking care of email on the users, as in the example SEWilco raises. However, email is not currently regulated by the same set of laws. I believe that postal mail is protected from tampering in the U.S. by federal statue, e.g., it's against the law to read postal mail not addressed/delivered to you.
Why is email treated differently? Email is not handled exclusively by federal employees. Does that mean that Joe User should trust their local postal employees more than their email admins? I suppose that depends on the employees and their email admins, but while immoral and probably subject to civil court, it is not a federal crime to read someone else's email.
If you don't like it, write your senators, representatives, and everyone else who can affect a legal change.
The difference is that we can vote for (and against) those responsible for making those descisions in the Government.
No (Taxation|Censorship) without Representation?
Here in the U.S., the Constitution (via Ammendment 2) guarentees the right of its citizens to bear arms. This is not a surprise. However, as computer warfare becomes more prevalent and recognized by local authorities as something they are going to have to respond to, things are going to change.
As it is used in computer warfare, I would consider L0phtcrack a weapon. Ignoring the very difficult problem of what should be considered a weapon under this new definition, should the tools of computer warfare be regulated as are other arms?
In the view that security guards have to be licensed if carry firearms, should sysadmins have to be licensed to posess and use <fill in your favorite security testing tool here>?
It was written by William Gibson and Tom Maddox. I would be shocked _not_ to see cyber written all over it.
Hmmm. Let's see if I have this straight. I promote one of their products on my time. Then if someone buys something of theirs through me, then I get a commision. Isn't that the job description of a salesman? Or at least of a sales rep?
Now I could be wrong, but haven't salesmen and sales reps (or at least the process of selling which is relevant to the patent) been around a while? Maybe even since before Amazon?
Of course! It all makes sense now! Microsoft really pioneered distributed.net, and is using MS Office as a client to process Echelon data. I wondered my PC kept getting slower.
It has nothing to do with "Van Eck" or "Tempest" radiation, because those read the image off of the CRT tube's electron beam.
Actually it could. While the protection against video cable signal leakage may not be the intended effect, it is relevant. Van Eck phreaking can be used on any leaky signal. See this article by Peter Smulders about Tempest and RS232.
While it may have not been the original intention, showing interest in security is showing responsibility. By showing that MP3.com is taking active interest in attempting to solve some of the problems over which they have been criticized they will get big brownie points.