What puzzles me is that if you're going 2x or more than the tailwind, wouldn't you be feeling a headwind that effectively pushes back? If so, then how is the wind assisting you at that point instead of going against you.
I know that sailboats can sail into a headwind, but they don't sail directly into it, instead they do so at an angle that causes the headwind to still push it ultimately forward due to the keel preventing angular movement.
Perhaps this is using a similar technique, only with the tailwind. Since it is on land, the wheels would do the same thing as a keel, and because there's lower resistance you can go at faster speeds than anything on the water.
I don't see this described anywhere, but my bet is that you don't travel faster than the wind in the same direction that the wind is traveling, and instead are going at an angle of some sort. Therefore, I don't think "directly downwind" is accurate, but perhaps "at a slight perpendicular angle of downwind".
Yes because the luddites highly valued a world where even the clothes on your back were just plain shitty unless you were very rich.
To be frank, people like you don't support the poor at all. You think you do, but your goals and values would do nothing but make things more miserable for anybody who isn't rich.
Well, it sounds like you don't really fall into the broader category of being poor in this country. Being "temporarily" poor while going to college --- before securing a solidly-above-median salary job --- isn't the same as being a career minimum wage worker, born to career minimum wage workers, with very little prospect of going to college in the first place (even if you're pretty smart).
That's strange, since the whole time I was in school, I was well below the threshold of what the government defines as poverty.
It certainly isn't helping you to see the injustice in the system. And, if you're watching either the ads between, or the "news," you'll get a full-bore propaganda blast.
What injustice? Oh, you believe in the idea of social justice. Well, I don't, and let me tell you why: I believe in rewarding somebody who does something good. However I don't believe in rewarding anybody who hasn't done anything at all. Now consider the concept of TINSTAAFL. When you reward somebody for doing nothing, you've taken from somebody else. THAT is an injustice.
Only some of it; I enjoy watching a few shows myself. I'm more of a "live free or die" type. If you offered the trade: live as a poor person today, or a rich person before ubiquitous cars and TVs, I'd take the choice that gave me real personal autonomy over a shiny TV and a shitty Taylorized job.
That's the thing you don't realize: We have real personal autonomy. Far more than we ever have. Cars for example allow you to go places and do things which in the past you'd probably never do. For example, I can make a holiday weekend trip to the beach, whereas without a car we're looking at about two weeks of travel time alone, with much greater expense because you have to actually eat along the way.
But you come and tell me that cars are slave tools....I mean really? I don't understand how you can view it that way, it's just insane. And I don't make that statement lightly, I mean like batshit insane to the level of believing the moonlandings were faked and that 9/11 was an inside job. That's just how cheesy and unrealistic of a conspiracy theory that it is.
Oh, boo hoo. Also, false --- why do you think "my way" of doing things means crappier TVs? I'm fine with a society with good TVs *and* good equality and opportunity for all. And, if we're talking about the poor --- a $3K home entertainment setup might be a bit of a stretch at two and a half months of minimum wage salary, which is hard to save up after rent and grocery bills.
Well if you scaled things down a bit, you could drop that to $1k. For example buy a $500 HTIB and a $500 40" TV. By the way, did I mention I bought these things during the height of my college years? All while making less than minimum wage. You know how this is possible? Because I don't spend $200 on a pair of tickets to watch cheesy actors I've never heard of gawk at one another, and instead opt for $8 for an entire month worth of content. I'm probably one of the most financially disciplined people you'll ever run across, in fact in spite of having a credit rating of 842, I have never had any significant debts (I buy with my credit card, and pay the balance in full before it is due, gaining the credit card perks with zero percent interest or any other fees of any kind.) In fact I've never borrowed a cent that I couldn't pay back an hour later.
You're missing some important equipment in the cranium department if this is the primary criterion by which you judge plays.
Or perhaps I'm just not interested in plays. This is just one example; there's also the cost, the time, the inconvenience, and the fact that being at home is far more comfortable. People who listen to opera music have the same attitude that you do towards those who don't enjoy their past time either. Of course, I'm not terribly into TV either, I was just using it as an example. I LOVE video gam
I don't really see how I could be identified as a slave. Especially today where it's rather easy to get away with not working at all. Hell, I did that for several years. Through student grants and other whatnots I was getting paid to go to college. Look at that, intellectual expansion. Just yesterday I watched a rather shocking episode of game of thrones, but you're telling me that game of thrones is corporate propaganda to make me slave for the rich. Granted there are slaves in that show, I don't see the message where I should become a slave.
Wait a minute - are you one of those who insist that watching TV rots your brain? Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but that theory was debunked a long time ago. And to be honest, I don't particularly fancy either paintings or plays. As for paintings, I'm not into them at all. I don't like plays because I don't like waiting in line to sit down in a crowded theater listening to people cough and chew popcorn, and the production values aren't particularly good compared to the competition. TV on the other hand, I dropped $3k on a 7.1 system with lossless audio, a 55" tv, and a nice leather couch that is far more comfortable than any theater chair. If things went your way, I'd have paid not less than $20,000 for all of this stuff. Game of thrones would have no more so called propaganda on my LCD screen than it would if it were in a play. Meanwhile, I'm having a hard time figuring out how a play would manage to include realistic looking dragons and very large and very acrobatic wolves.
You're a bit old fashioned my friend. I think it's time to leave your fief.
Thank you. I really get annoyed when I hear Big stuck before anything, because it has connotations of somebody being oppressed, with immediate injected bias against the subject of the discussion.
I don't really think so myself. Efficiency is the key thing to making "stuff" more affordable and therefore more ubiquitous. For example, efficiencies in semiconductor fabrication enabled personal computers to be affordable by the average joe, even really poor people, whereas it used to be only the very rich owned them. The same thing can be said for cars and Ford's original Model T.
One key part of this is economies of scale, which means you need to sell large quantities of something in order for it to be affordable by the masses. And subsequently, a key part of that is marketing. Marketing is expensive as hell, and goes into the cost of those goods. If big data makes marketing cheaper, then that savings will eventually (though not immediately) make its way to joe sixpack.
So yes, you as the producer of that data DO benefit, just the benefit isn't obvious.
For another perspective on that, you ought to read Bestiat's parable of the broken window. Basically, when you can save money on an expense, then that money can go towards something more useful elsewhere.
This is exactly how the poor become wealthy. In spite of popular claim, the poor are in fact wealthier than they have ever been. Not by a little, but by a lot. Don't confuse money and income with wealth. By that I mean like what I stated above. It used to be that only the very rich owned cars, later TV's, and then later personal computers, later mobile phones (remember when car phones were neat?). A rich person from yesterday would be envious of the wealth that a poor person has today.
TL;DR and summary: I have a hard time seeing big data as being a scam, but rather as being a benefit. You may lose a bit of privacy, but I don't think it's enough to satisfy say a nosy neighbor. And before the accusations fly; no, I'm not a paid shill. Hell, I wish I were, because then I could get paid to muse about something I already believed in anyways.
The "fox news argued in court that they have the right to lie" is in itself a lie. It's one of those things where people repeat it enough to believe that it is true. Even googling it you get links to nothing but blogs about it, with not one professional analysis to speak of. Further, they all claim that Fox News itself was behind it, even though neither Fox nor its parent company had anything to do with it. It was all done by a local news station who happens to be a Fox TV affiliate (as in, they get the rights to air Fox television shows, but it doesn't extend much beyond that.)
And of course, all of the above completely ignores that the TV station itself simply wanted a fair story as opposed to a blanket slam piece. Compare that to say MSNBC who is known to deliberately alter news content (most recently, editing the George Zimmerman audio clips) in order to fit their "racism" narrative.
And also, there is at least some anecdotal evidence that progressives do indeed support IRS bullying of political speech so long as it isn't their speech.
(Slightly unrelated - I think the word "progressive" in the political sense is horribly used. It gives a self righteous implication that your own view is whats best for progress, without consideration that it might be wrong. For example, groups that have labeled themselves progressive include the prohibition movement as well as the Nazi party.)
But even if you don't have genetic patents they still have an incentive... Patent for drug X that affect gene Y in this manner.. Or Patent for cheaply and accurately detecting gene Z.
You must be new here. Well, on slashdot, having drug patents is bad too. Usually the reasons range from something to the case the summary makes (patents holding back the cure) to drug patents are made so that the drug is only just effective enough to make people better but not cure the sickness so that they can sell more drugs, to the drug company benefited from research not done by them so they don't deserve the profits, even though they spent billions on encapsulating the drug into a safe form, then making sure it is safe, doing clinical trials to map out all possible side effects, and then bribing the FDA to allow it to actually be sold on the market.
And yes the FDA needs to be bribed, in a manner of speaking. There's a surgery I'm trying to get right now that has been done in Europe safely since 1998 in order to prevent my Keratoconus from getting worse than it already is, in fact complete reversal of corneal degradation happens in upwards of 90% of cases where the surgery is performed, but the FDA still won't approve of it being performed in the US. It needs more "convincing", even after 15 years of very good results.
GMO patents are done on genes that are created from scratch. The anti-GMO movement likes to point out research where some scientists took genes from a fish and put them into a tomato, and cite that as their reason for banning it. The actual changes made however are relatively small, and they aren't copied from an existing sequence existing naturally somewhere else. They form protein structures that are literally invented rather than discovered. Last I checked, patents are for inventions. It's very hard to argue that creating new protein structures isn't inventing - the thing you're taking issue with is the means with which those proteins are created, which is completely irrational.
Most of the anti-GMO movement claims are based on what they see out of Hollywood. In fact every claim you just made has been vetted by a former anti-GMO activist (who was one of the founders of the movement) who found them to be untrue, and for the most part just outright made up due to a popular but irrational fear of any genetic modifications.
I highly recommend watching the video here. It's long, but it actually gives insight into genetic research that I never even heard of until seeing it.
Of course, the popular theory now is that this guy has been paid off by Monsanto and is now a paid shill and mouthpiece for them, because clearly people only make a huge change in opinion when they've been paid to do so. And I hope you know better than to trust Hollywood, Greenpeace, the vegan movement, and PETA, all of which are well known to deliberately lie and spread false propaganda.
There is one good thing that will come of this though. While "the rest of the world" sticks to conventional farming due to irrational fears, the US will be leading the way in terms of future agricultural sciences, which means future economic strength. Think about what Dr. Lynas said: Farming output has increased by 300% while landmass used for farms has only increased by 12% since the 50's. Organic farming would do nothing except reverse that trend. GMO farming will make things even better however. I really do hope that we never forcibly stick "GMO food" labels on anything, because it will have the same effect on agriculture that sticking radiation output labels on on cell phones would do. This effect has created health problems as is - namely the anti-preservative scare. Now instead of artificial preservatives, food contains celery juice as a natural preservative, which has far more of those scary nitrates th
Exactly, we need to remove all financial incentive for genetic research. Research and development for medicine should come from the goodness of ones heart alone. In order to become a geneticist, they have to already be rich anyways, so clearly they don't need more money. Capitalism after all is a virus, a pestilence of sorts that needs to be eradicated for the good of mankind.
STEM is a bit broad. CS majors for example are in very high supply relative to their need, so their pay reflects that. Network engineers are low supply relative to need, so they get paid more. Both are in the STEM category.
STEM is important, though we need more of the practical/building side than the theoretical side.
You mean as in being held accountable for the same laws, and having everything they do recorded on camera? Wow, enlightened England is so unique and smart, I wish we would have thought of that. And surely having a violent crime rate more than four times that of the US makes them more than four times better, right?
I think what they're counting on is that congresscritters will require privately owned firearms will require an approved one, and hope that they land on an such an approved list. Meanwhile government operatives (e.g. FBI) will be the only ones allowed to have firearms that are not defective by design.
You still don't get it at all. Let me put it another way.
What I'm taking issue at is your assertion that pedophiles are crazy. With that statement, you are examining them from a psychological standpoint. What I'm saying here is that in terms of psychology, the only thing that is "out of the norm" so to speak, is their sexual preference. The same thing can be said of homosexuals. The exact same thing. I'm not trying to degrade homosexuals in any way. That psychological status of having a preference that differs from the majority is something they share in common, but it in no way speaks of whether or not they are "crazy".
This is not in any way splitting hairs. Your viewpoint is essentially the same one that was and still is used by anti-homosexual groups. You consider it to be subhuman, so you attack it. The fact that you believe I am degrading homosexuals by comparing them to pedophiles already speaks volumes about your bias against pedophiles. It doesn't matter whether or not they are crazy, you hate them anyways. Meanwhile, you hypocritically hate on people who you perceive as needlessly hating on homosexuals.
Also, off topic, I read the site in your signature, and it doesn't seem like anything special. The fact alone that they are inherently biased against corporations in general speaks for itself. Ignoring that completely though, every journalist everywhere has their own inherent biases. They also do receive government support. They admit they are broadcast on NPR and PBS, both of which receive government subsidies even though both are immensely profitable, not to mention that both of them have been proven to be biased as well (just ask Juan Williams why he was fired.) In fact, there is no such thing as a truly unbiased news source. Even within their name, there's potential bias. What if some of them prefer direct democracy over representative democracy? Debating where to draw the line between tyranny of the majority and tyranny of the minority alone is very contentious.
Objective? You must be kidding. Pedophiles and homosexuals are similar?
Ugh...You completely missed my point. I'm neither saying nor implying that one is better or worse than the other, or that both are equally good or equally bad. I'm saying that they are both classified as paraphillias, and in that respect they are similar, which entirely encompasses the psychological viewpoint. That's it. I don't know how more objective you can get than that. The fact that you already hold a prejudice against one precludes you from seeing it that way, so if anything you are the one with the issues.
To put it another way, it's the same thing as saying that both reddit and slashdot work based on user submissions, and under that viewpoint they are similar. But beyond that, they are pretty different. One isn't inherently crazier than the other, but their regular users prefer their respective formats.
Speaking objectively, I don't think being a pedophile makes you anymore crazy than being a homosexual or say having a foot fetish. In other words, it's not crazy at all, it's simply what psychologists refer to as a paraphilia. I think there's probably a distinction between pedophiles who are attracted to underage kids vs those who sexually torture and abuse them, the later exhibiting antisocial behavior.
When you think about it, it's sort of arbitrary to say that having sex with somebody who is 17 and 9 months makes you a sick fuck, whereas waiting 3 months later is perfectly normal. I remember when I was 10 I fantasized about sex all the time, which is pretty common for that age, and being male doing the fucking is hard to be considered rape because a male having an orgasm is almost always voluntary. Now sex with an underage female, that is debatable. But when I hear stories about 6th grade males doing their female teachers, I'm having a hard time thinking that the kid was harmed in the process, either physically or mentally. In fact, dare I say it would be healthy if Hugh Hefner is any indication - the guy has always looked 20 years younger than he actually is.
I think somewhere around 200 years ago, 13 was basically considered to be an adult. Contrast to that of today where you don't have full legal rights and responsibilities until age 21.
By the way, I've never actually had sex, let alone any pedophile tendencies, so I'm not speaking as one of them.
Hate to break it to you, but the RMS line of thinking isn't practical for most people. And sadly, he doesn't seem to grasp why it isn't practical for most people. During one of his speeches, a person in the crowd once asked him how software developers should make their living in his ideal world, and his answer amounted to something along the lines of getting room and board from universities for free in exchange for ideas (which is essentially what he does.) Hate to break it to you, but that simply isn't practical at all.
As somebody who believes strongly in free market economics, I recognize the benefits of open source and open standards. It basically amounts to what Ford did with building cars on the assembly line, which made cars cheaper and made parts interchangeable. Further, by reducing the need to reinvent the wheel, you can now spend that time and/or money on some other project instead of repeating what was already done. Basically, it creates economic efficiency, which is why various commercial enterprises are now publishing the source for projects that they create. The idea is that somebody else may build on it for their particular need, which can then be used by the originating company, so they have gained something out of it. Webkit and Linux are both great examples of this.
That model doesn't work for every situation though. For example, games developers mostly depend on end-user sales, and by the time they need to improve something (because the hardware has finally caught up with their goals) they generally have to start from scratch or at least rewrite the vast majority of their existing code anyways. It is not at all unethical for them to not release the source, nor is there any economic advantage in doing so. In fact, it could even harm them from lost sales to license their code to other games developers who want to use their game engine, or even any trade secrets that are just given away if the source is public.
To me, RMS is by and large a nutcase. He wonders why Hurd will probably never make it, and why people just call Linux by the name of the kernel rather than his insisted GNU/Linux (many embedded distributions of Linux don't include any GNU tools at all, by the way.) Some even suspect that he is a high functioning autistic, and I agree. Likewise, that line of thinking is probably why you got modded to -1.
WoW is indeed losing subscribers. Not a little but a lot. It's still very profitable though, so I'm not sure where the "hemorrhaging cash" comes from, but indeed it IS hemorrhaging players, to the tune of about 1.1 to 1.3 million every quarter for the last 3 consecutive quarters (prior to that they were losing in the low to mid six digits per quarter.)
Eventually it will reach the point where it starts to become unprofitable until they scale down their servers, which they are still running as if their subscriber base was about 50% larger than it is now (presently at 8.3 million whereas it peaked at 12.7 million.) 8.3 million is a lot of revenue (I can't say how much exactly given that the monthly subscription cost isn't the same in every region, which is what this 8.3 million figure includes, and they don't provide that information in their quarterly SEC filings.)
I'm sure that if they could keep their subscription numbers secret from the players, they probably would (and I don't blame them, because if I were a games developer I would want to keep real-life issues out of the game itself for the sake of avoiding effects on the actual gameplay given that it is a social game) however that information is very pertinent to investors so it needs to be disclosed there. But if/when they start downscaling their servers, you can expect player drama, so I'm betting that they'll avoid that as long as they can.
7: Watch your credit rating. There are three things that will get you SOL at a job interview, an *arrest* record [1], bad credit, or being on the HR blacklist (yes, there is a blacklist shared among companies, and one single off-color joke can get you on it and unhirable for life. It is treated just like the RBL anti-spam list -- try suing them, they will counter with the list just being used as an option for companies to use.)
You can thank the feminist and racism extreme awareness crowd for that. Bosses and co-workers mostly don't really mind or care. Mostly. However the risk of getting sued is HUGE due to that 0.01% who take major exception to even a tiny joke. They want to avoid it so bad that they'll fire you at the drop of a hat just to avoid all possibility of a million dollar lawsuit followed by having to pay the offended employee for a year of lost wages because they "can't come to work due to emotional stress."
Another thing to add to this - my enterprise VM knowledge is pretty much limited to VMware, and I do know that if you use VMware, you can use the VMware Distributed Switch (VDS) which supports PVLANs. Place each individual set of VM's that belong to a given student into a community PVLAN, and make your default gateway a promiscuous PVLAN.
With a cheaper consumer grade switch, perhaps. However enterprise grade switches (which I'm going to assume he is using) there are all kinds of features that can prevent anything you described above, such as MAC flooding, VLAN hopping, broadcast storming, deliberate switching loops, and more.
That's not true at all. Yes there exists a VLAN hopping exploit, but it is easily prevented by modern switches. While VLANs weren't intended for security in the beginning, that has become one of their new purposes. Otherwise, layer 3 switches would probably never be used in any environment where security was major a concern, but that's simply not the case.
Another extension of the VLAN concept is PVLANs, whose purpose is for nothing else other than security, primarily used in hotels to prevent hacking, but has other uses as well, nearly all of them security related.
Slashdot Mirror
What puzzles me is that if you're going 2x or more than the tailwind, wouldn't you be feeling a headwind that effectively pushes back? If so, then how is the wind assisting you at that point instead of going against you.
I know that sailboats can sail into a headwind, but they don't sail directly into it, instead they do so at an angle that causes the headwind to still push it ultimately forward due to the keel preventing angular movement.
Perhaps this is using a similar technique, only with the tailwind. Since it is on land, the wheels would do the same thing as a keel, and because there's lower resistance you can go at faster speeds than anything on the water.
I don't see this described anywhere, but my bet is that you don't travel faster than the wind in the same direction that the wind is traveling, and instead are going at an angle of some sort. Therefore, I don't think "directly downwind" is accurate, but perhaps "at a slight perpendicular angle of downwind".
Yes because the luddites highly valued a world where even the clothes on your back were just plain shitty unless you were very rich.
To be frank, people like you don't support the poor at all. You think you do, but your goals and values would do nothing but make things more miserable for anybody who isn't rich.
Well, it sounds like you don't really fall into the broader category of being poor in this country. Being "temporarily" poor while going to college --- before securing a solidly-above-median salary job --- isn't the same as being a career minimum wage worker, born to career minimum wage workers, with very little prospect of going to college in the first place (even if you're pretty smart).
That's strange, since the whole time I was in school, I was well below the threshold of what the government defines as poverty.
It certainly isn't helping you to see the injustice in the system. And, if you're watching either the ads between, or the "news," you'll get a full-bore propaganda blast.
What injustice? Oh, you believe in the idea of social justice. Well, I don't, and let me tell you why: I believe in rewarding somebody who does something good. However I don't believe in rewarding anybody who hasn't done anything at all. Now consider the concept of TINSTAAFL. When you reward somebody for doing nothing, you've taken from somebody else. THAT is an injustice.
Only some of it; I enjoy watching a few shows myself. I'm more of a "live free or die" type. If you offered the trade: live as a poor person today, or a rich person before ubiquitous cars and TVs, I'd take the choice that gave me real personal autonomy over a shiny TV and a shitty Taylorized job.
That's the thing you don't realize: We have real personal autonomy. Far more than we ever have. Cars for example allow you to go places and do things which in the past you'd probably never do. For example, I can make a holiday weekend trip to the beach, whereas without a car we're looking at about two weeks of travel time alone, with much greater expense because you have to actually eat along the way.
But you come and tell me that cars are slave tools....I mean really? I don't understand how you can view it that way, it's just insane. And I don't make that statement lightly, I mean like batshit insane to the level of believing the moonlandings were faked and that 9/11 was an inside job. That's just how cheesy and unrealistic of a conspiracy theory that it is.
Oh, boo hoo. Also, false --- why do you think "my way" of doing things means crappier TVs? I'm fine with a society with good TVs *and* good equality and opportunity for all. And, if we're talking about the poor --- a $3K home entertainment setup might be a bit of a stretch at two and a half months of minimum wage salary, which is hard to save up after rent and grocery bills.
Well if you scaled things down a bit, you could drop that to $1k. For example buy a $500 HTIB and a $500 40" TV. By the way, did I mention I bought these things during the height of my college years? All while making less than minimum wage. You know how this is possible? Because I don't spend $200 on a pair of tickets to watch cheesy actors I've never heard of gawk at one another, and instead opt for $8 for an entire month worth of content. I'm probably one of the most financially disciplined people you'll ever run across, in fact in spite of having a credit rating of 842, I have never had any significant debts (I buy with my credit card, and pay the balance in full before it is due, gaining the credit card perks with zero percent interest or any other fees of any kind.) In fact I've never borrowed a cent that I couldn't pay back an hour later.
You're missing some important equipment in the cranium department if this is the primary criterion by which you judge plays.
Or perhaps I'm just not interested in plays. This is just one example; there's also the cost, the time, the inconvenience, and the fact that being at home is far more comfortable. People who listen to opera music have the same attitude that you do towards those who don't enjoy their past time either. Of course, I'm not terribly into TV either, I was just using it as an example. I LOVE video gam
I don't really see how I could be identified as a slave. Especially today where it's rather easy to get away with not working at all. Hell, I did that for several years. Through student grants and other whatnots I was getting paid to go to college. Look at that, intellectual expansion. Just yesterday I watched a rather shocking episode of game of thrones, but you're telling me that game of thrones is corporate propaganda to make me slave for the rich. Granted there are slaves in that show, I don't see the message where I should become a slave.
Wait a minute - are you one of those who insist that watching TV rots your brain? Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but that theory was debunked a long time ago. And to be honest, I don't particularly fancy either paintings or plays. As for paintings, I'm not into them at all. I don't like plays because I don't like waiting in line to sit down in a crowded theater listening to people cough and chew popcorn, and the production values aren't particularly good compared to the competition. TV on the other hand, I dropped $3k on a 7.1 system with lossless audio, a 55" tv, and a nice leather couch that is far more comfortable than any theater chair. If things went your way, I'd have paid not less than $20,000 for all of this stuff. Game of thrones would have no more so called propaganda on my LCD screen than it would if it were in a play. Meanwhile, I'm having a hard time figuring out how a play would manage to include realistic looking dragons and very large and very acrobatic wolves.
You're a bit old fashioned my friend. I think it's time to leave your fief.
Thank you. I really get annoyed when I hear Big stuck before anything, because it has connotations of somebody being oppressed, with immediate injected bias against the subject of the discussion.
I don't really think so myself. Efficiency is the key thing to making "stuff" more affordable and therefore more ubiquitous. For example, efficiencies in semiconductor fabrication enabled personal computers to be affordable by the average joe, even really poor people, whereas it used to be only the very rich owned them. The same thing can be said for cars and Ford's original Model T.
One key part of this is economies of scale, which means you need to sell large quantities of something in order for it to be affordable by the masses. And subsequently, a key part of that is marketing. Marketing is expensive as hell, and goes into the cost of those goods. If big data makes marketing cheaper, then that savings will eventually (though not immediately) make its way to joe sixpack.
So yes, you as the producer of that data DO benefit, just the benefit isn't obvious.
For another perspective on that, you ought to read Bestiat's parable of the broken window. Basically, when you can save money on an expense, then that money can go towards something more useful elsewhere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
This is exactly how the poor become wealthy. In spite of popular claim, the poor are in fact wealthier than they have ever been. Not by a little, but by a lot. Don't confuse money and income with wealth. By that I mean like what I stated above. It used to be that only the very rich owned cars, later TV's, and then later personal computers, later mobile phones (remember when car phones were neat?). A rich person from yesterday would be envious of the wealth that a poor person has today.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/john-stossel-on-the-poor-americas-poor-live-better-than-most-have-lived-through-history/
TL;DR and summary: I have a hard time seeing big data as being a scam, but rather as being a benefit. You may lose a bit of privacy, but I don't think it's enough to satisfy say a nosy neighbor. And before the accusations fly; no, I'm not a paid shill. Hell, I wish I were, because then I could get paid to muse about something I already believed in anyways.
This.
Please mod the parent up.
The "fox news argued in court that they have the right to lie" is in itself a lie. It's one of those things where people repeat it enough to believe that it is true. Even googling it you get links to nothing but blogs about it, with not one professional analysis to speak of. Further, they all claim that Fox News itself was behind it, even though neither Fox nor its parent company had anything to do with it. It was all done by a local news station who happens to be a Fox TV affiliate (as in, they get the rights to air Fox television shows, but it doesn't extend much beyond that.)
And of course, all of the above completely ignores that the TV station itself simply wanted a fair story as opposed to a blanket slam piece. Compare that to say MSNBC who is known to deliberately alter news content (most recently, editing the George Zimmerman audio clips) in order to fit their "racism" narrative.
I don't know about those other ones, but certainly Mao.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/23/white-house-christmas-decor-featuring-mao-zedong-comes/
And also, there is at least some anecdotal evidence that progressives do indeed support IRS bullying of political speech so long as it isn't their speech.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wzuEOr2D8wo
(Slightly unrelated - I think the word "progressive" in the political sense is horribly used. It gives a self righteous implication that your own view is whats best for progress, without consideration that it might be wrong. For example, groups that have labeled themselves progressive include the prohibition movement as well as the Nazi party.)
I guess that in the game of thrones, you either win or you resign.
But even if you don't have genetic patents they still have an incentive... Patent for drug X that affect gene Y in this manner.. Or Patent for cheaply and accurately detecting gene Z.
You must be new here. Well, on slashdot, having drug patents is bad too. Usually the reasons range from something to the case the summary makes (patents holding back the cure) to drug patents are made so that the drug is only just effective enough to make people better but not cure the sickness so that they can sell more drugs, to the drug company benefited from research not done by them so they don't deserve the profits, even though they spent billions on encapsulating the drug into a safe form, then making sure it is safe, doing clinical trials to map out all possible side effects, and then bribing the FDA to allow it to actually be sold on the market.
And yes the FDA needs to be bribed, in a manner of speaking. There's a surgery I'm trying to get right now that has been done in Europe safely since 1998 in order to prevent my Keratoconus from getting worse than it already is, in fact complete reversal of corneal degradation happens in upwards of 90% of cases where the surgery is performed, but the FDA still won't approve of it being performed in the US. It needs more "convincing", even after 15 years of very good results.
GMO patents are done on genes that are created from scratch. The anti-GMO movement likes to point out research where some scientists took genes from a fish and put them into a tomato, and cite that as their reason for banning it. The actual changes made however are relatively small, and they aren't copied from an existing sequence existing naturally somewhere else. They form protein structures that are literally invented rather than discovered. Last I checked, patents are for inventions. It's very hard to argue that creating new protein structures isn't inventing - the thing you're taking issue with is the means with which those proteins are created, which is completely irrational.
Most of the anti-GMO movement claims are based on what they see out of Hollywood. In fact every claim you just made has been vetted by a former anti-GMO activist (who was one of the founders of the movement) who found them to be untrue, and for the most part just outright made up due to a popular but irrational fear of any genetic modifications.
I highly recommend watching the video here. It's long, but it actually gives insight into genetic research that I never even heard of until seeing it.
http://www.marklynas.org/2013/01/lecture-to-oxford-farming-conference-3-january-2013/
Of course, the popular theory now is that this guy has been paid off by Monsanto and is now a paid shill and mouthpiece for them, because clearly people only make a huge change in opinion when they've been paid to do so. And I hope you know better than to trust Hollywood, Greenpeace, the vegan movement, and PETA, all of which are well known to deliberately lie and spread false propaganda.
There is one good thing that will come of this though. While "the rest of the world" sticks to conventional farming due to irrational fears, the US will be leading the way in terms of future agricultural sciences, which means future economic strength. Think about what Dr. Lynas said: Farming output has increased by 300% while landmass used for farms has only increased by 12% since the 50's. Organic farming would do nothing except reverse that trend. GMO farming will make things even better however. I really do hope that we never forcibly stick "GMO food" labels on anything, because it will have the same effect on agriculture that sticking radiation output labels on on cell phones would do. This effect has created health problems as is - namely the anti-preservative scare. Now instead of artificial preservatives, food contains celery juice as a natural preservative, which has far more of those scary nitrates th
Exactly, we need to remove all financial incentive for genetic research. Research and development for medicine should come from the goodness of ones heart alone. In order to become a geneticist, they have to already be rich anyways, so clearly they don't need more money. Capitalism after all is a virus, a pestilence of sorts that needs to be eradicated for the good of mankind.
STEM is a bit broad. CS majors for example are in very high supply relative to their need, so their pay reflects that. Network engineers are low supply relative to need, so they get paid more. Both are in the STEM category.
STEM is important, though we need more of the practical/building side than the theoretical side.
You mean as in being held accountable for the same laws, and having everything they do recorded on camera? Wow, enlightened England is so unique and smart, I wish we would have thought of that. And surely having a violent crime rate more than four times that of the US makes them more than four times better, right?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html
Clearly the problem is that America has too many guns.
A fatal shooting isn't "deadly violence" enough?
I think what they're counting on is that congresscritters will require privately owned firearms will require an approved one, and hope that they land on an such an approved list. Meanwhile government operatives (e.g. FBI) will be the only ones allowed to have firearms that are not defective by design.
You still don't get it at all. Let me put it another way.
What I'm taking issue at is your assertion that pedophiles are crazy. With that statement, you are examining them from a psychological standpoint. What I'm saying here is that in terms of psychology, the only thing that is "out of the norm" so to speak, is their sexual preference. The same thing can be said of homosexuals. The exact same thing. I'm not trying to degrade homosexuals in any way. That psychological status of having a preference that differs from the majority is something they share in common, but it in no way speaks of whether or not they are "crazy".
This is not in any way splitting hairs. Your viewpoint is essentially the same one that was and still is used by anti-homosexual groups. You consider it to be subhuman, so you attack it. The fact that you believe I am degrading homosexuals by comparing them to pedophiles already speaks volumes about your bias against pedophiles. It doesn't matter whether or not they are crazy, you hate them anyways. Meanwhile, you hypocritically hate on people who you perceive as needlessly hating on homosexuals.
Also, off topic, I read the site in your signature, and it doesn't seem like anything special. The fact alone that they are inherently biased against corporations in general speaks for itself. Ignoring that completely though, every journalist everywhere has their own inherent biases. They also do receive government support. They admit they are broadcast on NPR and PBS, both of which receive government subsidies even though both are immensely profitable, not to mention that both of them have been proven to be biased as well (just ask Juan Williams why he was fired.) In fact, there is no such thing as a truly unbiased news source. Even within their name, there's potential bias. What if some of them prefer direct democracy over representative democracy? Debating where to draw the line between tyranny of the majority and tyranny of the minority alone is very contentious.
Objective? You must be kidding. Pedophiles and homosexuals are similar?
Ugh...You completely missed my point. I'm neither saying nor implying that one is better or worse than the other, or that both are equally good or equally bad. I'm saying that they are both classified as paraphillias, and in that respect they are similar, which entirely encompasses the psychological viewpoint. That's it. I don't know how more objective you can get than that. The fact that you already hold a prejudice against one precludes you from seeing it that way, so if anything you are the one with the issues.
To put it another way, it's the same thing as saying that both reddit and slashdot work based on user submissions, and under that viewpoint they are similar. But beyond that, they are pretty different. One isn't inherently crazier than the other, but their regular users prefer their respective formats.
Speaking objectively, I don't think being a pedophile makes you anymore crazy than being a homosexual or say having a foot fetish. In other words, it's not crazy at all, it's simply what psychologists refer to as a paraphilia. I think there's probably a distinction between pedophiles who are attracted to underage kids vs those who sexually torture and abuse them, the later exhibiting antisocial behavior.
When you think about it, it's sort of arbitrary to say that having sex with somebody who is 17 and 9 months makes you a sick fuck, whereas waiting 3 months later is perfectly normal. I remember when I was 10 I fantasized about sex all the time, which is pretty common for that age, and being male doing the fucking is hard to be considered rape because a male having an orgasm is almost always voluntary. Now sex with an underage female, that is debatable. But when I hear stories about 6th grade males doing their female teachers, I'm having a hard time thinking that the kid was harmed in the process, either physically or mentally. In fact, dare I say it would be healthy if Hugh Hefner is any indication - the guy has always looked 20 years younger than he actually is.
I think somewhere around 200 years ago, 13 was basically considered to be an adult. Contrast to that of today where you don't have full legal rights and responsibilities until age 21.
By the way, I've never actually had sex, let alone any pedophile tendencies, so I'm not speaking as one of them.
Hate to break it to you, but the RMS line of thinking isn't practical for most people. And sadly, he doesn't seem to grasp why it isn't practical for most people. During one of his speeches, a person in the crowd once asked him how software developers should make their living in his ideal world, and his answer amounted to something along the lines of getting room and board from universities for free in exchange for ideas (which is essentially what he does.) Hate to break it to you, but that simply isn't practical at all.
As somebody who believes strongly in free market economics, I recognize the benefits of open source and open standards. It basically amounts to what Ford did with building cars on the assembly line, which made cars cheaper and made parts interchangeable. Further, by reducing the need to reinvent the wheel, you can now spend that time and/or money on some other project instead of repeating what was already done. Basically, it creates economic efficiency, which is why various commercial enterprises are now publishing the source for projects that they create. The idea is that somebody else may build on it for their particular need, which can then be used by the originating company, so they have gained something out of it. Webkit and Linux are both great examples of this.
That model doesn't work for every situation though. For example, games developers mostly depend on end-user sales, and by the time they need to improve something (because the hardware has finally caught up with their goals) they generally have to start from scratch or at least rewrite the vast majority of their existing code anyways. It is not at all unethical for them to not release the source, nor is there any economic advantage in doing so. In fact, it could even harm them from lost sales to license their code to other games developers who want to use their game engine, or even any trade secrets that are just given away if the source is public.
To me, RMS is by and large a nutcase. He wonders why Hurd will probably never make it, and why people just call Linux by the name of the kernel rather than his insisted GNU/Linux (many embedded distributions of Linux don't include any GNU tools at all, by the way.) Some even suspect that he is a high functioning autistic, and I agree. Likewise, that line of thinking is probably why you got modded to -1.
WoW is indeed losing subscribers. Not a little but a lot. It's still very profitable though, so I'm not sure where the "hemorrhaging cash" comes from, but indeed it IS hemorrhaging players, to the tune of about 1.1 to 1.3 million every quarter for the last 3 consecutive quarters (prior to that they were losing in the low to mid six digits per quarter.)
Eventually it will reach the point where it starts to become unprofitable until they scale down their servers, which they are still running as if their subscriber base was about 50% larger than it is now (presently at 8.3 million whereas it peaked at 12.7 million.) 8.3 million is a lot of revenue (I can't say how much exactly given that the monthly subscription cost isn't the same in every region, which is what this 8.3 million figure includes, and they don't provide that information in their quarterly SEC filings.)
http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Activision-Blizzard-Q1-2013-World-Warcraft-Loses-1-3-Million-Subscribers-55474.html
Their SEC filings (which detail their financial status according to GAAP, as required by law) for both annual 10K and quarterly 10Q can be found here:
http://investor.activision.com/sec.cfm
I'm sure that if they could keep their subscription numbers secret from the players, they probably would (and I don't blame them, because if I were a games developer I would want to keep real-life issues out of the game itself for the sake of avoiding effects on the actual gameplay given that it is a social game) however that information is very pertinent to investors so it needs to be disclosed there. But if/when they start downscaling their servers, you can expect player drama, so I'm betting that they'll avoid that as long as they can.
7: Watch your credit rating. There are three things that will get you SOL at a job interview, an *arrest* record [1], bad credit, or being on the HR blacklist (yes, there is a blacklist shared among companies, and one single off-color joke can get you on it and unhirable for life. It is treated just like the RBL anti-spam list -- try suing them, they will counter with the list just being used as an option for companies to use.)
You can thank the feminist and racism extreme awareness crowd for that. Bosses and co-workers mostly don't really mind or care. Mostly. However the risk of getting sued is HUGE due to that 0.01% who take major exception to even a tiny joke. They want to avoid it so bad that they'll fire you at the drop of a hat just to avoid all possibility of a million dollar lawsuit followed by having to pay the offended employee for a year of lost wages because they "can't come to work due to emotional stress."
Another thing to add to this - my enterprise VM knowledge is pretty much limited to VMware, and I do know that if you use VMware, you can use the VMware Distributed Switch (VDS) which supports PVLANs. Place each individual set of VM's that belong to a given student into a community PVLAN, and make your default gateway a promiscuous PVLAN.
With a cheaper consumer grade switch, perhaps. However enterprise grade switches (which I'm going to assume he is using) there are all kinds of features that can prevent anything you described above, such as MAC flooding, VLAN hopping, broadcast storming, deliberate switching loops, and more.
That's not true at all. Yes there exists a VLAN hopping exploit, but it is easily prevented by modern switches. While VLANs weren't intended for security in the beginning, that has become one of their new purposes. Otherwise, layer 3 switches would probably never be used in any environment where security was major a concern, but that's simply not the case.
Another extension of the VLAN concept is PVLANs, whose purpose is for nothing else other than security, primarily used in hotels to prevent hacking, but has other uses as well, nearly all of them security related.