It's just amazing how out of touch this guy is. It's often said that Microsoft is so inward focused, that its workers are so completely "brainwashed" that they simply can't even understand criticism offered to them. They're in a completely different world. This response illustrates that completely.
I'm perfectly happy to see people I don't agree with speak, and I'm greatful to read their thoughts so that I can see their mindset. This response was bad on an entirely different level. He couldn't seem to even fully grasp the questions.
That's probably the real meaning to be gleaned from this response.
The airport isn't yours. When you walk into an airport you have to agree to abide by the rules established by the owner of the airport. You have no right to demand that they be changed. Feel free to establish rules in your own house, but when you enter someone else's property you abide by their rules.
You have no more right to avoid the airport's tracking requirements than you'd have to demand free flights or free meals at their overpriced sandwich bars.
I'm sorry you may not like it, but owner's rights trump this sort of misguided "privacy rights" demand any day.
Paper records aren't some magic bullet to solve the issue of recounts. Paper is corruptable; this is a return to the problems that electronic voting was supposed to solve.
What happens when the count is different? Which is to believed? The perfect, digital count that could be intentionally flubbed or the subject-to-significant-error hand count of corruptable marks on paper?
The 2000 election was decided within the margin of error for paper methods. Digital counts deliver us from this problem, but the paper record put us right back.
We could go even further. Half of Kerry supporters were looking for a change and not a good president, the rest were deluding themselves into believing Kerry actually WAS a good choice.
Never underestimate the power of a person who wants to believe despite reality.
You overlook the obvious answer: Kerry supporters are the ones looking for change so it stands to reason that they'd be the ones more likely to voice that opinion to a survey taker.
The key is recognizing that information is not so much a product but the result of a service. If people want music they'll pay to have it produced. Once it's produced they'll have it, and they want to have it.
So let's throw out all of these crappy analogies. There's no "stealing" of music since doing so doesn't remove it from the hands of anyone else. Information is fundamentally different from real property; let's not try to force the rules of the latter onto the former.
Pay the producers for making music that people want, and then don't worry about what happens to the music.
It's really the responsibilities of entrepreneurs to figure out the details of the business model. The government shouldn't be stepping in to make up for their lack of creativity.
The market is not a system of laws. It's a creature that is born whenever there is a supply and demand of various products.
Some laws help the market to function more efficiently. People are more likely to take out contracts when there is a device in place to enforce them. Some laws make the market less efficient. In the end, though, laws only affect markets; they do not define them.
There are no in game functions available to allow for player run banks.
Can you transfer money from other people into your own posession? Can you transfer it back out to other people? Guess what... That's all the functions you need to run a bank.
Everything is not observed. It cannot be observed. Mathematically there are certain things that cannot be observed, but that still exist, and can still be interacted with.
The mathematics of quantum mechanics suggests that certain things happen so long as there's no attempt to observe them. There are all sorts of crazy experiments that verify this result, but in summary it's as you read: under quantum mechanics there are things that are certain ways only so long as you don't look.
Before you think this is all hogwash, quantum mechanics is actually one of most successful theories that physics has ever proposed.
1) The US government doesn't create money; it creates US dollars, which are not equivalent to money.
2) Salaries aren't set by taxation. Salaries are set by the amount of wealth one generates, which is completely independent of operations of the government. Without taxation salaries would rise since there would be larger money supply available to create more wealth.
3) Inflation is mostly set by the money supply in general, not disposable income. Business to business exchanges account for a significant part of inflation.
4) Prices aren't proportional to average income. There is a great deal more to the system than that.
The majority of comments above seem to assume PC gaming. PC gaming is great and important, but the real focus of your business should be consoles. There are a lot of reasons for this. Among others:
PC gaming tempts you to set up something that looks more like a life-sucking classroom. Console gaming suggests a living room because that's what it is designed for. Which setting would you rather be in?
Everyone has a computer. Not everyone has every console. Your business will allow you to more efficiently provide all consoles that your customers want. Even if you only provide a single console it will be a good focus. While everyone has a PC to play together, not everyone has the certain console needed.
Focus on the core business. Avoid temptation to branch into crap like prepaid cellphones.
Hire decent people, not necessarily gamers. Employees who only play games occasionally tend to be better employees overall.
This is all based on my experiences running a gaming cafe that was fairly successful.
Ha, do you happen to live in a certain town in Texas?
I used to work at a gaming cafe that shut down months ago and was turned recently into a barbershop. The business was actually succeeding; the management killed it with a daily pursuit of suicide.
Every Single Day the bosses walked in and did something stupid that could only hurt the business.
Does this cross the privacy line or is it just reasonable data gathering to make retail sales more responsive to customer needs?
Companies don't gather personal data for no reason. They have to spend resources to collect and handle this information, and unless they're getting some kind of return on that investment it would be a dumb thing for them to do.
How do they get a return on investment? By selling more stuff.
So yes: the company will use this information to be more responsiive to customer needs.
Here's the short of it: nothing can run on your computer without your demand, much less consent. Nothing. Without your command to perform operations your computer would just be a giant paperweight.
How did the spyware get on your computer? How did it execute? Somewhere along the line you had to issue commands telling the computer to execute that code. It may even be three stages removed: you told the computer to do something and the computer executed the code in the process. The fact is, you did demand that the computer begin that operation.
The weightiest charge you can make against such a program is that it performed operations that you did not expect or intend. At this point the law would be protecting people from themselves, which is just dumb.
I've yet to see a proponent of net neutrality make their case without leaving the world of fact and reasining, jumping into appeals to emotion and leaps of logic.
The Republicans don't own the country top to bottom. In fact, they're arguably too disorganized and too, well, dumb to own the country even if they had all their people in all the right places. Hand them the keys and they still wouldn't be able to drive.
No, there is a ton of infighting going on throughout the country. Departments with Republicans at the top are trying to deal with non-Republicans acting out within the departments. Legislatively the Republicans are bending over backwards to the Democrats trying to win favor (it's like they don't know they're in the majority).
But the biggest detractor is the press that continually ignores good news to focus on the bad and really avoids saying anything that would be good for Bush. Primary sources show a country and world that is much different than what the media has been portraying, one that would be much better for the Republicans.
So no. Republicans don't own the country from top to bottom and you don't know what you're talking about.
Not that this proves anything either way. Just because there may or may not be units sitting in my Walmart doesn't mean there have been fewer than one million sold.
The first invalid argument form was not presented. That line of reasoning was simply not stated.
The second invalid argument form was not presented. Never did he bring up a strawman argument; he addressed your point directly with a relevant illustration.
You seem to be so quick to call other people on logical errors that you dream them up yourself.
Joe shmoe user at home has no idea what YOU'RE talking about either. NAT? What? Routers? Well, that must be this little blue box.
Joe there doesn't care if his stuff is working because it's using NAT or if it's working because of the IP6 address space. He WILL care, though, that his VOIP is working better when he's gotten rid of the NAT.
And actually IP6 has many features that make it EASIER for ISPs to manage the address spaces. Fixing up routing is one of the main goals of the standard.
Slashdot Mirror
It's just amazing how out of touch this guy is. It's often said that Microsoft is so inward focused, that its workers are so completely "brainwashed" that they simply can't even understand criticism offered to them. They're in a completely different world. This response illustrates that completely.
I'm perfectly happy to see people I don't agree with speak, and I'm greatful to read their thoughts so that I can see their mindset. This response was bad on an entirely different level. He couldn't seem to even fully grasp the questions.
That's probably the real meaning to be gleaned from this response.
That has been annoying me for years.
Well, I suppose I have to admit a touch of amusement... I can point at it and say that computer people are dumb.
But overall, annoyance.
People's rights? What rights?
The airport isn't yours. When you walk into an airport you have to agree to abide by the rules established by the owner of the airport. You have no right to demand that they be changed. Feel free to establish rules in your own house, but when you enter someone else's property you abide by their rules.
You have no more right to avoid the airport's tracking requirements than you'd have to demand free flights or free meals at their overpriced sandwich bars.
I'm sorry you may not like it, but owner's rights trump this sort of misguided "privacy rights" demand any day.
Paper records aren't some magic bullet to solve the issue of recounts. Paper is corruptable; this is a return to the problems that electronic voting was supposed to solve.
What happens when the count is different? Which is to believed? The perfect, digital count that could be intentionally flubbed or the subject-to-significant-error hand count of corruptable marks on paper?
The 2000 election was decided within the margin of error for paper methods. Digital counts deliver us from this problem, but the paper record put us right back.
Ha.
We could go even further. Half of Kerry supporters were looking for a change and not a good president, the rest were deluding themselves into believing Kerry actually WAS a good choice.
Never underestimate the power of a person who wants to believe despite reality.
You overlook the obvious answer: Kerry supporters are the ones looking for change so it stands to reason that they'd be the ones more likely to voice that opinion to a survey taker.
The key is recognizing that information is not so much a product but the result of a service. If people want music they'll pay to have it produced. Once it's produced they'll have it, and they want to have it.
So let's throw out all of these crappy analogies. There's no "stealing" of music since doing so doesn't remove it from the hands of anyone else. Information is fundamentally different from real property; let's not try to force the rules of the latter onto the former.
Pay the producers for making music that people want, and then don't worry about what happens to the music.
It's really the responsibilities of entrepreneurs to figure out the details of the business model. The government shouldn't be stepping in to make up for their lack of creativity.
Maybe you did like it, just not enough to starve for.
The market is not a system of laws. It's a creature that is born whenever there is a supply and demand of various products.
Some laws help the market to function more efficiently. People are more likely to take out contracts when there is a device in place to enforce them. Some laws make the market less efficient. In the end, though, laws only affect markets; they do not define them.
There are no in game functions available to allow for player run banks.
Can you transfer money from other people into your own posession? Can you transfer it back out to other people? Guess what... That's all the functions you need to run a bank.
That's not really how quantum mechanics works.
Everything is not observed. It cannot be observed. Mathematically there are certain things that cannot be observed, but that still exist, and can still be interacted with.
The mathematics of quantum mechanics suggests that certain things happen so long as there's no attempt to observe them. There are all sorts of crazy experiments that verify this result, but in summary it's as you read: under quantum mechanics there are things that are certain ways only so long as you don't look.
Before you think this is all hogwash, quantum mechanics is actually one of most successful theories that physics has ever proposed.
That's a pretty flawed worldview.
1) The US government doesn't create money; it creates US dollars, which are not equivalent to money.
2) Salaries aren't set by taxation. Salaries are set by the amount of wealth one generates, which is completely independent of operations of the government. Without taxation salaries would rise since there would be larger money supply available to create more wealth.
3) Inflation is mostly set by the money supply in general, not disposable income. Business to business exchanges account for a significant part of inflation.
4) Prices aren't proportional to average income. There is a great deal more to the system than that.
The majority of comments above seem to assume PC gaming. PC gaming is great and important, but the real focus of your business should be consoles. There are a lot of reasons for this. Among others:
PC gaming tempts you to set up something that looks more like a life-sucking classroom. Console gaming suggests a living room because that's what it is designed for. Which setting would you rather be in?
Everyone has a computer. Not everyone has every console. Your business will allow you to more efficiently provide all consoles that your customers want. Even if you only provide a single console it will be a good focus. While everyone has a PC to play together, not everyone has the certain console needed.
Focus on the core business. Avoid temptation to branch into crap like prepaid cellphones.
Hire decent people, not necessarily gamers. Employees who only play games occasionally tend to be better employees overall.
This is all based on my experiences running a gaming cafe that was fairly successful.
Ha, do you happen to live in a certain town in Texas?
I used to work at a gaming cafe that shut down months ago and was turned recently into a barbershop. The business was actually succeeding; the management killed it with a daily pursuit of suicide.
Every Single Day the bosses walked in and did something stupid that could only hurt the business.
Does this cross the privacy line or is it just reasonable data gathering to make retail sales more responsive to customer needs?
Companies don't gather personal data for no reason. They have to spend resources to collect and handle this information, and unless they're getting some kind of return on that investment it would be a dumb thing for them to do.
How do they get a return on investment? By selling more stuff.
So yes: the company will use this information to be more responsiive to customer needs.
I hope you're being ironic... because that wasn't at all what irony was. Your comment, on the other hand...
You have some mistaken premises above.
Here's the short of it: nothing can run on your computer without your demand, much less consent. Nothing. Without your command to perform operations your computer would just be a giant paperweight.
How did the spyware get on your computer? How did it execute? Somewhere along the line you had to issue commands telling the computer to execute that code. It may even be three stages removed: you told the computer to do something and the computer executed the code in the process. The fact is, you did demand that the computer begin that operation.
The weightiest charge you can make against such a program is that it performed operations that you did not expect or intend. At this point the law would be protecting people from themselves, which is just dumb.
*shrug*
I've yet to see a proponent of net neutrality make their case without leaving the world of fact and reasining, jumping into appeals to emotion and leaps of logic.
What annoying, unfounded, reality-ignoring tripe!
The Republicans don't own the country top to bottom. In fact, they're arguably too disorganized and too, well, dumb to own the country even if they had all their people in all the right places. Hand them the keys and they still wouldn't be able to drive.
No, there is a ton of infighting going on throughout the country. Departments with Republicans at the top are trying to deal with non-Republicans acting out within the departments. Legislatively the Republicans are bending over backwards to the Democrats trying to win favor (it's like they don't know they're in the majority).
But the biggest detractor is the press that continually ignores good news to focus on the bad and really avoids saying anything that would be good for Bush. Primary sources show a country and world that is much different than what the media has been portraying, one that would be much better for the Republicans.
So no. Republicans don't own the country from top to bottom and you don't know what you're talking about.
*raises hand*
Not that this proves anything either way. Just because there may or may not be units sitting in my Walmart doesn't mean there have been fewer than one million sold.
Um... no.
The false premise was not used. He didn't say it.
The first invalid argument form was not presented. That line of reasoning was simply not stated.
The second invalid argument form was not presented. Never did he bring up a strawman argument; he addressed your point directly with a relevant illustration.
You seem to be so quick to call other people on logical errors that you dream them up yourself.
The strawmen are out tonight!
Joe shmoe user at home has no idea what YOU'RE talking about either. NAT? What? Routers? Well, that must be this little blue box.
Joe there doesn't care if his stuff is working because it's using NAT or if it's working because of the IP6 address space. He WILL care, though, that his VOIP is working better when he's gotten rid of the NAT.
And actually IP6 has many features that make it EASIER for ISPs to manage the address spaces. Fixing up routing is one of the main goals of the standard.
It's not that it's blocked; it's that it's simply not supported.
Multicasting is generally a subscriber-based system.
That's part of the difference between muticast and broadcast.
It's clearly NOT the NAT that's providing you security here, but simple matters of routing.
So as the parent post said, NAT is not security. Routing and firewalling can provide some security, but not the NAT itself.