Actually they may be following your advice; the plans for Star Trek XI (the next movie) have halted indefinitely. See the CHUD.com news report for corroboration.
Frankly, I think this is a good idea, and not just because it could save the franchise, but rather it sounds like a good business decision. Check out the numbers on the franchise movies. The last one absolutely bombed when you look at the budget for it. I believe these numbers also don't include advertising which I imagine would be substantial.
Sorry if it wasn't clear from the context, but I was being sarcastic. I was trying to show that even if EA was the largest videogame publisher in the world, they couldn't force other companies to charge $60 per game like the parent suggested.
Thanks for showing interest and trying to correct FUD,
TSage
They are doing sports games right now, but how long till they start moving in on your company of choice? They already made an initial attempt at Ubisoft, and they are buying licenses from Nintendo. Who is going to be next on the list?
OK, they went after Ubisoft and that was stopped. And how dare they buy licenses from Nintendo!! That obviously means EA will soon be buying Nintendo. Watch out Sony, you're next. Or so the implication goes. I mean somehow a company with a market capitalization of under $19 billion will be dominating an industry full of giants (another giant, FOX, will possibly soon be getting into). That would be some amazing business feats to accomplish.
Now assuming they get all this market share, we should be wary because they will oppress the market to such a degree that you will feel their presence in every video game played. And if the largest publisher were to raise prices to $60 per game, obviously the smaller companies who are trying to compete with the juggernaut would follow suit. Much like Apple and Linux companies are selling their operating systems for the same price that MS does. And how Sega had to cut their videogames to $20 in order to match EA's own $20 pricing scheme.
I believe most companies stated goal is to be the best firm in their given field (and now fields). This should be made headline news so people realize this immmediately! They must be stopped before they are allowed to commit egregious crimes that we cannot even think of yet!
Meanwhile everyone on Slashdot mentions how most of their games are crap and don't buy them. If all their new NFL games are crap, well good luck to them; maybe they'll find a way to get water from a rock. I think videogame consumers generally don't respond with lots of money for junk games. Look at the community's latest rage over WOW despite heralding it as one of the best games of last year.
I see why you are concerned, but I don't think it's anything to really worry about long term. There will be at least three much larger players involved for at least the next generation of consoles (Sony, Nintendo, MS) that have a larger impact on the industry.
>>The Slashdot story blurb makes it sound like they just gave up because it was too hard. They call this journalism now?
Sorry, this is Slashdot, definitely not journalism. This is where editors call "FUD" on other sites for drumming up press for other companies, all while delivering fresh FUD daily. I'm sure most of it is harmless and unintentional, but at least some of it is for their own ends, either by creating support for their overriding company (OSTG) or just creating a stir to generate page viewings.
I wish this would change, but the way the editors react to such criticism, I wouldn't hold my breath.
What about the pre-paid plans? While they aren't the best deal if you talk a lot, it seems easier and cheaper if you just want to talk every now and then. Also, the few I have looked at seem to do nothing but phone calls and maybe voice-mail. Straightforward as can be, it seems.
I'm sorry, but what exactly is your point with this post? You start off by saying that perhaps the "pirates of yore" weren't that bad, and I assume by extension that modern day "pirates" are also not that bad.
To do this you argue that pirates stopped the flow of "blood money" to Europe which was apparently addicted to gold even though it was hurting them. Um, sure. I suppose two wrongs always make a right. Even if this were so, it's not like that was the intent of the pirates.
Next you try to convert the addiction of gold to the addiction of sugar and then to illegally spread software. Sorry, I see it, but ultimately don't buy it. It's like saying someone who steals cars only does it because of the rush from stealing. (Yeah, and don't talk to me about how it's different since there's no physical property stolen; that's not the point.)
(Your last paragraph does contain an interesting idea: letting some movies out of the bag early. I could see this as a very powerful marketing tool. Imagine an advertising campaign: "You've seen it on your computer; now see it in theaters." Depending on the movie, this could turn very profitable.)
Please don't take this as a personal attack; I just don't see why I should be romanticising these "pirates". There's always been a romanticising with people on the wrong side of society (see Ocean's 11, Catch Me If You Can for modern day instances), but Slashdot really likes to just bash the **AA's and idolize these people as the leaders of some type of revolution. Again, I don't buy it.
TSage
I think nuclear power plants are a great idea. During normal operation, the have nowhere near the affect on the surrounding environment than a coal or even cleaner burning gas power plant. I am satisfied that newly designed reactors will not meltdown, or "Go Chernobyl." Even if something catastrophic happened that can't be foreseen, I don't think the the localized problem would be as bad as some make it out to be.
Having said that, however, I do have a problem with nuclear power plants: waste. As many have stated, France generates 70+% of their electricity from nuclear. What is not being said is that the French still don't know what to do with the waste. Sure, they recycle it (very clever, IMO), but you still end up with waste that's radioactive.
"[One of three potential sites being studied] will, in effect, become the stocking center for the nation and the local people may find that unacceptable. If protesters organize, they can block shipments on the roads and rail. The situation could quickly get out of hand."
Basically I see two ways to solve the problem:
1) This first option is easily in our reach: get it off the planet. We can easily shoot the stuff into space at either the Moon or Sun (even Jupiter could be a good place, but the asteroid belt would probably make it slightly more difficult). But there is already tons of fear over launching probes with nuclear power centers even though those basically can't contaminate even in an explosion (at least that's my understanding). I do not really see this as a viable option unless something happens which would change the entire mindset of most of the population.
2) We figure out something to do with the waste. This is a vague option because we're talking about stuff that can only be theorized at this point. Maybe we'll develop bacteria that can somehow digest the radioactive isotopes and excrete non-radioactive isotopes. Or maybe we'll figure out another way to get energy from the waste. I don't know what we may think up. This option is probably the best way of solving the problem, but it's the bigger unknown. While I'm certain we will eventually find something to do with the waste, I could never say when and time is the key with this problem.
As sort of an offshoot to this post: my libertarian ideas (and ideals) conflict with how much government intervention is deemed necessary for nuclear power. If insurance companies don't insure reactors, maybe the government shouldn't either. And the costs of sending waste into space would still be huge. If the private nuclear power companies paid for the disposal, I'd have no problem, but I have a feeling the government would take over. Either for "national security" reasons or just more government corporate welfare for industries that face "unique obstacles" that only governments can handle.
"Do you think the oil companies will ever push solar energy? Not on your life. The same goes with ethanol."
Umm, why do you say that? If I were a shareholder of an oil company and you were at the helm and said that, I'd dump that investment immediately. Oil companies could care less about oil. The only "companies" that care about oil are those that are state owned (like Saudi Arabia and numerous others) because it's harder for them to diversify.
A company like Exxon or Shell, however, really doesn't care where they get their money. If one of their scientists submitted an outline whereby they would increase their profits by switching production to alternative fuels, they would dump oil (meaning they'd start to get out of the business) to be at the front of a new field with lots of profits.
Consider this: if companies reacted as you purport they do, the telephone companies would be dead right now. They would not have given anyone cell phones because someone would've have invented and then buried the technology. They would have tried to shut down the internet and force everyone to use landline phones because that's how they'd been making money before and apparently just love them.
Sorry, but that didn't happen. Sure there was some fighting with phone companies on getting internet availability up and right now they're trying to limit VOIP consumer growth, but they couldn't stop it; demand was there. Instead they turned around and now make most of their money from internet related services.
In short, oil companies are actually energy companies; they're in the business of selling energy. As long as they make a profit, they don't care if they're selling oil or ethanol.
I think this is a good example of using a word ("men") to stand for an entire group of people. In a sense use of such words are stereotyping, but I don't think the negative connotation of "stereotype" is appropriate.
Here the author is using the word "men" to describe something that all of us readily understand. But try to come up with an example of a man. Perhaps like me, you can choose yourself. Regardless, is that man one of the "men" she's referring to? Probably not. The word "men" and "man" (or others: "women," "blacks," "Americans," "Asians") have little connection to reality. These words are an amalgam of different connotations and meanings from culture that could very well conflict.
Note that I'm not blaming the author on this one; we all do it. It's a natural thing to lump things into groups. It's just that with people it is very hard to come up with good groupings because everyone really is unique.
So remember, even if you're a guy, you're probably not a "man." It's impossible to be such a thing; it doesn't really exist anywhere except in the collective minds of people in a culture.
You are, in fact, quite right. The Economist had an article entitled "Psst. Wanna real Rolex?" on Jan. 22, 2004. Unfortunately, it's only in the print version unless you subscribe or pay to view it online.
The gist of it was that Swiss watch makers actually exported $150m worth of watches. The people actually do want to get the real thing.
I think the reason that doesn't usually happen is a result of a couple of things. First, China's people are still very poor, even with the burgeoning middle class there, so they just can't afford it. Second, I wonder if it's also because they don't have the same consumer culture as we do. We are bombarded with advertisements and other social clues to make it socially unacceptable to have a knock-off. This last one may not be true, as I've not been to China, nor am I any great scholar on it.
I actually remember reading that sales taxes are generally more stable compared to income taxes. I think it's because consumption is not as directly related to business cycles as wages are, which isn't to say they aren't affected by them. I would like to see some proof of that from an economist though.
On my libertarian side, I've actually seen support for sales taxes in some instances. For example, the Americans for Fair Tax call for a nationwide sales tax of over 20%, but then a revocation of federal income taxes and a number of corporate taxes. Their reasoning is basically this: 1) it's more stable as already mentioned, 2) does not tax savings (remember, any saving you do now is post-tax), and there are more reasons, but it's been a while since I've really read their position.
The crux of their argument though, is that 1) the Federal government still gets the same amount of money, 2) corporations will invest heavily in the US (the EU already considers us a tax-haven, no joke. Imagine how many companies would relocate here.), and 3) you get a rebate up to the federally defined poverty line. This last one is the most important in my opinion because that's really the worst aspect of sales taxes--regression.
Unfortunately, I don't think it will ever even get a serious discussion. I think the public would react badly to 20%+. But then again, they don't realize that they lose the same amount anyway.
First, I'll come out and say my philosophical leanings are definitely libertarian. So anyone who dislikes such people for going horribly against their personal views should probably stop now.;)
OK, I've never quite understood sales taxes to begin with. Because of my philosophy, I'd just assume that it's just greedy governments wanting more. However, I'll set that aside if someone can point out a rather good reason.
The thing is, it would have to be some pretty good reasoning for me because there are a number of problems with sales taxes. One, they are regressive and hurt those whom the government is trying to help. Two, I hate walking into a store buying something and then realizing it cost me more than I really wanted because I forgot to add 5% (right now I'm in a place where the local option tazes bring it up to 8.5%!). I mean it's a borderline rip-off that they don't show the tax price.
Now to get onto the topic of internet taxes: I've seen people here on Slashdot say that Amazon, et al should pay sales taxes just like every other store that sells in a state, but I don't buy that (pun not intended). They bring up the fact that those delivery trucks go over roads and therefore sales taxes are paying for that. The hole in that, though, is that UPS pays corporate income taxes, property taxes, etc. and the person buying the good also pays their share of taxes. This is when it seems like the government likes to count money twice and tax it three times.
I'm quite willing to listen to anyone who does support sales taxes if they can offer a good reasoning behind them. Please, do not come out and attack me for my beliefs; you will only hurt any argument you could make and just polarize my own beliefs.
Although I'm not a linguist, it's my understanding that all Germanic languages have this aspect. I remember being in Frankfurt and seeing a word with I think 29 characters in it because they put baggage check and taxes together (might be off a bit, it was a few years ago).
English was like this at one point too, but we stopped before getting to the level of what other modern day Germanic languages are at. My guess would be it's because of the Norman invasion of England, but I wouldn't put any money behind it.
I apologize for inadvertently downplaying RFID problems through ignorance. Please note that I never said I was in favor of them, just that Slashdot flips out at it every time there's something about them. Personally, I'm somewhat moderate-to-cautious about RFID; I don't think there is some scheme to track everyone via transponders, but I also acknowledge that any such uses of it should be fully public and that we can do something about it (at the very least having items without them and being able to disable the ones we do have).
I'm glad you are happy with your Tivo. I've heard it is an excellent product. It just doesn't suit any need I really have at the moment.
But the point of my post was that any company could do what Tivo is doing (not using individual personal data). However, people just assume that, going back to my example, RFID tags will ultimately be used to identify your salary, sexual orientation, etc., as you mentioned, because somehow the temptation will be too much to bear. If that were the case, Tivo would also have succumbed.
So, either it seems privacy concerns over things like RFID are overblown, or Tivo should be somewhat more criticized.
Thanks for showing an interest in a little exchange. Sometimes it seems like Slashdotters don't want to be civil to one another.
It's interesting to see how many highly moderated posts are behind Tivo 100% as long as it remains anonymous. Personally, I'm OK with a company doing this as long as they're completely upfront about it (which Tivo is), although I'd be a little wary (again, that's just me).
However, this honestly seems to be one of those moments where Slashdot, as a community or group, becomes somewhat hypocritical. Note: individual posters agreeing with Tivo are not necessarily being hypocritical and this isn't me trying to lecture anyone who does support that company. Please allow me to explain why I think this.
Look at other cases where companies, or even governments, can or do collect anonymous information (or information that is then only handled in an aggregate way) and Slashdot usually cries out against them with the usual tinfoil hat jokes.
RFID tags is one such example. These are inherently benign and don't have much connection with an individual. Say you have a coat with an embedded with a chip which when read says, "CoatCo Coat, black, large" to the reading device. What if a reading device read that each time you walked into a store and that store then showed companies in an effort to get more direct marketing? It is essentially the same thing, as long as anonymity is kept.
"Ah ha!" some might say. "But hooking it up to video-cameras and receipts with my credit card, they can identify me readily." This is all quite true, but you could say the same with Tivo; they could correlate your credit card number, address and telephone number if they wanted to. Obviously, many people would not agree to such an invasion of privacy and Tivo probably would not succeed in doing so, nor am I trying to suggest that Tivo is just waiting for the right moment.
Now, RFID tags are not exactly the same as Tivo watching television habits. One big one is that you choose to watch Tivo, but you may not necessarily be knowingly choosing to have a RFID tag in your merchandise. But I think the comparison is still valid. Too, I find Tivo recording my information somewhat more disturbing than someplace finding out I prefer some type of jacket; in the store I'm in a public place and therefore have a lower expectation of privacy (people can see and recognize my jacket with their eyes), while at home it's somewhat unnerving.
Just to reiterate, Tivo is not "wrong" or "right" in this case. This is a personal issue between customers and a company. I just wanted to point out that perhaps Slashdot as a whole is giving Tivo a little bit of an easy ride. Then again, perhaps they've earned it for seeming (I don't own one) to respond so well to their customers.
I see your point, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with the mandatory security cameras. I would find it perfectly fine for a company to videotape their premises if they wish to do so. Cops generally already need a warrant to confiscate videotapes, unless the owner gives it up willingly.
I just dislike your argument regarding why cameras should be mandatory. Yeah, you could upload MyDoom or kiddie porn or some other such undesirable and people would suffer. But, by that same argument, we should have cameras on all streets (like in Britain, except a lot more) because I could go bludgeon someone to death without leaving any real evidence behind if I wanted to.
I don't know. Unfortunately, we live in a complicated world and we're mostly groping in the dark on such (ultimately) unsolvable issues. (note: I use 'unsolvable' because unlike math most problems, there are no concrete answers that agree with our whole construct of reality)
This is true. However, I said later in my post that only a few thousand at most actually use their Xboxes for Linux. Out of the larger number of units, this really doesn't make a hell of a lot of difference to MS's bottom line. So they don't really care a hell of a lot, especially since it's basically an 'underground' type of thing.
I think this comment should be stressed. A lot of posts here have been basically aimed at the management ("damn PHBs"), but you also have to say that there were techs at fault as well. Now I don't feel I am in any position whatsoever to place blame, so I'm not even going to attempt to.
I think, though, the Slashdot crowd should calm down a little and try not to blame management. Most seem to do so because of their own personal experiences and frustrations with management. These are not completely unfounded, but it's mostly a finger pointing situation with the geeks standing by one another.
Instead of this (which ultimately amounts to blocking ears and singing, "la la la! I can't hear you; you're wrong!"), as the parent said, engineers and other techies should be learning from this. All of those involved with management types should take communication/management classes at a local college, read those management/motivation books in the bookstore (e.g. Steven Covey). Get inside the minds of the 'PHBs'.
Think of it as an engineering problem: you have to get permission from management on something tech-related, but they don't understand. Well, you could just say, "It's too hard to convince them. Those PHBs wouldn't know calculus from their asses." That'd be easy and resolves any blame for yourself. You have to make them understand and the way to do that is to learn to talk how they do.
Yeah, because not having a hard drive will somehow stop people from trying to get Linux to run on an X-Box, just like it stopped the folks from bringing it to the DreamCast and Game Cube.
Naturally, since it's Microsoft, they must be taking out the hard drive to stop the "rampant spread of Linux through the masses". Please people, get off your high horses. Yeah, MS is rightfully worried about Linux, but to think they're cutting costs on something that is costing them large sums so they can stop maybe a couple thousand people (at most) from running Open Source software?
People need a reality check if that type of post gets modded up.
TSage
Re:Getting very off-topic here, but no...
on
Three Blind Phreaks
·
· Score: 1
My intention here isn't to try to disprove you wrong or anything, merely to start a meandering post about issues you raised.
Having said that: I believe I've heard that more attractive people seem attractive precisely because their attractiveness is an indication of something that is generally good for the species. For example, if memory serves, a woman with a small chin shows low testosterone levels and those full pouty lips that are all the rage are a sign of higher estrogen levels.
Also, apparently people choose mates on other things not previously known (or perhaps only conjectured). Women actually depend (at least somewhat) on the smell of their mate. Apparently, a woman will find a man's natural scent more attractive if their immune systems are opposite. Thus if they mated, their children would have a better immune system.
The evidence for this last example went something like this: a several men wore a t-shirt when they went to bed. Each wore it for a while (say maybe a week) and then they placed them into a ziplock bag and gave it to the researchers. They, in turn, gave it to a group of women who were then asked to smell each bag and then rate the smell. The results showed a correspondence in preferred smells and the aforementioned immune system differences.
So to a point survival of the attractive really does help bring about the survival of the fittest, at least marginally.
However, as you pointed out, the more successful in our society do not generally have many offspring and I'm not sure exactly how that might play out. Too, with modern cosmetics and 'beauty' enhancements, we may not be following our natural signals properly (meaning we're being duped to some degree).
I would contest that human evolution has completely halted. Yes, we are "in control" of most of our evolutionary environment. However, there is one facet where we still are evolving, and hopefully fairly rapidly: our immune system. Even though we have modern drugs (which can actually hurt the survivability population in some sense), our immune systems are still going, and any major epidemic (like on the level of the spanish flu in 1918) would ultimately cull those with weaker immune systems out of the gene pool if we didn't create a drug quickly enough.
To wrap up, we may be 18, but we're still under the roof of Mother Nature and we play by her rules.
I think, though, that usually an "ingenious thing" is essentially always neutral in terms of good or bad. Many people might say that guns are somehow inherently evil, but in reality they are nothing more than tools. Using a gun to kill someone in cold blood is unquestionably "bad' (or any other type of negative word: evil, despicable, etc.). Using the same gun to protect your family from a murderer, can be considered "good" (or at least a defensible situation).
As you say, you can't applaud "unethical uses of ingenuity." The poster did not seem to agree with the sentiment that this was a good or a bad thing, but rather that it was a clever thing. I'm sure a criminal investigator might call a criminal clever, but that doesn't mean he somehow agrees with the crime.
OK, the article has basically no details on the (possibly) pending suit, so I'm going to have to go with what other slashdotters are saying: that the clients used by the entertainment industries are violating the EULA and/or the TOS for Kazza's networks and IP. Someone please correct me if this is wrong.
Seemingly, this would seem to go along great with what most on Slashdot want. (Well, besides the ones that wish to see the RIAA HQ violently explode on national TV.;) But, this is really not something I want to support.
If Sherman Networks wins, what exactly will be so great? We get a better S/N ratio on Kazaa? We get to stick it to the industries with a taste of their own medicine and say "neener neener neeeener!"? OK, I suppose that sounds good, at least to some. But, doesn't this also just strengthen the EULA and other such frivolous legal mumbo-jumbo? Wouldn't that just prove that the EULA is a real and binding contract?
Assuming I've understood the suit (which as I pointed out up top, I'm not sure I have), it seems many people are being hasty and blinded by their wish to see the entertainment industry falter. I mean this would amount to nothing more than thinking that it's OK to use Gestapo tactics, but only if they're used on criminals. Slashdot is quick to fall in love with this battle only to lose the war.
I basically agree with everything you say. I believe people are free to boycott any entity they wish to realize some benefits they feel are needed.
However, I'm not 100% certain where the privacy concerns are coming from, such that they can be pointed directly at Wal-Mart. From what I've seen, they merely want to put them on crates for inventory checks. That's not enough for me to start a jihad against them.
Now, if they start to track my every move after they've put them on individual items, and it's in such a way that I have no recourse (a.k.a. ability to fry the sucker), then there is a definite reason to wake up and call in the cavalry. As another poster already mentioned, slashdotters are quick to support P2P for legitimate uses, even though the vast majority is not for such uses, but quickly condemns something that could easily save people money.
Well, I think these people should realize that a giant space goat is about to swallow the planet! They should quickly be put into hibernation and placed on a spaceship (called, oh I don't know, the B Ark) that will be auto-piloted to another planet!
Meanwhile, all of us nontrolls and generally good people will get into two other Arks and be sent along afterwards.
Hey if another planet can do it to us, we can do it to them...
Slashdot Mirror
Actually they may be following your advice; the plans for Star Trek XI (the next movie) have halted indefinitely. See the CHUD.com news report for corroboration.
Frankly, I think this is a good idea, and not just because it could save the franchise, but rather it sounds like a good business decision. Check out the numbers on the franchise movies. The last one absolutely bombed when you look at the budget for it. I believe these numbers also don't include advertising which I imagine would be substantial.
The series definitely needs a respite.
TSage
Sorry if it wasn't clear from the context, but I was being sarcastic. I was trying to show that even if EA was the largest videogame publisher in the world, they couldn't force other companies to charge $60 per game like the parent suggested.
Thanks for showing interest and trying to correct FUD,
TSage
Sorry, but I'm not buying this.
They are doing sports games right now, but how long till they start moving in on your company of choice? They already made an initial attempt at Ubisoft, and they are buying licenses from Nintendo. Who is going to be next on the list?
OK, they went after Ubisoft and that was stopped. And how dare they buy licenses from Nintendo!! That obviously means EA will soon be buying Nintendo. Watch out Sony, you're next. Or so the implication goes. I mean somehow a company with a market capitalization of under $19 billion will be dominating an industry full of giants (another giant, FOX, will possibly soon be getting into). That would be some amazing business feats to accomplish.
Now assuming they get all this market share, we should be wary because they will oppress the market to such a degree that you will feel their presence in every video game played. And if the largest publisher were to raise prices to $60 per game, obviously the smaller companies who are trying to compete with the juggernaut would follow suit. Much like Apple and Linux companies are selling their operating systems for the same price that MS does. And how Sega had to cut their videogames to $20 in order to match EA's own $20 pricing scheme.
I believe most companies stated goal is to be the best firm in their given field (and now fields). This should be made headline news so people realize this immmediately! They must be stopped before they are allowed to commit egregious crimes that we cannot even think of yet!
Meanwhile everyone on Slashdot mentions how most of their games are crap and don't buy them. If all their new NFL games are crap, well good luck to them; maybe they'll find a way to get water from a rock. I think videogame consumers generally don't respond with lots of money for junk games. Look at the community's latest rage over WOW despite heralding it as one of the best games of last year.
I see why you are concerned, but I don't think it's anything to really worry about long term. There will be at least three much larger players involved for at least the next generation of consoles (Sony, Nintendo, MS) that have a larger impact on the industry.
TSage
>>The Slashdot story blurb makes it sound like they just gave up because it was too hard. They call this journalism now?
Sorry, this is Slashdot, definitely not journalism. This is where editors call "FUD" on other sites for drumming up press for other companies, all while delivering fresh FUD daily. I'm sure most of it is harmless and unintentional, but at least some of it is for their own ends, either by creating support for their overriding company (OSTG) or just creating a stir to generate page viewings.
I wish this would change, but the way the editors react to such criticism, I wouldn't hold my breath.
TSage
>>Do you guys also have to pay for recieving post (with a stamp)?
Yeah, but the government has made it easy for us: we pay for post in one lump sum by April 15 each year.
Tsage
What about the pre-paid plans? While they aren't the best deal if you talk a lot, it seems easier and cheaper if you just want to talk every now and then. Also, the few I have looked at seem to do nothing but phone calls and maybe voice-mail. Straightforward as can be, it seems.
TSage
I'm sorry, but what exactly is your point with this post? You start off by saying that perhaps the "pirates of yore" weren't that bad, and I assume by extension that modern day "pirates" are also not that bad.
To do this you argue that pirates stopped the flow of "blood money" to Europe which was apparently addicted to gold even though it was hurting them. Um, sure. I suppose two wrongs always make a right. Even if this were so, it's not like that was the intent of the pirates.
Next you try to convert the addiction of gold to the addiction of sugar and then to illegally spread software. Sorry, I see it, but ultimately don't buy it. It's like saying someone who steals cars only does it because of the rush from stealing. (Yeah, and don't talk to me about how it's different since there's no physical property stolen; that's not the point.)
(Your last paragraph does contain an interesting idea: letting some movies out of the bag early. I could see this as a very powerful marketing tool. Imagine an advertising campaign: "You've seen it on your computer; now see it in theaters." Depending on the movie, this could turn very profitable.)
Please don't take this as a personal attack; I just don't see why I should be romanticising these "pirates". There's always been a romanticising with people on the wrong side of society (see Ocean's 11, Catch Me If You Can for modern day instances), but Slashdot really likes to just bash the **AA's and idolize these people as the leaders of some type of revolution. Again, I don't buy it. TSage
Having said that, however, I do have a problem with nuclear power plants: waste. As many have stated, France generates 70+% of their electricity from nuclear. What is not being said is that the French still don't know what to do with the waste. Sure, they recycle it (very clever, IMO), but you still end up with waste that's radioactive.
From Frontline:
Basically I see two ways to solve the problem:
1) This first option is easily in our reach: get it off the planet. We can easily shoot the stuff into space at either the Moon or Sun (even Jupiter could be a good place, but the asteroid belt would probably make it slightly more difficult). But there is already tons of fear over launching probes with nuclear power centers even though those basically can't contaminate even in an explosion (at least that's my understanding). I do not really see this as a viable option unless something happens which would change the entire mindset of most of the population.
2) We figure out something to do with the waste. This is a vague option because we're talking about stuff that can only be theorized at this point. Maybe we'll develop bacteria that can somehow digest the radioactive isotopes and excrete non-radioactive isotopes. Or maybe we'll figure out another way to get energy from the waste. I don't know what we may think up. This option is probably the best way of solving the problem, but it's the bigger unknown. While I'm certain we will eventually find something to do with the waste, I could never say when and time is the key with this problem.
As sort of an offshoot to this post: my libertarian ideas (and ideals) conflict with how much government intervention is deemed necessary for nuclear power. If insurance companies don't insure reactors, maybe the government shouldn't either. And the costs of sending waste into space would still be huge. If the private nuclear power companies paid for the disposal, I'd have no problem, but I have a feeling the government would take over. Either for "national security" reasons or just more government corporate welfare for industries that face "unique obstacles" that only governments can handle.
Sorry for the long post,
TSage
"Do you think the oil companies will ever push solar energy? Not on your life. The same goes with ethanol."
Umm, why do you say that? If I were a shareholder of an oil company and you were at the helm and said that, I'd dump that investment immediately. Oil companies could care less about oil. The only "companies" that care about oil are those that are state owned (like Saudi Arabia and numerous others) because it's harder for them to diversify.
A company like Exxon or Shell, however, really doesn't care where they get their money. If one of their scientists submitted an outline whereby they would increase their profits by switching production to alternative fuels, they would dump oil (meaning they'd start to get out of the business) to be at the front of a new field with lots of profits.
Consider this: if companies reacted as you purport they do, the telephone companies would be dead right now. They would not have given anyone cell phones because someone would've have invented and then buried the technology. They would have tried to shut down the internet and force everyone to use landline phones because that's how they'd been making money before and apparently just love them.
Sorry, but that didn't happen. Sure there was some fighting with phone companies on getting internet availability up and right now they're trying to limit VOIP consumer growth, but they couldn't stop it; demand was there. Instead they turned around and now make most of their money from internet related services.
In short, oil companies are actually energy companies; they're in the business of selling energy. As long as they make a profit, they don't care if they're selling oil or ethanol.
TSage
I think this is a good example of using a word ("men") to stand for an entire group of people. In a sense use of such words are stereotyping, but I don't think the negative connotation of "stereotype" is appropriate.
Here the author is using the word "men" to describe something that all of us readily understand. But try to come up with an example of a man. Perhaps like me, you can choose yourself. Regardless, is that man one of the "men" she's referring to? Probably not. The word "men" and "man" (or others: "women," "blacks," "Americans," "Asians") have little connection to reality. These words are an amalgam of different connotations and meanings from culture that could very well conflict.
Note that I'm not blaming the author on this one; we all do it. It's a natural thing to lump things into groups. It's just that with people it is very hard to come up with good groupings because everyone really is unique.
So remember, even if you're a guy, you're probably not a "man." It's impossible to be such a thing; it doesn't really exist anywhere except in the collective minds of people in a culture.
You are, in fact, quite right. The Economist had an article entitled "Psst. Wanna real Rolex?" on Jan. 22, 2004. Unfortunately, it's only in the print version unless you subscribe or pay to view it online.
The gist of it was that Swiss watch makers actually exported $150m worth of watches. The people actually do want to get the real thing.
I think the reason that doesn't usually happen is a result of a couple of things. First, China's people are still very poor, even with the burgeoning middle class there, so they just can't afford it. Second, I wonder if it's also because they don't have the same consumer culture as we do. We are bombarded with advertisements and other social clues to make it socially unacceptable to have a knock-off. This last one may not be true, as I've not been to China, nor am I any great scholar on it.
TSage
Thanks for the informative reply.
I actually remember reading that sales taxes are generally more stable compared to income taxes. I think it's because consumption is not as directly related to business cycles as wages are, which isn't to say they aren't affected by them. I would like to see some proof of that from an economist though.
On my libertarian side, I've actually seen support for sales taxes in some instances. For example, the Americans for Fair Tax call for a nationwide sales tax of over 20%, but then a revocation of federal income taxes and a number of corporate taxes. Their reasoning is basically this: 1) it's more stable as already mentioned, 2) does not tax savings (remember, any saving you do now is post-tax), and there are more reasons, but it's been a while since I've really read their position.
The crux of their argument though, is that 1) the Federal government still gets the same amount of money, 2) corporations will invest heavily in the US (the EU already considers us a tax-haven, no joke. Imagine how many companies would relocate here.), and 3) you get a rebate up to the federally defined poverty line. This last one is the most important in my opinion because that's really the worst aspect of sales taxes--regression.
Unfortunately, I don't think it will ever even get a serious discussion. I think the public would react badly to 20%+. But then again, they don't realize that they lose the same amount anyway.
TSage
First, I'll come out and say my philosophical leanings are definitely libertarian. So anyone who dislikes such people for going horribly against their personal views should probably stop now. ;)
OK, I've never quite understood sales taxes to begin with. Because of my philosophy, I'd just assume that it's just greedy governments wanting more. However, I'll set that aside if someone can point out a rather good reason.
The thing is, it would have to be some pretty good reasoning for me because there are a number of problems with sales taxes. One, they are regressive and hurt those whom the government is trying to help. Two, I hate walking into a store buying something and then realizing it cost me more than I really wanted because I forgot to add 5% (right now I'm in a place where the local option tazes bring it up to 8.5%!). I mean it's a borderline rip-off that they don't show the tax price.
Now to get onto the topic of internet taxes: I've seen people here on Slashdot say that Amazon, et al should pay sales taxes just like every other store that sells in a state, but I don't buy that (pun not intended). They bring up the fact that those delivery trucks go over roads and therefore sales taxes are paying for that. The hole in that, though, is that UPS pays corporate income taxes, property taxes, etc. and the person buying the good also pays their share of taxes. This is when it seems like the government likes to count money twice and tax it three times.
I'm quite willing to listen to anyone who does support sales taxes if they can offer a good reasoning behind them. Please, do not come out and attack me for my beliefs; you will only hurt any argument you could make and just polarize my own beliefs.
TSage
Although I'm not a linguist, it's my understanding that all Germanic languages have this aspect. I remember being in Frankfurt and seeing a word with I think 29 characters in it because they put baggage check and taxes together (might be off a bit, it was a few years ago).
English was like this at one point too, but we stopped before getting to the level of what other modern day Germanic languages are at. My guess would be it's because of the Norman invasion of England, but I wouldn't put any money behind it.
Anyone have something to back that up/refute it?
TSage
I apologize for inadvertently downplaying RFID problems through ignorance. Please note that I never said I was in favor of them, just that Slashdot flips out at it every time there's something about them. Personally, I'm somewhat moderate-to-cautious about RFID; I don't think there is some scheme to track everyone via transponders, but I also acknowledge that any such uses of it should be fully public and that we can do something about it (at the very least having items without them and being able to disable the ones we do have).
I'm glad you are happy with your Tivo. I've heard it is an excellent product. It just doesn't suit any need I really have at the moment.
But the point of my post was that any company could do what Tivo is doing (not using individual personal data). However, people just assume that, going back to my example, RFID tags will ultimately be used to identify your salary, sexual orientation, etc., as you mentioned, because somehow the temptation will be too much to bear. If that were the case, Tivo would also have succumbed.
So, either it seems privacy concerns over things like RFID are overblown, or Tivo should be somewhat more criticized.
Thanks for showing an interest in a little exchange. Sometimes it seems like Slashdotters don't want to be civil to one another.
TSage
It's interesting to see how many highly moderated posts are behind Tivo 100% as long as it remains anonymous. Personally, I'm OK with a company doing this as long as they're completely upfront about it (which Tivo is), although I'd be a little wary (again, that's just me).
However, this honestly seems to be one of those moments where Slashdot, as a community or group, becomes somewhat hypocritical. Note: individual posters agreeing with Tivo are not necessarily being hypocritical and this isn't me trying to lecture anyone who does support that company. Please allow me to explain why I think this.
Look at other cases where companies, or even governments, can or do collect anonymous information (or information that is then only handled in an aggregate way) and Slashdot usually cries out against them with the usual tinfoil hat jokes.
RFID tags is one such example. These are inherently benign and don't have much connection with an individual. Say you have a coat with an embedded with a chip which when read says, "CoatCo Coat, black, large" to the reading device. What if a reading device read that each time you walked into a store and that store then showed companies in an effort to get more direct marketing? It is essentially the same thing, as long as anonymity is kept.
"Ah ha!" some might say. "But hooking it up to video-cameras and receipts with my credit card, they can identify me readily." This is all quite true, but you could say the same with Tivo; they could correlate your credit card number, address and telephone number if they wanted to. Obviously, many people would not agree to such an invasion of privacy and Tivo probably would not succeed in doing so, nor am I trying to suggest that Tivo is just waiting for the right moment.
Now, RFID tags are not exactly the same as Tivo watching television habits. One big one is that you choose to watch Tivo, but you may not necessarily be knowingly choosing to have a RFID tag in your merchandise. But I think the comparison is still valid. Too, I find Tivo recording my information somewhat more disturbing than someplace finding out I prefer some type of jacket; in the store I'm in a public place and therefore have a lower expectation of privacy (people can see and recognize my jacket with their eyes), while at home it's somewhat unnerving.
Just to reiterate, Tivo is not "wrong" or "right" in this case. This is a personal issue between customers and a company. I just wanted to point out that perhaps Slashdot as a whole is giving Tivo a little bit of an easy ride. Then again, perhaps they've earned it for seeming (I don't own one) to respond so well to their customers.
TSage
I see your point, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with the mandatory security cameras. I would find it perfectly fine for a company to videotape their premises if they wish to do so. Cops generally already need a warrant to confiscate videotapes, unless the owner gives it up willingly.
I just dislike your argument regarding why cameras should be mandatory. Yeah, you could upload MyDoom or kiddie porn or some other such undesirable and people would suffer. But, by that same argument, we should have cameras on all streets (like in Britain, except a lot more) because I could go bludgeon someone to death without leaving any real evidence behind if I wanted to.
I don't know. Unfortunately, we live in a complicated world and we're mostly groping in the dark on such (ultimately) unsolvable issues. (note: I use 'unsolvable' because unlike math most problems, there are no concrete answers that agree with our whole construct of reality)
TSage
This is true. However, I said later in my post that only a few thousand at most actually use their Xboxes for Linux. Out of the larger number of units, this really doesn't make a hell of a lot of difference to MS's bottom line. So they don't really care a hell of a lot, especially since it's basically an 'underground' type of thing.
TSage
I think this comment should be stressed. A lot of posts here have been basically aimed at the management ("damn PHBs"), but you also have to say that there were techs at fault as well. Now I don't feel I am in any position whatsoever to place blame, so I'm not even going to attempt to.
I think, though, the Slashdot crowd should calm down a little and try not to blame management. Most seem to do so because of their own personal experiences and frustrations with management. These are not completely unfounded, but it's mostly a finger pointing situation with the geeks standing by one another.
Instead of this (which ultimately amounts to blocking ears and singing, "la la la! I can't hear you; you're wrong!"), as the parent said, engineers and other techies should be learning from this. All of those involved with management types should take communication/management classes at a local college, read those management/motivation books in the bookstore (e.g. Steven Covey). Get inside the minds of the 'PHBs'.
Think of it as an engineering problem: you have to get permission from management on something tech-related, but they don't understand. Well, you could just say, "It's too hard to convince them. Those PHBs wouldn't know calculus from their asses." That'd be easy and resolves any blame for yourself. You have to make them understand and the way to do that is to learn to talk how they do.
Tsage
Yeah, because not having a hard drive will somehow stop people from trying to get Linux to run on an X-Box, just like it stopped the folks from bringing it to the DreamCast and Game Cube.
Naturally, since it's Microsoft, they must be taking out the hard drive to stop the "rampant spread of Linux through the masses". Please people, get off your high horses. Yeah, MS is rightfully worried about Linux, but to think they're cutting costs on something that is costing them large sums so they can stop maybe a couple thousand people (at most) from running Open Source software?
People need a reality check if that type of post gets modded up.
TSage
My intention here isn't to try to disprove you wrong or anything, merely to start a meandering post about issues you raised.
Having said that: I believe I've heard that more attractive people seem attractive precisely because their attractiveness is an indication of something that is generally good for the species. For example, if memory serves, a woman with a small chin shows low testosterone levels and those full pouty lips that are all the rage are a sign of higher estrogen levels.
Also, apparently people choose mates on other things not previously known (or perhaps only conjectured). Women actually depend (at least somewhat) on the smell of their mate. Apparently, a woman will find a man's natural scent more attractive if their immune systems are opposite. Thus if they mated, their children would have a better immune system.
The evidence for this last example went something like this: a several men wore a t-shirt when they went to bed. Each wore it for a while (say maybe a week) and then they placed them into a ziplock bag and gave it to the researchers. They, in turn, gave it to a group of women who were then asked to smell each bag and then rate the smell. The results showed a correspondence in preferred smells and the aforementioned immune system differences.
So to a point survival of the attractive really does help bring about the survival of the fittest, at least marginally.
However, as you pointed out, the more successful in our society do not generally have many offspring and I'm not sure exactly how that might play out. Too, with modern cosmetics and 'beauty' enhancements, we may not be following our natural signals properly (meaning we're being duped to some degree).
I would contest that human evolution has completely halted. Yes, we are "in control" of most of our evolutionary environment. However, there is one facet where we still are evolving, and hopefully fairly rapidly: our immune system. Even though we have modern drugs (which can actually hurt the survivability population in some sense), our immune systems are still going, and any major epidemic (like on the level of the spanish flu in 1918) would ultimately cull those with weaker immune systems out of the gene pool if we didn't create a drug quickly enough.
To wrap up, we may be 18, but we're still under the roof of Mother Nature and we play by her rules.
Tsage
I think, though, that usually an "ingenious thing" is essentially always neutral in terms of good or bad. Many people might say that guns are somehow inherently evil, but in reality they are nothing more than tools. Using a gun to kill someone in cold blood is unquestionably "bad' (or any other type of negative word: evil, despicable, etc.). Using the same gun to protect your family from a murderer, can be considered "good" (or at least a defensible situation).
As you say, you can't applaud "unethical uses of ingenuity." The poster did not seem to agree with the sentiment that this was a good or a bad thing, but rather that it was a clever thing. I'm sure a criminal investigator might call a criminal clever, but that doesn't mean he somehow agrees with the crime.
OK, the article has basically no details on the (possibly) pending suit, so I'm going to have to go with what other slashdotters are saying: that the clients used by the entertainment industries are violating the EULA and/or the TOS for Kazza's networks and IP. Someone please correct me if this is wrong.
;) But, this is really not something I want to support.
Seemingly, this would seem to go along great with what most on Slashdot want. (Well, besides the ones that wish to see the RIAA HQ violently explode on national TV.
If Sherman Networks wins, what exactly will be so great? We get a better S/N ratio on Kazaa? We get to stick it to the industries with a taste of their own medicine and say "neener neener neeeener!"? OK, I suppose that sounds good, at least to some. But, doesn't this also just strengthen the EULA and other such frivolous legal mumbo-jumbo? Wouldn't that just prove that the EULA is a real and binding contract?
Assuming I've understood the suit (which as I pointed out up top, I'm not sure I have), it seems many people are being hasty and blinded by their wish to see the entertainment industry falter. I mean this would amount to nothing more than thinking that it's OK to use Gestapo tactics, but only if they're used on criminals. Slashdot is quick to fall in love with this battle only to lose the war.
Of course, I could be wrong.
TSage
I basically agree with everything you say. I believe people are free to boycott any entity they wish to realize some benefits they feel are needed.
However, I'm not 100% certain where the privacy concerns are coming from, such that they can be pointed directly at Wal-Mart. From what I've seen, they merely want to put them on crates for inventory checks. That's not enough for me to start a jihad against them.
Now, if they start to track my every move after they've put them on individual items, and it's in such a way that I have no recourse (a.k.a. ability to fry the sucker), then there is a definite reason to wake up and call in the cavalry. As another poster already mentioned, slashdotters are quick to support P2P for legitimate uses, even though the vast majority is not for such uses, but quickly condemns something that could easily save people money.
TSage
Well, I think these people should realize that a giant space goat is about to swallow the planet! They should quickly be put into hibernation and placed on a spaceship (called, oh I don't know, the B Ark) that will be auto-piloted to another planet!
Meanwhile, all of us nontrolls and generally good people will get into two other Arks and be sent along afterwards.
Hey if another planet can do it to us, we can do it to them...
Long Live Doug Adams!
TSage