Personally I think the claim is mis-leading anyway. The category is narrowly defined as not only over 1000, but also bought retail. So it's crafted to exclude all the expensive workstations and servers bought by corporations, since they don't usually just drive a truck to WalMart to buy them retail.
I think that's a good way to define high end computers sold to average consumers. You intentionally want to exclude corporations if you are looking at the consumer purchases.
It's not really that it's too much, it's that desktop PCs are becoming commoditized and competition is pressing towards cheaper systems. The fact that Apple is so popular shows that customers are willing to dish out over $1000 for systems if they can differentiate themselves from the rest of the industry. That is why you are seeing Dell and other manufacturers come out with premium PCs which are little more than spec bumps with blue LEDs so they can try and convince customers to spend more.
As to supply and demand, that only applies to physical goods. For services, particularly access services such as cable, satellite tv, or membership to a gym, you're looking simply at demand. We're talking about an access issue here. There is no "supply and demand" on a monthly access fee to a game. The price is simply set at what people are willing to pay.
Economic supply/demand theory does indeed apply to services. Supply doesn't just refer to the supply of a given product, but also the amount of substitutes available for the industry. Cable TV, even monopolies compete with other entertainment avenues like movies, sports, etc.
It only makes sense to compare it to video games in the same genre. IE, MMORPG's. All of those charge a monthly access fee because they have to facilitate running their servers to power the infrastructure. About the only similiar game that DOESN'T follow a similar pricing model is Guild Wars.
No you need to compare it to the industry as a whole. Most people don't go out to buy an MMO, they go to buy entertainment. The product differentiation that MMOs provide for $X is the cooperative networking, and competitiveness of a persistant world.
People will always complain about entertainment they aren't interested in costing too much because the effective utils of anything is up to the individual.
Basically you are asking for the holy grail of MMOs. An ever changing world where characters actions actually impact change is something everybody is shooting for, but in practice it's very difficult to accomplish. You have developers trying to create content for hundreds of thousands of people each logging several dozen or more hours a month. Developers just can't create that much content with depth to keep up. Star Wars Galaxies was (before NGE) one of the best games for ROLEplayers, with several choices for tradesmen, dancers, politicians, and other everyday folk. The problem is the audience for that type of game is realtively small, most want to be the hero adventurer that destroys all in their path. It's the same reason hack'n'slashers like Diablo are more popular than more traditional roleplaying games. Probably the closest you'll get right now to your ideal, is Neverwinter Nights persistant worlds. Community driven "MMOs" that cater to the more traditional Pen & Paper type crowd.
Why ask "What if," we know governments have done it for hundreds of years and it hasn't caused the fall of civilization. You think what's going on now in the US is any different than what was going on during the:
Revolutionary War - see Alien & Sedition Acts US Civil War - suspension of habeas corpus, ignoring Constitutionally granted states rights western expansion - pretty much ignoring all human rights of Native Americans World War 2 - Seizing property and holding families of Japanese decent
Rights have always hung by a thread, technology hasn't changed the fundamental struggle to maintain freedoms; what it has done is help educate and inform the population about what is going on.
Those gaps don't exist. If they did, 20% of the population would be working on a way to solve them. This goes back to the original point: People will use e-mail if they need to.
There are gaps, things like internet access, delay times, fear of privacy, impersonality, etc. People will use email if they see value in using the tool, not whether or not they need to. 20 years ago many people didn't use computers, the reason was there were gaps in education, software, ease of use, hell some people even didn't use them because they were ugly. The computer hardware and software industry changed and addressed those issues.
Lots of my friends choose not to, for different reasons. That does not mean that the capabilities of TV must be expanded or that new systems must be designed, because it is not mandatory that everyone watches TV.
Cable TV is being expanded in the types of programming being less mainstream and more targetted to specific audiences (eg horseracing network). You also have technology like Tivo that allows timeshifting which was probably a major complaint of many people who didn't watch TV. Like your friends I didn't watch TV, but then got a DVR and now I find myself watching more and more because it is on my schedule; and sattelite television has helped address accessability. Interactivity, a la carte programming, are clear areas where television can expand it's capabilities. Perhaps whole new systems could better address those those things, but it's silly to ignore trying to use the pervasive infrastructure that exists.
What are the implications of this statistic to our society?
None. If people needed to use e-mail then they would use e-mail. The summary seems to imply that if you've never sent an e-mail there is something wrong with you or you fail at life. I can think of plenty of careers that don't even involve working with computers, and some people like to enjoy a more "disconnected" lifestyle.
There are in fact implications to our society. Rather than look at it as a flaw in the people, look at it from the point of view that the flaws of email does not meet the communication needs of those people. By learning the reasons email doesn't meet the communication needs of a significant portion of the population, you can either expand the capabilities of email, or design new systems to address those gaps.
...lying to get ligament surgery vs. cutting off your leg to enhance athletic performance... c'mon...
Driven people will go to great lengths to meet their goals. Look at girls who literally starve themselves, or reconstruct their face because of how they want to look; artists who perform/display self-mutilation to the point of risking death; and I'm sure there are many people willing to give their lives for a one way ticket and be among the first to step Mars.
I have three coronary artery stents - which in theory *could* improve bloodflow in the heart of a perfectly healthy person - so, would those people risk the possibility of having their heart stop or worse to perhaps gain a 0.01% increase in their chance of winning a race? Believe me, the procedure is pretty scary! As for having limbs sawn off to stand a chance of winning an event? The risks of embolism alone are simply not worth it.
Depends on what you define as "worth it." Look at all the athletes who use steroids knowing the risks, who look into Tommy John Surgery because they think it will make them throw harder. Hell, look at fashion models who destroy their health to have the "right look" People have dreams, and will do what they can to accomplish them. I'm sure there'd be a line of slashdotters lined up to get on a spaceship to be the first human on Mars, even if they knew the trip was a 10% chance of survival. I wouldn't put it past some Tour de France rider to have a surgery that increased their blood flow.
The problem isn't this athlete, it's what do you do if there is a technological advantage of having prothetic legs. What happens when enough world class runners choose to have their limbs sawed off that the only way to compete is to make the same choice?
1)I don't think we can give too much credence to what we think stupid/crazy people will do in response to a certain policy. Personally, I'd be fine if amputees have a shot at competing in the Olympics and the cost is a few whack jobs cutting off their legs. I'd rather not see anyone lose their legs. But better that than deny these tremendous athletes the chance to compete in the world's most prestigious sporting event (despite having the technology to allow them to do it!).
It's not exactly stupid/crazy people, it's people who have a goal of glory and are willing to do whatever to achieve it. The level of devotion to compete at a world class level in anything in itself can be considered "crazy," not to mention in sports the grind on the human body makes surgeries very likely. Beyond just the individual choices, what happens when less than open governments decree their athlete needs to have an amputation?
2)If losing your legs and having prostheses put in is such an advantage how come this guy is over a second slower than the standard to even qualify for the Olympics?
I don't think anybody thinks it gives an absolute advantage, but they are worried that technology gives a relative advantage over your normal baseline. Like golf clubs, tennis rackets, or any other high performance equipment - in the hands of an amateur it doesn't make much difference, but at the world class level a tiny edge means the difference between winning and losing, whether it's running 0.1 seconds faster or a 5km/h faster serve
Sorry to tell you, their brains are already developed, it just developed with a different set of values than you. Values where company politics and self interest is more important than actually getting work done.
Exactly, these questions that will surely be asked on the test will try to make it seem like copyright infringement is stealing as much as 2+2=4 rather then asking a moral question that can be taken either way.
No, its the same as having a test on the US Constitution, determining the morality of the right to bear arms is different than the legal understanding. How do you test somebody's morality as right or wrong? Now what you can do is test somebody's understanding of the law as it has been defined.
but with "piracy" they seem to make it seem like it is stealing when it clearly is not.
"Piracy" is not stealing, it's more like counterfeiting - which is still a criminal act
3) When the RIAA claims the school isn't doing enough to stop P2P they can point to the quiz and the training material required and say they've done everything they can
If their opinions are stupid and backwards, why should we give them the same value as rational, progressive opinions?
What constitutes stupid and backwards? Religion does not necessarily mean lack of rational thought, it can serve as a container for a value set that have rational backgrounds. Rational ideas like human equality and fundamental rights in the US grew out of the religious belief in nature's God. Also progressive opinions do not necessarily result from rational thinking - for example the idea of "we do, because we can."
Any argument invoking the FSM or any other noodly deity should be immediately ignored.
And the "faithful" would say moral judgements from those without God should be ignored. Both arguments are equally intolerant. Outright dismissal of opinions for any reason can be detrimental, because we should take time to pause and consider other opinions when our decisions will impact those people. It doesn't mean the ultimate decision will be swayed, but at least thoughtful consideration of even extremist views can be valuable, because when you dig deep into those opinions there may be something that can be learned.
The effects of religion have proven time and again to be more than overwhelmingly negative. They're only competition for motivation to reap atrocities on mankind is lust for money.
Religious atrocities are just an extension of basic tribalism - associating with those like us, and fearing those not like us; religion, nationalism, and racism are not causes they are excuses for following our primal survival instincts. It comes down to people are overwhelmingly negative when they feel their social and philosophical values are threatened - whether it has to do with religion, law, economics, or science. Religion has been used to justify ideas like natural rights, promoted education, and equality - it is also used to justify the opposite ideas.
What I'm saying is, I tire of religious rhetoric impacting the lives of those who do not follow a religious association. If to you this has ethical implications along religious principles, fine. To me it does not, to many others it does not. I have no desire to see science and the future of humanities advancement marginalized because somethings make people feel icky. My beliefs are not your beliefs. Yours are not mine. Science should always recognize this accordingly and avoid being influenced by either.
Yes we each have our own beliefs, the problem is people must coexist in the same world. Trying to pretend science exists in a vacuum is naive. First you have resource allocation, you can't fund all science. Second the value of science vs the potential impact on society should be weighed. Is a scientist allowed to experiment on humans without their consent? That isn't a science issue it's a values one. Yes the religious zealots are a pain in the ass because they prefer their views rather than open discussion and dialogue... but in a society of equality their opinions have just as much value as anybody else's.
That's not how it works. Drug companies will simply replace their expiring patented allergy drug with a new patented replacement, and they will use their monopoly profits to market the hell out of the replacement. The result is that they don't carve out little niches, it's that the mainstream drugs people use remain patented, even though there is no demonstrable benefit. And the reason is that the buyer simply doesn't have the information to make a rational choice, and the doctors, who advise the patient, are bought off.
This is becoming less the case insurance companies are starting to "educate" doctors with propaga... err research materials, or even denying claims unless generic drugs used.
People have an upper limit of what they can pay for drugs and what insurance companies will pay. All things being equal, drugs treating a disease that affects 10000 people annually would need to cost 10000x as much as a disease that affects 100000000 people annually, even if the former is lethal and the latter merely inconvenient. But people simply can't pay that much.
The cieling for drugs is quite high, on the order of several thousand dollars per month. By the same token, politically driven research would also be subject to such mobocratic selection. A disease that affects 10k will be much lower on the list for a government director than one that affects 10M. Then you get politicians with their pet projects; where do you think a senator with a child afflicted by MS will have research money allocated?
Generally, NIH has been doing a good job in picking what to develop drugs for. And it is hard to do worse than the allocation of health dollars is under the current system.
NIH is part of the problem - Look at part of their mission "expand the knowledge base in medical and associated sciences in order to enhance the Nation's economic well-being and ensure a continued high return on the public investment in research;"
We'd probably be better off developing no new drugs against ailments related to improper diet and lack of fitness at all for the next few years (which is to say, probably the majority of drugs) and spending that money instead on anti-obesity and fitness campaigns.
Totally agree, the focus of medicine is in treatment and not prevention.
Furthermore, money on AIDS research is well-spent: AIDS may not be a big threat to you or me, but the work on it has advanced medicine enormously, and the global importance of AIDS remains tremendous.
Then it's money not well spent. AIDS is preventable through proper education, same as what you propose for obesity and fitness. Money would be better spent on treating influenza or even mental health which lead to greater number of deaths per year - but AIDS is high profile
A solider can refuse to go to combat. It's called desertion and punished by military law, and it takes much more courage than just obeying order, but it shows consistency in hir ethics, assuming (s)he refuses to serve because (s)he disagree with the motives of the war and not just because to chicken out of danger.
"Obeying orders" is never a valid excuse for doing something unethical or illegal. It doesn't relieve the wrongdoer of responsibility.
You are creating the false dichotomy that soldiers either agree with the war or see it as immoral, when there are many different perspectives on the subject. Some may see the initial invasion as "wrong," but see it as the US's responsibility to remain and prevent a civil war, or instability that could lead to a greater threat to security. In a democratic society we often find ourselves in situations where our personal opinions are not shared with the rest of society. Yes it does take a lot of courage to break the law and stay true to ones beliefs, but at the same time such hardline approaches are also detrimental to stability in the face of disagreeing views. Should half of the country withold taxes because the candidate they wanted wasn't elected or they don't agree with the Iraq war? I would expect a soldier to be able to desert/mutiny based on a specific order (eg execute civilians), I wouldn't expect a soldier to do the same based on a complex political situation where right and wrong is much more grey.
Money in a bank also creates jobs; interest doesn't appear by magic. It is earned when the bank gives out loans as investments which could be used for anything from a start-up loan, a mortgage or a loan for an expanding company
"desirable trinkets" I would take to refer to iPods and other luxury consumer products. But in the same class, you have base electronic/semiconductor components for industrial use. Clothing also is often shipped by air because of the small window for marketability. Transpacific shipping includes both imports and exports, so domestically produced high value items such as medical equipment and aerospace parts are loaded on the US to Asia flights. While the absolute cost of shipping by air is high relative to sea shipments, for certain industries there are supply chain savings in terms of flexibility - quicker response to customer demand increases, and reduced waste from customer cancellations.
That said, the cost pressures from fuel prices as well as increased inspections and government restrictions are erroding some of the net cost advantages of air freight.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not really that it's too much, it's that desktop PCs are becoming commoditized and competition is pressing towards cheaper systems. The fact that Apple is so popular shows that customers are willing to dish out over $1000 for systems if they can differentiate themselves from the rest of the industry. That is why you are seeing Dell and other manufacturers come out with premium PCs which are little more than spec bumps with blue LEDs so they can try and convince customers to spend more.
No you need to compare it to the industry as a whole. Most people don't go out to buy an MMO, they go to buy entertainment. The product differentiation that MMOs provide for $X is the cooperative networking, and competitiveness of a persistant world.
People will always complain about entertainment they aren't interested in costing too much because the effective utils of anything is up to the individual.
Basically you are asking for the holy grail of MMOs. An ever changing world where characters actions actually impact change is something everybody is shooting for, but in practice it's very difficult to accomplish. You have developers trying to create content for hundreds of thousands of people each logging several dozen or more hours a month. Developers just can't create that much content with depth to keep up.
Star Wars Galaxies was (before NGE) one of the best games for ROLEplayers, with several choices for tradesmen, dancers, politicians, and other everyday folk. The problem is the audience for that type of game is realtively small, most want to be the hero adventurer that destroys all in their path. It's the same reason hack'n'slashers like Diablo are more popular than more traditional roleplaying games.
Probably the closest you'll get right now to your ideal, is Neverwinter Nights persistant worlds. Community driven "MMOs" that cater to the more traditional Pen & Paper type crowd.
Why ask "What if," we know governments have done it for hundreds of years and it hasn't caused the fall of civilization.
You think what's going on now in the US is any different than what was going on during the:
Revolutionary War - see Alien & Sedition Acts
US Civil War - suspension of habeas corpus, ignoring Constitutionally granted states rights
western expansion - pretty much ignoring all human rights of Native Americans
World War 2 - Seizing property and holding families of Japanese decent
Rights have always hung by a thread, technology hasn't changed the fundamental struggle to maintain freedoms; what it has done is help educate and inform the population about what is going on.
20 years ago many people didn't use computers, the reason was there were gaps in education, software, ease of use, hell some people even didn't use them because they were ugly. The computer hardware and software industry changed and addressed those issues.
Cable TV is being expanded in the types of programming being less mainstream and more targetted to specific audiences (eg horseracing network). You also have technology like Tivo that allows timeshifting which was probably a major complaint of many people who didn't watch TV. Like your friends I didn't watch TV, but then got a DVR and now I find myself watching more and more because it is on my schedule; and sattelite television has helped address accessability.
Interactivity, a la carte programming, are clear areas where television can expand it's capabilities. Perhaps whole new systems could better address those those things, but it's silly to ignore trying to use the pervasive infrastructure that exists.
People have dreams, and will do what they can to accomplish them. I'm sure there'd be a line of slashdotters lined up to get on a spaceship to be the first human on Mars, even if they knew the trip was a 10% chance of survival. I wouldn't put it past some Tour de France rider to have a surgery that increased their blood flow.
The problem isn't this athlete, it's what do you do if there is a technological advantage of having prothetic legs. What happens when enough world class runners choose to have their limbs sawed off that the only way to compete is to make the same choice?
I don't think anybody thinks it gives an absolute advantage, but they are worried that technology gives a relative advantage over your normal baseline. Like golf clubs, tennis rackets, or any other high performance equipment - in the hands of an amateur it doesn't make much difference, but at the world class level a tiny edge means the difference between winning and losing, whether it's running 0.1 seconds faster or a 5km/h faster serve
Sorry to tell you, their brains are already developed, it just developed with a different set of values than you. Values where company politics and self interest is more important than actually getting work done.
I heard Clippy got the electric chair
Black holes are the result of stars that are hit by a Chuck Norris roundhouse kick.
"Piracy" is not stealing, it's more like counterfeiting - which is still a criminal act
3) When the RIAA claims the school isn't doing enough to stop P2P they can point to the quiz and the training material required and say they've done everything they can
Wouldn't the giant turtles constitute alien life
And the "faithful" would say moral judgements from those without God should be ignored. Both arguments are equally intolerant. Outright dismissal of opinions for any reason can be detrimental, because we should take time to pause and consider other opinions when our decisions will impact those people. It doesn't mean the ultimate decision will be swayed, but at least thoughtful consideration of even extremist views can be valuable, because when you dig deep into those opinions there may be something that can be learned.
And for those wondering, yes Cablevision has a monopoly on providing service and satellite isn't even an option that far underground... truly hell.
Religion has been used to justify ideas like natural rights, promoted education, and equality - it is also used to justify the opposite ideas.
Yes we each have our own beliefs, the problem is people must coexist in the same world. Trying to pretend science exists in a vacuum is naive. First you have resource allocation, you can't fund all science. Second the value of science vs the potential impact on society should be weighed. Is a scientist allowed to experiment on humans without their consent? That isn't a science issue it's a values one.
Yes the religious zealots are a pain in the ass because they prefer their views rather than open discussion and dialogue... but in a society of equality their opinions have just as much value as anybody else's.
By your definition freedom of speech and equal rights count as "religious beliefs." A better term would be philosophical belief.
The cieling for drugs is quite high, on the order of several thousand dollars per month. By the same token, politically driven research would also be subject to such mobocratic selection. A disease that affects 10k will be much lower on the list for a government director than one that affects 10M. Then you get politicians with their pet projects; where do you think a senator with a child afflicted by MS will have research money allocated?
NIH is part of the problem - Look at part of their mission "expand the knowledge base in medical and associated sciences in order to enhance the Nation's economic well-being and ensure a continued high return on the public investment in research;"
Totally agree, the focus of medicine is in treatment and not prevention.
Then it's money not well spent. AIDS is preventable through proper education, same as what you propose for obesity and fitness. Money would be better spent on treating influenza or even mental health which lead to greater number of deaths per year - but AIDS is high profile
Of course not, Nazis aren't people... now if you cast Germans in a bad light you'd be in trouble.
In a democratic society we often find ourselves in situations where our personal opinions are not shared with the rest of society. Yes it does take a lot of courage to break the law and stay true to ones beliefs, but at the same time such hardline approaches are also detrimental to stability in the face of disagreeing views. Should half of the country withold taxes because the candidate they wanted wasn't elected or they don't agree with the Iraq war?
I would expect a soldier to be able to desert/mutiny based on a specific order (eg execute civilians), I wouldn't expect a soldier to do the same based on a complex political situation where right and wrong is much more grey.
"desirable trinkets" I would take to refer to iPods and other luxury consumer products. But in the same class, you have base electronic/semiconductor components for industrial use. Clothing also is often shipped by air because of the small window for marketability.
Transpacific shipping includes both imports and exports, so domestically produced high value items such as medical equipment and aerospace parts are loaded on the US to Asia flights.
While the absolute cost of shipping by air is high relative to sea shipments, for certain industries there are supply chain savings in terms of flexibility - quicker response to customer demand increases, and reduced waste from customer cancellations.
That said, the cost pressures from fuel prices as well as increased inspections and government restrictions are erroding some of the net cost advantages of air freight.