No... it's more like, they can't think of a better, more LUCRATIVE scam than the one they've cooked up!
How many nation-wide con-artist operations do you see out there that are protected by federal legislation (organized religion status)?
Just 2 days ago, I received some propaganda piece in the mail from their "church". It was trying to recruit new members with false "scientific findings" they published. (Basically, the premise was that all the chemicals we encounter in our daily lives are permanently lodging themselves in our bodies and poisoning us. By signing up with their group, they could put you through a "cleansing" process to restore your body's "natural state". They actually claimed that it was a *scientific finding* that common anesthesia drugs were discovered permanently stored in people's fat tissue, among other things. Citation was conveniently left out on that, though.)
If the public library system allows itself to be superseded by Google, then it must be full of people who aren't nearly as insightful and wise as I was always led to believe!
Honestly, some physical content just isn't worth the space it occupies, to keep it around. We have entire periods of history that are completely *gone*, all because of fires that destroyed the documents in libraries.
Certainly, there is a place for "vintage books and magazines", but that place is probably a museum, not a library. Most content turns out to be far more useful after it's digitized into a fully text-searchable format. It's great that libraries are staffed with people very knowledgeable in helping you find content you're seeking. But in modern times, they need to expand their skill-set to include becoming expert searchers of digitized content too.
I view web services like Google as "DYI research tools", ultimately. There's absolutely nothing wrong with people trying to learn to do things like car repair or home improvement on their own. It saves them money, helps them learn new skills, and odds are, it gets their problem(s) solved. On the other hand, there's no substitute for professionals in any of those areas, either - and any good "do it yourselfer" knows when it's time to call in a pro. The library is the "professional" version of these research tools.
That was my first thought, as well. If Google doesn't pay most of them off in some fashion, I don't see how this will fly without hundreds of lawsuits?
Most newspapers, today, are struggling. Our local paper's readership of paper copies has fallen so low, they've started letting go of their delivery drivers. I've also noticed "complimentary copies" of the Sunday paper showing up on my doorstep as regularly as every other weekend - which I suspect is a desperate move to artificially pump up their "eyeball" figures they quote their advertisers.
One of their few "lights at the end of the tunnel" for possible revenue is selling the right to electronically search their old content.
I've suspected the same thing, though I didn't track the visitors to any of the web sites I've put together.
I think one big issue has been the lack of real "resolution independence" in full use in major operating systems. This was promised for OS X before 10.5 Leopard was released, but then never really materialized. And in Windows, you can change the default of 96DPI to something larger, but that amounts to magnifying EVERYTHING drawn on the display - so I'm not sure why that's really beneficial over just selecting a lower resolution (thereby achieving the same effect, while reducing the load on the video card and system - since it has fewer pixels to refresh and draw)?
I know at my workplace, at least 1 out of 3 employees is running in 800x600 because it's the lowest resolution they can use that still fits a "usable" amount of information on the screen at one time. They want everything to look bigger, making it easier on the eyes -- and buying larger LCD displays didn't address their problem, since it just meant higher and higher native resolutions.
Yep... "RocketScientist" is absolutely right. (Although I happen to work in I.T. for a shop of union steelworkers, and it's not *quite* true that it's cheaper to ship ore to China and import the steel back to the U.S. right now. That WAS traditionally true, but the steel industry in the U.S. is seeing a bit of a resurgence ever since fuel prices skyrocketed. Shipping is becoming a major cost factor for items as big and heavy as steel beams.)
The bottom line is the same though. As you pointed out, you have to really be a "location based" business to get away with unionizing and keeping your job afterwards. When shipping costs too much for a product, that effectively makes it "location based".
I know we're getting a little off-topic here, but I feel like I need to reply to your comments, at least.
1. Why pretend that only a Republican leader could possibly "raid the fund" for Social Security? Obviously, if the fund is set up in such a way so it can be raided, that's due to loopholes that were never sealed up. There's no reason a Democrat in power couldn't/wouldn't opt to raid the S.S. fund either, if he or she came up with some "reason" to "justify" it. The point is, this is an inherent problem with forcing people to pay into a government managed/controlled retirement fund. It assumes that GOVERNMENT knows better than the people EARNING the money how to save and redistribute it.
2. I agree that some sort of system needs to be in place to help American citizens who are unable to work due to mental or physical handicaps. (That's where the "morality" comes into play, as far as I'm concerned. Just because someone is born with a severe disability shouldn't mean they have to look forward to guaranteed poverty in their old age.) But in most other cases? If people are made aware that the "safety net" of Social Security is being removed and they STILL opt not to put aside any savings? Then so be it. They CHOSE poverty in old age. What's immoral, today, is how we forcibly take away part of the earnings of everyone who works for a living, to ensure these people don't suffer the consequences of their own voluntarily actions!
I bought Bioshock about a week after it was first released (largely because I found a $10 off sale on it at a local Circuit City, and figured all the hype plus the discount made it worth grabbing).
I have to agree that it could have been more compelling. To this day, I've never finished the game. I enjoyed it for a few hours, but ultimately, I felt like the mechanics made it too similar to many other 3D shooter type games I've played before. The graphics and sound f/x are outstanding. The concepts in the game like the plasmids, the little sisters, and the Big Daddies are great. But I spent too much time walking around the same rooms, trying to get to where I could unlock one lousy opening to see the next set of interesting things.
And honestly? I think the theme itself annoyed me, too. Initially, I was really thrilled that someone was making a game revolving around objectivism and Ayn Rand's beliefs. But then, it became clear it was trying to illustrate why such concepts were "bad" things, and would only lead to utter failure and despair.
I guess somehow, I'm just not buying the idea that all these great scientists *really* just wanted to escape the laws of the land so they could start injecting each other with substances that would cause permanent mutations, but giving them "super powers", etc. etc. Just because you're for progress and minimal government interference doesn't imply you've tossed ethics and morality aside.
His comments have little to do with being a "Neoconservative" (a term the pro-Democrats sure do like to toss around a lot lately).
I'm not voting Republican, yet I can easily understand the very BASIC concept that our current "Social Security" program amounts to nothing more than another tax on our income.
There is NO such thing as a special "account" or "place" the S.S. income goes to and is kept/managed/invested. Rather, it goes into a general pool of tax income the federal govt. collects and can SPEND any way they like. Right this very minute, your last year's worth of Social Security contributions taken from your paychecks have PROBABLY been spent on the war in Iraq.
This has NOTHING to do with some concept that people should be totally "on their own" with no assistance whatsoever. It simply has to do with people being able to keep and manage the fruits of their own labor!
I'm not in a situation where I could put aside 20% of my take-home pay for my 401K plan or other retirement investments. I have a small child to take care of (divorced dad who has her full-time), and I'm still paying more than I should really be paying on things like car insurance, because I'm still in the process of fixing my credit, post bankruptcy (again, made necessary by my ex, her bad spending habits, and the divorce). But if I had a way to at least "opt out" of the Social Security program? Yeah, I'd be much closer to having that 20% going into compound interest earning accounts that directly benefit me. How is that a BAD thing?
Nobody I'm personally acquainted with NEEDS a $100 a month cellphone plan, but a fair number of us have valid reasons for such a thing.
I've had a cellphone plan that cost me that much (or a little more) in the past, but it was when I was doing on-site computer service work for a living. I used up enough of my peak minutes in conversations with my employer and other techs, I didn't have almost anything left for personal use without buying a big plan. My employer paid me back for a portion of the usage, too, so it made sense.
Claiming that someone leasing their vehicle is making a "bad choice" is overly-simplistic thinking too. Where I live, public transportation is limited and inefficient. I pretty much NEED a reliable car to get to and from work each day, and to do the service calls I do for my business I run on the side. If I listened to some accountant going on about how I'd be "much wiser" buying a used car and maintaining it for 10 years straight, I'd lose both of my jobs due to its unreliability! In my situation, I know I want to be making a predictable monthly payment on a vehicle with a lot of life left in it. Whether I do a lease (which I haven't ever done yet), or I simply buy a new car, chances are really good I won't keep it more than 3-4 years. So is a lease such a "bad" thing for a person like me? I'd venture to guess probably not, if it's chosen wisely.
I'm not advocating running up a bunch of credit card debt and making min. payments on it for years and years. But I'm just saying, the people preaching we need to "live below our means" are often talking nonsense too. What's IMPORTANT is making sure you only take calculated risks, and don't try to live a lifestyle you can't afford to live.
You want to put some money aside for retirement, in things like a 401K or IRA... but I think you should also enjoy some of the things in life you can't really enjoy the same way when you're older. (You've probably heard all the jokes about "the only people who can afford a new Corvette are the ones too old to drive it properly"?)
I would have never voted for Nader. My political views are very libertarian in nature, and NOT much in alignment with Nader's "Green party".
I *am* voting for my best interests when I cast a vote for the candidate standing closest in viewpoints and "agenda" to what I want for my country.
It just so happens that in THIS election, I consider doing this more of a "protest vote" - because frankly, Ron Paul was the guy I had hoped had a shot at election. (He opted to run as Republican, despite being a libertarian, because he bet on having more success by running under that party label. It worked for him back in 1977 or so, when he became a congressman, at least.)
Since Ron Paul didn't make it past the primaries, I have to look around and see what's left. Bob Barr is the "figurehead" the Libertarian party has chosen to run. There's some question as to whether he truly believes in all of their principles, or if he's just latched onto them recently, because it best suits his personal agenda. Nonetheless, he's the only contender with a "laundry list" of beliefs I'm in alignment with.
The fact is, whoever wins this election is going to do so without even achieving 50% of the "popular vote". Helping get that 3rd. party vote to even 5% or 6% is pretty "significant" in that context.
The people complaining that those 5% or 6% should have "just cast a vote for one of the major 2 candidates instead" COMPLETELY miss the point! Whoever gets elected (or doesn't, by a small percentage) should ask themselves HOW to get some of those 3rd. party votes converted to their side in the future. Hint, it's NOT by complaining that those "stupid 3rd. party voters need to just stop doing that!". It's by taking heed of the fact that some of us are demanding things like smaller government and more individual rights and freedoms.
Good points, and I'd never say your decision to go that route was "wrong". It sounds like it was well thought out and a smart one in your case.
I'm very interested in doing the same thing, but here in the midwest, I can't say the "ROI" looks good enough just yet. A major university in my city did a big solar experiment a couple years ago, installing panels and running one of their buildings entirely on solar power. They kept track of all the costs, because a big part of the project was to determine how "cost effective" it really is for people living in this part of the country. Their own records show they're not expecting it to be "profitable" for nearly 30 years. (Granted, they hired a contractor to do the whole job though. This wasn't a DYI install.)
The ability to ride out power outages is certainly another big consideration. And last winter, my power was out for almost 7 days after a bad ice storm that knocked out power for a huge number of customers. (That motivated a BUNCH of portable gasoline powered generator purchases.) But all in all, my power has been pretty reliable. That one outage was a rare exception to the rule. If that sort of thing starts becoming more commonplace? Then solar would start looking much more attractive.
Very good point. I think this gets to the root of why those MTV "Rock the Vote!" style campaigns get on my nerves.
I'm all for people making the effort to learn what's going on in politics, and then being able to make an informed decision.
But at the same time, some people are simply apathetic. If you prod them to go out and vote (by selling the idea as trendy and "cool", applying peer-pressure, etc.), you wind up with people voting for completely wrong reasons. EG. I just like candidate X because he looks better on TV. The other guys look too old and ugly!
All things considered, I think we'd do just as well to have them opt out of the whole process, if that's all the effort they're going to put into it.
At the same time though? I *really* wish the people who don't like either of the two "major candidates" would get out there and vote 3rd. party, rather than skipping the process. That's where I'm at right now, myself. I can't bring myself to cast a vote for yet another person following in the footsteps of Bush, but Obama comes from the typical crooked Chicago politician pool, screwed us over by not fighting the telcom immunity bill, and has professed ideas for public healthcare that I think aren't going to work. Both candidates are apparently fine with a continuation of the "Patriot Act" too, which tells me a LOT about them.
That's why I'm going to cast a vote for Bob Barr. Frankly, the guy's kind of a "tool". He's just trying to ride the coat-tails of Ron Paul, and his V.P. already was heard admitting that he's really only running because he hopes it'll boost his popularity so he can get a book deal or radio show program in the future. But that's not the point. The point is, a vote for him is a protest vote the other guys can CLEARLY see they didn't earn.
1. With things like solar power, by the time you own the panels for 20 years (and from the quotes I've obtained locally, it's at LEAST 20 years of ownership to pay off the cost of the panel and installation), you're a good 2/3rds. or more into the "expected lifetime" for the panel.
2. The "perpetual, open-ended contract" you refer to for electricity provided by a utility company doesn't really work quite like that. It's a month to month service with NO contract. You can cancel at any time with no penalty. If the power companies jack the prices up too far, people will quickly decide that generating their own power has suddenly become a better option, and will invest more heavily in it. The utilities HAVE to keep costs below a certain threshold to avoid losing their customer base.
3. One of the big "pros" to your garden example is the fact that we generally agree that home-grown food tastes "better" (fresher, etc.). Another benefit is the idea that it's organic, so you know what you're eating. Neither applies to power generation. The electricity you'd generate yourself is not "better" for your electronics than what you get off the grid, nor does it make any of your devices or appliances give a better "user experience".
"This raises an interesting issue of where do you draw the line between essential and non-essential features of websites. What should the web look like? Should government authorities be the ones making that decision?"
I'd argue that this situation really has NOTHING to do with that! The only "issue" here is really simple and straightforward. Is it ok to advertise that your product is capable of accessing ALL parts of the Internet, when in reality, it isn't?
All Apple has to do to correct this commercial and "clear" it for viewing is to qualify their statement in some fashion, or maybe re-phrase it. What's so bad about saying "The iPhone is capable of accessing MOST parts of the Internet.", or flashing some small text at the bottom of the screen with as asterisk in front, saying "Some 3rd. party Internet technologies such as Adobe Flash and Java not included."?
I was thinking this might call for a Mythbusters episode on Discovery Channel involving a huge electromagnetic field set up in different places in the farmer's field?
Maybe in a large company they do... but come on! How many smaller businesses (and by that, I mean such places as warehouses, machine shops, factories, etc. that might employ between 25 and 100 employees) are *really* going to have I.T. security people on staff doing regular wi-fi signal sweeps?
What they *usually* do is have a small I.T. dept. tasked with the job of implementing/maintaining security of the network as well as the rest of the I.T. duties.
That doesn't make them "hacks". That just makes them prioritize their work, so they're going to make judgment calls about the relative necessity of doing different security-related tasks.
If you get the feeling that most of your employees couldn't configure a wireless router if their lives depended on it, and by the same token, you have a very real concern about getting reliable backups - which one are you going to spend more time and effort on?
This is one reason I find many of the self-proclaimed "security experts" a little annoying. They assume that the "best practices" they push are good ideas for everyone - instead of realizing that they're pedaling a level of system security that isn't cost-effective or practical for many.
I agree with you, and have been saying the same thing to people for years.
If there's no profit motive for the copyright infringement in question, it makes no sense to spend taxpayer dollars on a *criminal* investigation of the offense on a federal level. U.S. govt. seemed to understand this just fine until the Clinton presidency, when he signed the changes into law that caused this whole mess.
ALTHOUGH, that being said, I think there's still a case to be made for claiming the selling price of a bundled "hardware / software" product like this meant the software titles weren't being sold at a profit, after all. I don't know what his asking price was? But if I bundle 50, 100 or even 500 "pirated" vintage games on some set-top player box, and sell the whole thing with controllers for, say, $30 - couldn't I reasonably argue the buyers were paying nothing more than a reasonable asking price for the hardware alone? The included game software might have essentially been bundled for free, really.
We seem to recognize this legal situation when it comes to enforcing rules of reselling open-source things like Linux distros.
I don't know. In many ways, "security" is never anything more than putting up deterrents to crime. The more of them you implement, the more you create inconveniences for YOURSELF, in the process. It never really ensures the PREVENTION of a crime.
In "traditional" security scenarios, I think people have found a balance they're content with in most cases. (EG. If I want to secure my house against a break-in, I can stick with the "staple items" we universally employ, such as door and window locks. We've pretty much all established that having to find the proper key for one's door to get inside is a minor hassle, vs. the level of crime deterrence it provides. Optionally, people wanting more can buy an alarm system. Much more hassle, expense and inconvenience, but an added layer of protection everyone understands and can opt for or against with a good sense of the pros and cons.)
"Computer security" is largely considered "of little real value" by the public because they (usually CORRECTLY) come to the conclusion that it creates too many impediments to being productive with the computer tools given. I.T. security nazis that demand those "tough to guess" passwords that have to be changed regularly only cause people to have too much trouble signing THEMSELVES in. So to work around this? They start writing the passwords down on things they can easily look at. Problem solved, but security measure largely bypassed.
By the same token, your business can spend thousands and thousands on firewalls and other "network appliances" that all promise to improve security from hackers and outside threats. But one employee can circumvent it ALL with a $50 wireless access point concealed someplace in a drop ceiling, and letting his buddies know they can now get on the LAN from a portable sitting in the parking lot.
I think many people in charge of spending (whether management or other I.T. workers) are realizing that the basics like merely having SOME kind of password required to log in, a basic NAT firewall in place, some anti-virus/spyware package on the workstations, and maybe a spam filtering service on their email is ALL they realistically need. MOST companies just don't have that much on their network that outside hackers even care to access. The most "sensitive" information is usually just of interest to EMPLOYEES of the company (like salary histories of different people?). So let the one dept. that has to handle that data (H.R.) put extra security measures on it, and keep them from inconveniencing everybody else.....
Don't get me wrong... I say this as a regular Mac user and fan.
But IMHO, a big part of why OS X seems "cheaper" than Windows to people is because they don't take into account Apple's more aggressive upgrade schedules on their products.
I think basically with Apple and OS X, you really don't want to get more than 1 OS version behind the "current shipping" one. That means you're going to be buying the new one every 2 years or so. (That still probably compares well with what the typical user spent to get XP Pro on a PC, and now to move to Vista.)
I was helping some of my friend get older "vintage" Macs going (a G4 Cube, for example), and even on those machines, getting 10.4 Tiger on them was and all-around "smart choice". We tried 10.3 for a while, but even a lot of shareware and freeware out there needed libraries not included until 10.4. Each OS X revision has added a lot of "under the surface" enhancement in the way of "core" architecture (Core Audio, Core Video, Core Animation, etc.) - so it can make an upgrade worthwhile, even if you don't think you need any of the new GUI features they touted to try to "make the sale" to the general public.
Yeah, but unfortunately, the upgrades DO become useful in ways you never suspect.
EG. Adobe Acrobat Reader. I was in the same camp as you, saying "Why upgrade the thing, if it works, as-is?" But then I tried to print out a large engineering drawing that was made into a PDF, and discovered the "fit to page" options in Acrobat Reader didn't work properly with it, until I upgraded to at least version 8! Very aggravating and wasted a lot of paper before I realized that was the solution.
Software authors typically have some sort of "vested interest" in trying to get as many people as possible using their code to run their latest versions. Often, it's as simple as being a "pride" thing. (You don't relish the idea that tens of thousands of people out there are having problems with software that bears YOUR name as author, when you already put in lots of effort to find/fix those bugs.)
Glad someone made this point, because I was just about to say the same thing!
One of our employees at my work uses an older Sony Vaio laptop with Windows '98SE on it. Sure, it's old and outdated, but all she needs it for is connecting to our corporate VPN to get remote access to her PC from home, and to check her email, surf a few web sites she frequents, and possibly to type the occasional document up in Word or Excel.
I recently put FireFox on it for her, and sure enough, version 3 wouldn't work. (IE 7, by contrast, DOES still support Windows '9x.)
Yeah, my comments were intended to be more for a case of a LAN party held at someone's home or condo. When you're talking about something huge, at a public facility, lots of different rules apply. A lot of the messages posted here WERE talking about LAN parties held in homes though.
I will say though, if a party at a school had 20+ people daisy-chaining their gear off ONE electrical outlet, it sounds like the school had a defective breaker in their box! I know from previous experience, a typical circuit will safely handle no more than roughly 4-5 systems running off one outlet, tops. Beyond that, and you consistently just trip breakers or blow fuses.
And like a guy from Sweden said already about much of this other stuff, "Only in America!" It might be true that some asshole will try to sue you because the computer he voluntarily brought to your LAN party broke, and he feels you're somehow to blame for it. But frankly, I'll take that chance. If they *really* want to be THAT much of an ass, I'll see them in small claims court and bring all the evidence I can put together to show the ridiculousness of such a claim. (I know for a fact, you can't even get a computer repair facility to put something in writing stating a power surge/lightning strike was a "conclusive" reason for a system failure. The best they'll do is write an opinion stating it was a POSSIBLE cause of failure. So good luck getting proof my "defective switch" or what-not killed your PC.)
This is honestly the first time I've ever heard these things mentioned when it comes to organizing LAN parties.
The purely logical side of me wants to say, "Hey, yeah... nice advance planning. I never even considered the idea of maybe looking at insurance for such an event."
But the practical side of me? It thinks "WTF is wrong with people today?!?" I've been to a number of LAN parties hosted at people's homes, and even hosted a couple myself. Everyone I've ever met at them was MORE courteous and considerate than average. The closest thing to a "theft" I ever saw was a situation where someone accidentally picked up and packed up another person's Ethernet cable. I think that got sorted out when another individual offered to just give the guy one of his to keep, for free, since he had plenty of them at home anyway.
The way I see things, sure... ANY time you have some sort of party or get-together involving multiple people, you have a "non zero" risk of something bad happening. Maybe someone will fall down a flight of stairs and break an arm? Maybe they'll plug a defective network card or cable into your gigabit switch and fry the thing? But like the parent post says, you can't even get out of bed in the morning and do anything useful if you're scared of everything.
Ultimately, I'd feel FAR safer around a bunch of avid computer gamers willing to drag their expensive computer gear over to my house than the random mix of individuals drinking at the corner bar. (You have to remember, they're all taking a certain amount of risk coming to some "stranger's house" with their equipment in tow, too. The host isn't the only one putting himself out there.)
I dunno. One of my good friends is doing a LOT of analysis of all of these "current generation" programming languages and development frameworks. He has a need to do some coding for his current employer, and they're pretty much "language neutral", as long as he picks a sensible one and can get the work done efficiently in the one he goes with.
He came from more of a systems administration background than a programming one, but used to rather like perl and php, when he dabbled in them to write web apps that accessed back-end databases and such.
Now that he's gotten really deep into all of this, watching everyone's training videos and tutorials, reading tons of example code, etc. - he tells me he's leaning heavily towards python as the "best overall solution", and a growing preference for django as a framework of choice.
Like many others here commented, he found perl to be sub-optimal because as a general rule, code written in it is harder to follow than the same thing done in python. Performance and "portability" across platforms is roughly equal. But the "harder to follow code" in perl bites you in the butt 2 ways. Obviously, it means other people might have a tough time figuring out what YOU coded, and you might even have a tough time with your OWN code if you haven't visited it in a while. But it ALSO means the pre-made libraries of code snippets other people have out there can be harder to manage. They're fine if they do what they say, and that's exactly what you need. But later on, you might change something that requires it to change too -- and then you're struggling again, trying to learn how the darn thing does what it does.
Incidentally, his opinion on "Ruby on Rails" was; Ruby itself is great, but the Rails dev. team seems a lot more immature, all the way around, than some of their competitors. Instead of objectively considering criticisms of various things they do in their framework, they tend to resort to name-calling, down-talking the alternatives and insisting their way is "best".
Slashdot Mirror
No ... it's more like, they can't think of a better, more LUCRATIVE scam than the one they've cooked up!
How many nation-wide con-artist operations do you see out there that are protected by federal legislation (organized religion status)?
Just 2 days ago, I received some propaganda piece in the mail from their "church". It was trying to recruit new members with false "scientific findings" they published. (Basically, the premise was that all the chemicals we encounter in our daily lives are permanently lodging themselves in our bodies and poisoning us. By signing up with their group, they could put you through a "cleansing" process to restore your body's "natural state". They actually claimed that it was a *scientific finding* that common anesthesia drugs were discovered permanently stored in people's fat tissue, among other things. Citation was conveniently left out on that, though.)
If the public library system allows itself to be superseded by Google, then it must be full of people who aren't nearly as insightful and wise as I was always led to believe!
Honestly, some physical content just isn't worth the space it occupies, to keep it around. We have entire periods of history that are completely *gone*, all because of fires that destroyed the documents in libraries.
Certainly, there is a place for "vintage books and magazines", but that place is probably a museum, not a library. Most content turns out to be far more useful after it's digitized into a fully text-searchable format. It's great that libraries are staffed with people very knowledgeable in helping you find content you're seeking. But in modern times, they need to expand their skill-set to include becoming expert searchers of digitized content too.
I view web services like Google as "DYI research tools", ultimately. There's absolutely nothing wrong with people trying to learn to do things like car repair or home improvement on their own. It saves them money, helps them learn new skills, and odds are, it gets their problem(s) solved. On the other hand, there's no substitute for professionals in any of those areas, either - and any good "do it yourselfer" knows when it's time to call in a pro. The library is the "professional" version of these research tools.
That was my first thought, as well. If Google doesn't pay most of them off in some fashion, I don't see how this will fly without hundreds of lawsuits?
Most newspapers, today, are struggling. Our local paper's readership of paper copies has fallen so low, they've started letting go of their delivery drivers. I've also noticed "complimentary copies" of the Sunday paper showing up on my doorstep as regularly as every other weekend - which I suspect is a desperate move to artificially pump up their "eyeball" figures they quote their advertisers.
One of their few "lights at the end of the tunnel" for possible revenue is selling the right to electronically search their old content.
Interesting that you've noticed that trend....
I've suspected the same thing, though I didn't track the visitors to any of the web sites I've put together.
I think one big issue has been the lack of real "resolution independence" in full use in major operating systems. This was promised for OS X before 10.5 Leopard was released, but then never really materialized. And in Windows, you can change the default of 96DPI to something larger, but that amounts to magnifying EVERYTHING drawn on the display - so I'm not sure why that's really beneficial over just selecting a lower resolution (thereby achieving the same effect, while reducing the load on the video card and system - since it has fewer pixels to refresh and draw)?
I know at my workplace, at least 1 out of 3 employees is running in 800x600 because it's the lowest resolution they can use that still fits a "usable" amount of information on the screen at one time. They want everything to look bigger, making it easier on the eyes -- and buying larger LCD displays didn't address their problem, since it just meant higher and higher native resolutions.
Yep... "RocketScientist" is absolutely right. (Although I happen to work in I.T. for a shop of union steelworkers, and it's not *quite* true that it's cheaper to ship ore to China and import the steel back to the U.S. right now. That WAS traditionally true, but the steel industry in the U.S. is seeing a bit of a resurgence ever since fuel prices skyrocketed. Shipping is becoming a major cost factor for items as big and heavy as steel beams.)
The bottom line is the same though. As you pointed out, you have to really be a "location based" business to get away with unionizing and keeping your job afterwards. When shipping costs too much for a product, that effectively makes it "location based".
I.T. certainly has no such issues....
I know we're getting a little off-topic here, but I feel like I need to reply to your comments, at least.
1. Why pretend that only a Republican leader could possibly "raid the fund" for Social Security? Obviously, if the fund is set up in such a way so it can be raided, that's due to loopholes that were never sealed up. There's no reason a Democrat in power couldn't/wouldn't opt to raid the S.S. fund either, if he or she came up with some "reason" to "justify" it. The point is, this is an inherent problem with forcing people to pay into a government managed/controlled retirement fund. It assumes that GOVERNMENT knows better than the people EARNING the money how to save and redistribute it.
2. I agree that some sort of system needs to be in place to help American citizens who are unable to work due to mental or physical handicaps. (That's where the "morality" comes into play, as far as I'm concerned. Just because someone is born with a severe disability shouldn't mean they have to look forward to guaranteed poverty in their old age.) But in most other cases? If people are made aware that the "safety net" of Social Security is being removed and they STILL opt not to put aside any savings? Then so be it. They CHOSE poverty in old age. What's immoral, today, is how we forcibly take away part of the earnings of everyone who works for a living, to ensure these people don't suffer the consequences of their own voluntarily actions!
I bought Bioshock about a week after it was first released (largely because I found a $10 off sale on it at a local Circuit City, and figured all the hype plus the discount made it worth grabbing).
I have to agree that it could have been more compelling. To this day, I've never finished the game. I enjoyed it for a few hours, but ultimately, I felt like the mechanics made it too similar to many other 3D shooter type games I've played before. The graphics and sound f/x are outstanding. The concepts in the game like the plasmids, the little sisters, and the Big Daddies are great. But I spent too much time walking around the same rooms, trying to get to where I could unlock one lousy opening to see the next set of interesting things.
And honestly? I think the theme itself annoyed me, too. Initially, I was really thrilled that someone was making a game revolving around objectivism and Ayn Rand's beliefs. But then, it became clear it was trying to illustrate why such concepts were "bad" things, and would only lead to utter failure and despair.
I guess somehow, I'm just not buying the idea that all these great scientists *really* just wanted to escape the laws of the land so they could start injecting each other with substances that would cause permanent mutations, but giving them "super powers", etc. etc. Just because you're for progress and minimal government interference doesn't imply you've tossed ethics and morality aside.
His comments have little to do with being a "Neoconservative" (a term the pro-Democrats sure do like to toss around a lot lately).
I'm not voting Republican, yet I can easily understand the very BASIC concept that our current "Social Security" program amounts to nothing more than another tax on our income.
There is NO such thing as a special "account" or "place" the S.S. income goes to and is kept/managed/invested. Rather, it goes into a general pool of tax income the federal govt. collects and can SPEND any way they like. Right this very minute, your last year's worth of Social Security contributions taken from your paychecks have PROBABLY been spent on the war in Iraq.
This has NOTHING to do with some concept that people should be totally "on their own" with no assistance whatsoever. It simply has to do with people being able to keep and manage the fruits of their own labor!
I'm not in a situation where I could put aside 20% of my take-home pay for my 401K plan or other retirement investments. I have a small child to take care of (divorced dad who has her full-time), and I'm still paying more than I should really be paying on things like car insurance, because I'm still in the process of fixing my credit, post bankruptcy (again, made necessary by my ex, her bad spending habits, and the divorce). But if I had a way to at least "opt out" of the Social Security program? Yeah, I'd be much closer to having that 20% going into compound interest earning accounts that directly benefit me. How is that a BAD thing?
Nobody I'm personally acquainted with NEEDS a $100 a month cellphone plan, but a fair number of us have valid reasons for such a thing.
I've had a cellphone plan that cost me that much (or a little more) in the past, but it was when I was doing on-site computer service work for a living. I used up enough of my peak minutes in conversations with my employer and other techs, I didn't have almost anything left for personal use without buying a big plan. My employer paid me back for a portion of the usage, too, so it made sense.
Claiming that someone leasing their vehicle is making a "bad choice" is overly-simplistic thinking too. Where I live, public transportation is limited and inefficient. I pretty much NEED a reliable car to get to and from work each day, and to do the service calls I do for my business I run on the side. If I listened to some accountant going on about how I'd be "much wiser" buying a used car and maintaining it for 10 years straight, I'd lose both of my jobs due to its unreliability! In my situation, I know I want to be making a predictable monthly payment on a vehicle with a lot of life left in it. Whether I do a lease (which I haven't ever done yet), or I simply buy a new car, chances are really good I won't keep it more than 3-4 years. So is a lease such a "bad" thing for a person like me? I'd venture to guess probably not, if it's chosen wisely.
I'm not advocating running up a bunch of credit card debt and making min. payments on it for years and years. But I'm just saying, the people preaching we need to "live below our means" are often talking nonsense too. What's IMPORTANT is making sure you only take calculated risks, and don't try to live a lifestyle you can't afford to live.
You want to put some money aside for retirement, in things like a 401K or IRA ... but I think you should also enjoy some of the things in life you can't really enjoy the same way when you're older. (You've probably heard all the jokes about "the only people who can afford a new Corvette are the ones too old to drive it properly"?)
Actually, you've got me pegged all wrong.
I would have never voted for Nader. My political views are very libertarian in nature, and NOT much in alignment with Nader's "Green party".
I *am* voting for my best interests when I cast a vote for the candidate standing closest in viewpoints and "agenda" to what I want for my country.
It just so happens that in THIS election, I consider doing this more of a "protest vote" - because frankly, Ron Paul was the guy I had hoped had a shot at election. (He opted to run as Republican, despite being a libertarian, because he bet on having more success by running under that party label. It worked for him back in 1977 or so, when he became a congressman, at least.)
Since Ron Paul didn't make it past the primaries, I have to look around and see what's left. Bob Barr is the "figurehead" the Libertarian party has chosen to run. There's some question as to whether he truly believes in all of their principles, or if he's just latched onto them recently, because it best suits his personal agenda. Nonetheless, he's the only contender with a "laundry list" of beliefs I'm in alignment with.
Absolutely!
The fact is, whoever wins this election is going to do so without even achieving 50% of the "popular vote". Helping get that 3rd. party vote to even 5% or 6% is pretty "significant" in that context.
The people complaining that those 5% or 6% should have "just cast a vote for one of the major 2 candidates instead" COMPLETELY miss the point! Whoever gets elected (or doesn't, by a small percentage) should ask themselves HOW to get some of those 3rd. party votes converted to their side in the future. Hint, it's NOT by complaining that those "stupid 3rd. party voters need to just stop doing that!". It's by taking heed of the fact that some of us are demanding things like smaller government and more individual rights and freedoms.
Good points, and I'd never say your decision to go that route was "wrong". It sounds like it was well thought out and a smart one in your case.
I'm very interested in doing the same thing, but here in the midwest, I can't say the "ROI" looks good enough just yet. A major university in my city did a big solar experiment a couple years ago, installing panels and running one of their buildings entirely on solar power. They kept track of all the costs, because a big part of the project was to determine how "cost effective" it really is for people living in this part of the country. Their own records show they're not expecting it to be "profitable" for nearly 30 years. (Granted, they hired a contractor to do the whole job though. This wasn't a DYI install.)
The ability to ride out power outages is certainly another big consideration. And last winter, my power was out for almost 7 days after a bad ice storm that knocked out power for a huge number of customers. (That motivated a BUNCH of portable gasoline powered generator purchases.) But all in all, my power has been pretty reliable. That one outage was a rare exception to the rule. If that sort of thing starts becoming more commonplace? Then solar would start looking much more attractive.
Very good point. I think this gets to the root of why those MTV "Rock the Vote!" style campaigns get on my nerves.
I'm all for people making the effort to learn what's going on in politics, and then being able to make an informed decision.
But at the same time, some people are simply apathetic. If you prod them to go out and vote (by selling the idea as trendy and "cool", applying peer-pressure, etc.), you wind up with people voting for completely wrong reasons. EG. I just like candidate X because he looks better on TV. The other guys look too old and ugly!
All things considered, I think we'd do just as well to have them opt out of the whole process, if that's all the effort they're going to put into it.
At the same time though? I *really* wish the people who don't like either of the two "major candidates" would get out there and vote 3rd. party, rather than skipping the process. That's where I'm at right now, myself. I can't bring myself to cast a vote for yet another person following in the footsteps of Bush, but Obama comes from the typical crooked Chicago politician pool, screwed us over by not fighting the telcom immunity bill, and has professed ideas for public healthcare that I think aren't going to work. Both candidates are apparently fine with a continuation of the "Patriot Act" too, which tells me a LOT about them.
That's why I'm going to cast a vote for Bob Barr. Frankly, the guy's kind of a "tool". He's just trying to ride the coat-tails of Ron Paul, and his V.P. already was heard admitting that he's really only running because he hopes it'll boost his popularity so he can get a book deal or radio show program in the future. But that's not the point. The point is, a vote for him is a protest vote the other guys can CLEARLY see they didn't earn.
1. With things like solar power, by the time you own the panels for 20 years (and from the quotes I've obtained locally, it's at LEAST 20 years of ownership to pay off the cost of the panel and installation), you're a good 2/3rds. or more into the "expected lifetime" for the panel.
2. The "perpetual, open-ended contract" you refer to for electricity provided by a utility company doesn't really work quite like that. It's a month to month service with NO contract. You can cancel at any time with no penalty. If the power companies jack the prices up too far, people will quickly decide that generating their own power has suddenly become a better option, and will invest more heavily in it. The utilities HAVE to keep costs below a certain threshold to avoid losing their customer base.
3. One of the big "pros" to your garden example is the fact that we generally agree that home-grown food tastes "better" (fresher, etc.). Another benefit is the idea that it's organic, so you know what you're eating. Neither applies to power generation. The electricity you'd generate yourself is not "better" for your electronics than what you get off the grid, nor does it make any of your devices or appliances give a better "user experience".
The article summary states:
"This raises an interesting issue of where do you draw the line between essential and non-essential features of websites. What should the web look like? Should government authorities be the ones making that decision?"
I'd argue that this situation really has NOTHING to do with that! The only "issue" here is really simple and straightforward. Is it ok to advertise that your product is capable of accessing ALL parts of the Internet, when in reality, it isn't?
All Apple has to do to correct this commercial and "clear" it for viewing is to qualify their statement in some fashion, or maybe re-phrase it. What's so bad about saying "The iPhone is capable of accessing MOST parts of the Internet.", or flashing some small text at the bottom of the screen with as asterisk in front, saying "Some 3rd. party Internet technologies such as Adobe Flash and Java not included."?
I was thinking this might call for a Mythbusters episode on Discovery Channel involving a huge electromagnetic field set up in different places in the farmer's field?
Maybe in a large company they do... but come on! How many smaller businesses (and by that, I mean such places as warehouses, machine shops, factories, etc. that might employ between 25 and 100 employees) are *really* going to have I.T. security people on staff doing regular wi-fi signal sweeps?
What they *usually* do is have a small I.T. dept. tasked with the job of implementing/maintaining security of the network as well as the rest of the I.T. duties.
That doesn't make them "hacks". That just makes them prioritize their work, so they're going to make judgment calls about the relative necessity of doing different security-related tasks.
If you get the feeling that most of your employees couldn't configure a wireless router if their lives depended on it, and by the same token, you have a very real concern about getting reliable backups - which one are you going to spend more time and effort on?
This is one reason I find many of the self-proclaimed "security experts" a little annoying. They assume that the "best practices" they push are good ideas for everyone - instead of realizing that they're pedaling a level of system security that isn't cost-effective or practical for many.
I agree with you, and have been saying the same thing to people for years.
If there's no profit motive for the copyright infringement in question, it makes no sense to spend taxpayer dollars on a *criminal* investigation of the offense on a federal level. U.S. govt. seemed to understand this just fine until the Clinton presidency, when he signed the changes into law that caused this whole mess.
ALTHOUGH, that being said, I think there's still a case to be made for claiming the selling price of a bundled "hardware / software" product like this meant the software titles weren't being sold at a profit, after all. I don't know what his asking price was? But if I bundle 50, 100 or even 500 "pirated" vintage games on some set-top player box, and sell the whole thing with controllers for, say, $30 - couldn't I reasonably argue the buyers were paying nothing more than a reasonable asking price for the hardware alone? The included game software might have essentially been bundled for free, really.
We seem to recognize this legal situation when it comes to enforcing rules of reselling open-source things like Linux distros.
I don't know. In many ways, "security" is never anything more than putting up deterrents to crime. The more of them you implement, the more you create inconveniences for YOURSELF, in the process. It never really ensures the PREVENTION of a crime.
In "traditional" security scenarios, I think people have found a balance they're content with in most cases. (EG. If I want to secure my house against a break-in, I can stick with the "staple items" we universally employ, such as door and window locks. We've pretty much all established that having to find the proper key for one's door to get inside is a minor hassle, vs. the level of crime deterrence it provides. Optionally, people wanting more can buy an alarm system. Much more hassle, expense and inconvenience, but an added layer of protection everyone understands and can opt for or against with a good sense of the pros and cons.)
"Computer security" is largely considered "of little real value" by the public because they (usually CORRECTLY) come to the conclusion that it creates too many impediments to being productive with the computer tools given. I.T. security nazis that demand those "tough to guess" passwords that have to be changed regularly only cause people to have too much trouble signing THEMSELVES in. So to work around this? They start writing the passwords down on things they can easily look at. Problem solved, but security measure largely bypassed.
By the same token, your business can spend thousands and thousands on firewalls and other "network appliances" that all promise to improve security from hackers and outside threats. But one employee can circumvent it ALL with a $50 wireless access point concealed someplace in a drop ceiling, and letting his buddies know they can now get on the LAN from a portable sitting in the parking lot.
I think many people in charge of spending (whether management or other I.T. workers) are realizing that the basics like merely having SOME kind of password required to log in, a basic NAT firewall in place, some anti-virus/spyware package on the workstations, and maybe a spam filtering service on their email is ALL they realistically need. MOST companies just don't have that much on their network that outside hackers even care to access. The most "sensitive" information is usually just of interest to EMPLOYEES of the company (like salary histories of different people?). So let the one dept. that has to handle that data (H.R.) put extra security measures on it, and keep them from inconveniencing everybody else.....
Don't get me wrong... I say this as a regular Mac user and fan.
But IMHO, a big part of why OS X seems "cheaper" than Windows to people is because they don't take into account Apple's more aggressive upgrade schedules on their products.
I think basically with Apple and OS X, you really don't want to get more than 1 OS version behind the "current shipping" one. That means you're going to be buying the new one every 2 years or so. (That still probably compares well with what the typical user spent to get XP Pro on a PC, and now to move to Vista.)
I was helping some of my friend get older "vintage" Macs going (a G4 Cube, for example), and even on those machines, getting 10.4 Tiger on them was and all-around "smart choice". We tried 10.3 for a while, but even a lot of shareware and freeware out there needed libraries not included until 10.4. Each OS X revision has added a lot of "under the surface" enhancement in the way of "core" architecture (Core Audio, Core Video, Core Animation, etc.) - so it can make an upgrade worthwhile, even if you don't think you need any of the new GUI features they touted to try to "make the sale" to the general public.
Yeah, but unfortunately, the upgrades DO become useful in ways you never suspect.
EG. Adobe Acrobat Reader. I was in the same camp as you, saying "Why upgrade the thing, if it works, as-is?" But then I tried to print out a large engineering drawing that was made into a PDF, and discovered the "fit to page" options in Acrobat Reader didn't work properly with it, until I upgraded to at least version 8! Very aggravating and wasted a lot of paper before I realized that was the solution.
Software authors typically have some sort of "vested interest" in trying to get as many people as possible using their code to run their latest versions. Often, it's as simple as being a "pride" thing. (You don't relish the idea that tens of thousands of people out there are having problems with software that bears YOUR name as author, when you already put in lots of effort to find/fix those bugs.)
Glad someone made this point, because I was just about to say the same thing!
One of our employees at my work uses an older Sony Vaio laptop with Windows '98SE on it. Sure, it's old and outdated, but all she needs it for is connecting to our corporate VPN to get remote access to her PC from home, and to check her email, surf a few web sites she frequents, and possibly to type the occasional document up in Word or Excel.
I recently put FireFox on it for her, and sure enough, version 3 wouldn't work. (IE 7, by contrast, DOES still support Windows '9x.)
Yeah, my comments were intended to be more for a case of a LAN party held at someone's home or condo. When you're talking about something huge, at a public facility, lots of different rules apply. A lot of the messages posted here WERE talking about LAN parties held in homes though.
I will say though, if a party at a school had 20+ people daisy-chaining their gear off ONE electrical outlet, it sounds like the school had a defective breaker in their box! I know from previous experience, a typical circuit will safely handle no more than roughly 4-5 systems running off one outlet, tops. Beyond that, and you consistently just trip breakers or blow fuses.
And like a guy from Sweden said already about much of this other stuff, "Only in America!" It might be true that some asshole will try to sue you because the computer he voluntarily brought to your LAN party broke, and he feels you're somehow to blame for it. But frankly, I'll take that chance. If they *really* want to be THAT much of an ass, I'll see them in small claims court and bring all the evidence I can put together to show the ridiculousness of such a claim. (I know for a fact, you can't even get a computer repair facility to put something in writing stating a power surge/lightning strike was a "conclusive" reason for a system failure. The best they'll do is write an opinion stating it was a POSSIBLE cause of failure. So good luck getting proof my "defective switch" or what-not killed your PC.)
This is honestly the first time I've ever heard these things mentioned when it comes to organizing LAN parties.
The purely logical side of me wants to say, "Hey, yeah... nice advance planning. I never even considered the idea of maybe looking at insurance for such an event."
But the practical side of me? It thinks "WTF is wrong with people today?!?" I've been to a number of LAN parties hosted at people's homes, and even hosted a couple myself. Everyone I've ever met at them was MORE courteous and considerate than average. The closest thing to a "theft" I ever saw was a situation where someone accidentally picked up and packed up another person's Ethernet cable. I think that got sorted out when another individual offered to just give the guy one of his to keep, for free, since he had plenty of them at home anyway.
The way I see things, sure ... ANY time you have some sort of party or get-together involving multiple people, you have a "non zero" risk of something bad happening. Maybe someone will fall down a flight of stairs and break an arm? Maybe they'll plug a defective network card or cable into your gigabit switch and fry the thing? But like the parent post says, you can't even get out of bed in the morning and do anything useful if you're scared of everything.
Ultimately, I'd feel FAR safer around a bunch of avid computer gamers willing to drag their expensive computer gear over to my house than the random mix of individuals drinking at the corner bar. (You have to remember, they're all taking a certain amount of risk coming to some "stranger's house" with their equipment in tow, too. The host isn't the only one putting himself out there.)
I dunno. One of my good friends is doing a LOT of analysis of all of these "current generation" programming languages and development frameworks. He has a need to do some coding for his current employer, and they're pretty much "language neutral", as long as he picks a sensible one and can get the work done efficiently in the one he goes with.
He came from more of a systems administration background than a programming one, but used to rather like perl and php, when he dabbled in them to write web apps that accessed back-end databases and such.
Now that he's gotten really deep into all of this, watching everyone's training videos and tutorials, reading tons of example code, etc. - he tells me he's leaning heavily towards python as the "best overall solution", and a growing preference for django as a framework of choice.
Like many others here commented, he found perl to be sub-optimal because as a general rule, code written in it is harder to follow than the same thing done in python. Performance and "portability" across platforms is roughly equal. But the "harder to follow code" in perl bites you in the butt 2 ways. Obviously, it means other people might have a tough time figuring out what YOU coded, and you might even have a tough time with your OWN code if you haven't visited it in a while. But it ALSO means the pre-made libraries of code snippets other people have out there can be harder to manage. They're fine if they do what they say, and that's exactly what you need. But later on, you might change something that requires it to change too -- and then you're struggling again, trying to learn how the darn thing does what it does.
Incidentally, his opinion on "Ruby on Rails" was; Ruby itself is great, but the Rails dev. team seems a lot more immature, all the way around, than some of their competitors. Instead of objectively considering criticisms of various things they do in their framework, they tend to resort to name-calling, down-talking the alternatives and insisting their way is "best".