Greed makes you stupid. Greed is self-destructive. Greed keeps you thinking you can keep on getting away with anything.
While I won't go quite that far, the reason you stick around is to get more money.
Yes, I could live out the rest of my life quite handsomely on $20 Million. But I could live out the rest of my life even better with $40 Million. Or $60 Million.
[...] on top of the clouds, a much nicer temperature (although the venusian day > venusian year! so you'd have a hot and cold cycle that's pretty dramatic)
Couldn't you just move the city such that it stays in the sun?
Reminds me of the old (and untrue) saw about how NASA spent millions of dollars to develop a pen that would work in zero-gravity, whereas the Russians just used a pencil.
"I spent $1000 for a laptop so I could take notes in class! You're telling me I have to use a 25 cent pencil and a $2 notebook?!"
Keep in mind that Germany was a democracy before Hitler. Remember that Hitler was elected. So West Germany was returning to it's democratic roots.
In Japan's case, we had the Emperor in our back pocket. The Japanese would do whatever he said. So when he said, "Okay, we're a democracy," everybody said, "Cool. We're a democracy."
Also, we didn't fight World War II to bring democracy to Germany and Japan.
What is [sic] a switch dies and takes out sixteen users?
Fair enough. But let's consider our lives here in 2010.
Let's say your switch dies and takes out 16 users. They're sitting there twiddling their thumbs and can't do anything. If they had desktops, they could be productive! They could handle their e-mail--wait, no, the switch is down. They could work on that presentation--wait, no, they need clip art which is stored on the central server. They could submit their corporate expense reports--wait, no, you have to use the web form for that and they can't get to the web server. They could fill out the form on their computer and print it--wait, no, the printer's on a different subnet so they can't get to it. All they can really do is play solitaire and minesweeper until the network is back up.
If you're going to depend on your network, whether with VDI or with more conventional network services, you're still going to need a reliable network. So the whole question of "What happens if a switch goes down?" is moot--you're still not getting things done.
Part of the problem, though, comes from the iPhone zealots--and, to a lesser degree, Apple--who claim that Apple's App Store makes your private information nice and secure. After all, they'll claim, look at all those nasty apps on Android that transmit your personal information. iPhone users don't have to worry about that because Apple checks all of these things and makes sure that you're safe.
So if Apple can't stop an App like Pumpkin Maker from transmitting personal information, what is the advantage to the customer of having a sole-source App Store? Isn't Apple just providing "security theatre" by implying they can do things that they obviously cannot?
The problem is, there is no way to know what the information is being used for.
I've never used Pumpkin Maker and the description doesn't mention anything about it's capabilities. However, suppose I include a "feature" which will display a background depending on the time of day and your location. So if it's after sunset, it will be dark outside. Of course, for me to know if it's sunset, I need to know your location since sunset varies depending on where in the world you are.
Thus, Pumpkin Maker needs my location. So it comes up and says, "Would you like to allow Pumpkin Maker to access your location?" Makes sense--it needs to know my location so that it can display the appropriate background. Of course, it doesn't mention that while it's showing your appropriate background, it's sharing your location with it's advertisers.
Gender would be easy to come by--just ask. After all, it's a fun game for kids and we want to identify the kid with the appropriate pronoun. Or we ask for a name and send that off--after all, we want to identify your pumpkin as "Bob's Pumpkin" or "Sally's Pumpkin" initially, right? Then something on the backend figures out that "Bob" tends to be a boy's name and "Sally" tends to be a girl's name. "Pat" will confuse it, of course...
Age? Again, you could just ask. You have a collection of add-ons for your pumpkin and you want to filter for age-appropriateness. After all, we don't want small children adding pumpkin boobies or penises. That would be sick and wrong and we're a good company that Thinks of the Children.®
So the game collects all of this information for a good reason but it never says, "Hey, you mind if I ship it off to advertisers?"
Again, I've never used this App. I don't know much about it. But these are some ways you could get the information.
The problem is that you can make that judgement about the Pentagon Papers because it was leaked. If it hadn't been leaked, you wouldn't have the opportunity to make that judgement because you'd never know that the papers existed.
Frankly, I believe that any leak is good because it allows me judge these things. I may decide that it is unimportant. I may decide that it is very important. But keeping it from me does not allow me to judge anything.
"Star Wars, Episode 4, Revision C coming to a theater near you! Starring Heath Ledger as Luke Skywalker, Humphrey Bogart as Han Solo, Katherine Hepburn as Princess Leia, Peter Lorre as Grand Moff Tarkin..."
The point is there is no distinction between sick days and vacation days. It's just "Paid Time Off." I've worked for a few companies and I prefer it.
The advantages:
Easier to track. Not in the office? PTO -= 1.
More "vacation time." Most places I've worked at start you out with 3 weeks. If you're basically healthy, you translate that into extra vacation. From what I've experienced, you tend to get more "PTO" than you would vacation days.
MYOB. Most places I'ved worked at with PTO had a "no questions asked" policy for the first couple of days. Winter storm dumps three feet of fresh powder at your favorite ski resort? Just call in on Monday saying you'll be back on Wednesday. You don't need to justify it. Besides, most of your colleagues tend to figure it out anyway...
The disadvantages:
Other People's Emergencies. Some places will let you use "sick days" when your kids/significant other gets sick. With PTO, have a kid out sick for a week and there goes the summer vacation. Of course, not all places let you use sick days for other people's sickness.
You're responsible. Take your whole 3 weeks of PTO as vacation time in June and then end up sick in November and you're going without a paycheck. You have to keep a few days in reserve towards cold and flu season, just in case.
Severe Injuries. I spent a week-and-a-half in the hospital once. I didn't lose all my vacation time, but I lost a sizable chunk.
Personally, I prefer PTO. Many places I've worked let you accumulate it up to a given amount. Last places I worked with PTO, I ended up getting laid off with 6 weeks of PTO. Because of various California laws, I ended up getting 3 paychecks when I left plus my severance. PTO is more flexible and less hassle.
While I certainly don't approve negotiations designed to keep the people in the dark (ACTA), it's a false dichotomy to suggest that *all* secrets are bad.
The problem is that you cannot tell which secrets are bad and which secrets are good because you need to know the secret in order to judge whether it is bad or good. If you know the secret, it isn't a secret anymore.
I'd rather have an elected representative that actually gets things done that better my life.
Even if that means other's lives aren't better?
Personally, I'd love to see all bans on off-shore drilling removed. It would lower gasoline prices and that would give me more disposable income and definitely better my life. Of course, the people who live near the ocean or use it for their income might not be quite so pleased when an oil spill occurs. But, hey, as long as I get cheap gas, fuck them. They're just a bunch of NIMBYs anyway...
(Yes, I know, removing all the bans wouldn't change gasoline prices, etc. etc. I was using the above as an example.)
I've brought it up a few times, but I always think back on a letter-to-the-editor I read in US World & News shortly after George Bush Sr. was elected in 1988 but democrats controlled Congress. I don't remember the exact phrase, but it was something to effect of, "The American People are not stupid. We elected a Congress that said, 'You can have all the social programs you want!' and we elected a President that said, 'And you're not going to have to pay for them!' This sounds like a great deal to me."
Trust me, as a long time Mac user (my first Mac was a Macintosh), I know the argument well.
Way back when, Macs couldn't do accounting. Why? Because there was no QuickBooks for Mac. No QuickBooks, no accounting. It was that simple for most people. Sure there was AccountEdge and other products, but would you want to trust your company's accounting information to them? All your friends had QuickBooks and they had no problems.
So it becomes a branding issue. QuickBooks = Accounting. AutoCAD = CAD. Microsoft Word = Word Processing. If those programs aren't available, then the fact that you have AccountEdge, ArchiCAD, or Mariner Write that are "just as good, if not better" doesn't mean diddly.
It becomes even more difficult with games, where branding is key. Angry Birds, for example, is a fun game. I'm sure there are plenty of Angry Bird clones out there. But everybody has heard of Angry Birds and they've heard it's a fun game. Which means that's the game you're looking for on your respective platform. If there's no Angry Birds on Windows Phone, for example, then it doesn't have any good games. The fact that "Annoyed Armadillo" is basically the same game is beside the point--no "Angry Birds", no fun games.
Honestly, I'm not sure why this is such a big deal -- it's as if we (Americans) think we have a God-given right to fly.
Well, it can be argued that we have a constitutional right to travel between states and the government cannot restrict this. If this is true, why should the government be able to restrict me based upon the method that I use to travel?
Yet in everyday life, we must give up certain liberties; when I'm driving on public roads, I don't have the right to slam my foot to the floor and keep it there.
True. You missed one thing, though: Public Roads. Are you saying that federal government owns the sky?
You're correct that you cannot speed, etc. But how would you feel if, before you got into your car, you had to pass a breathalyzer test (even though you don't drink), you have to have your blood sugar checked (can't have you passing out behind the wheel--you could kill somebody!), and you have to pass a barrage of psychological tests (don't drive angry!) before you were allowed to even start your car? And, hey, don't like it? Too bad. You can always walk to work.
You're welcome to take a bus, train, car or boat to your destination instead.
What's to say the government won't restrict those other methods? What am I to do then? Walk?
There are situations where, realistically, flying is your only option. For example, this holiday season I plan to travel to my folks in the frigid climes of Vermont, leaving sunny southern California. According to Google, I can walk there in 39 days and bike there in 12 days, assuming I don't stop to eat or sleep. If I travel by bus, it will take me 3 days on Greyhound. The train isn't much better (2 days, 20 hours on Amtrak). Driving, I can make it in 2 days according to Google--again, assuming I don't stop to eat or sleep. I have no idea how to find out how long a boat trip would take, though I assume a trip through the Panama canal would be involved.
Compare that to a five hour airplane flight and you see that, realistically, flying is my only option.
Go a step further then -- isolate communications from cockpit to cabin as one way only.
"Sorry, passenger having heart palpitations. You'll just have to hope you make it another 4 hours to Los Angeles. See, we can't communicate with the guys in the front of the airplane and ask them for an emergency landing. It's for your own safety, you understand. Good luck."
Or, "Gee, we smell smoke back here. Maybe we should tell the guys flying the airplane. Oops! Can't do that. Well, it's hopefully nothing..."
In today's litigious society? The airline would get sued to within an inch of bankruptcy.
A securely locked cockpit resolves this issue entirely. Even better if it can only be locked or unlocked from the inside.
I'm reminded of my local bank and the solid blocks of plexiglas that are between me and the teller. If I had a gun, grabbed a random woman in line, dragged her over to the teller window and said, "Give me what I want or I'll blow her brains all over your pretty plexiglas!" I'm pretty sure the teller would give me what I want. They wouldn't sit there and say, "Nah, go ahead. I'm safe."
I start torturing passengers and the door will open.
But even if it doesn't, what this means is that I kill everyone on the airplane and underneath with a bomb.
Now that it's clear it can mean potential death, the passengers who wildly outnumber the terrorists can almost certainly stop him. Even if he's armed -- after all, resist and maybe die is a better bet than don't and certainly die.
Agreed. You go first.
Keep in mind a couple of things about an airplane. On most domestic flights, you have one aisle. I station myself at the head of the aisle. Remove all people from the first four rows. Grab a few carry-on bags and throw them in the aisle to hinder people who try to run up the aisle. Anyone stands up, they get shot. Turn the cabin audio up as loud as it will go so that passengers have a harder time communicating with each other. Any passengers seen communicating get shot.
What you would need to do is convince the people in the first couple of rows to stand up and get shot so that someone behind them could successful jump me. The odds that you're going to find six people who happen to be in the first rows who are willing to die so that others may live is pretty low. At the very least, rearrange it so that mothers and their children are in the first few rows. They're probably not going to stand up and take a bullet.
Ferrari and Hyundai (mentioned below) are not in the same market. They appear that way in that they are both making things called "cars" but the customer for a Hyundai is probably not considering a Ferrari and a customer for Ferrari is probably not considering a Hyundai.
If you have a market, you compete for customers. Since they do not share customers, they do not compete.
Furthermore, I'm quite sure that Ferrari will make decisions based on whatever's cheaper as long as they don't lose customers. If I'm selling leather for seats to Ferrari for $1000 and you're selling leather for seats for $100 and assuming the leather is of the same quality, I really doubt that Ferrari is going to say, "Yeah, we'll pay 10x the amount because our customers can afford it!"
Slashdot Mirror
Greed makes you stupid. Greed is self-destructive. Greed keeps you thinking you can keep on getting away with anything.
While I won't go quite that far, the reason you stick around is to get more money.
Yes, I could live out the rest of my life quite handsomely on $20 Million. But I could live out the rest of my life even better with $40 Million. Or $60 Million.
[...] on top of the clouds, a much nicer temperature (although the venusian day > venusian year! so you'd have a hot and cold cycle that's pretty dramatic)
Couldn't you just move the city such that it stays in the sun?
"That's one small step for man, one giant leap for Coca-Cola!"
(Yes, I know that I'm missing the 'A')
Reminds me of the old (and untrue) saw about how NASA spent millions of dollars to develop a pen that would work in zero-gravity, whereas the Russians just used a pencil.
"I spent $1000 for a laptop so I could take notes in class! You're telling me I have to use a 25 cent pencil and a $2 notebook?!"
I hate to be the silly jerk, but if someone's laptop is distracting you, here's a crazy idea:
Change seats.
Well...
Keep in mind that Germany was a democracy before Hitler. Remember that Hitler was elected. So West Germany was returning to it's democratic roots.
In Japan's case, we had the Emperor in our back pocket. The Japanese would do whatever he said. So when he said, "Okay, we're a democracy," everybody said, "Cool. We're a democracy."
Also, we didn't fight World War II to bring democracy to Germany and Japan.
What is [sic] a switch dies and takes out sixteen users?
Fair enough. But let's consider our lives here in 2010.
Let's say your switch dies and takes out 16 users. They're sitting there twiddling their thumbs and can't do anything. If they had desktops, they could be productive! They could handle their e-mail--wait, no, the switch is down. They could work on that presentation--wait, no, they need clip art which is stored on the central server. They could submit their corporate expense reports--wait, no, you have to use the web form for that and they can't get to the web server. They could fill out the form on their computer and print it--wait, no, the printer's on a different subnet so they can't get to it. All they can really do is play solitaire and minesweeper until the network is back up.
If you're going to depend on your network, whether with VDI or with more conventional network services, you're still going to need a reliable network. So the whole question of "What happens if a switch goes down?" is moot--you're still not getting things done.
Oh, I agree, there isn't one.
Part of the problem, though, comes from the iPhone zealots--and, to a lesser degree, Apple--who claim that Apple's App Store makes your private information nice and secure. After all, they'll claim, look at all those nasty apps on Android that transmit your personal information. iPhone users don't have to worry about that because Apple checks all of these things and makes sure that you're safe.
So if Apple can't stop an App like Pumpkin Maker from transmitting personal information, what is the advantage to the customer of having a sole-source App Store? Isn't Apple just providing "security theatre" by implying they can do things that they obviously cannot?
The problem is, there is no way to know what the information is being used for.
I've never used Pumpkin Maker and the description doesn't mention anything about it's capabilities. However, suppose I include a "feature" which will display a background depending on the time of day and your location. So if it's after sunset, it will be dark outside. Of course, for me to know if it's sunset, I need to know your location since sunset varies depending on where in the world you are.
Thus, Pumpkin Maker needs my location. So it comes up and says, "Would you like to allow Pumpkin Maker to access your location?" Makes sense--it needs to know my location so that it can display the appropriate background. Of course, it doesn't mention that while it's showing your appropriate background, it's sharing your location with it's advertisers.
Gender would be easy to come by--just ask. After all, it's a fun game for kids and we want to identify the kid with the appropriate pronoun. Or we ask for a name and send that off--after all, we want to identify your pumpkin as "Bob's Pumpkin" or "Sally's Pumpkin" initially, right? Then something on the backend figures out that "Bob" tends to be a boy's name and "Sally" tends to be a girl's name. "Pat" will confuse it, of course...
Age? Again, you could just ask. You have a collection of add-ons for your pumpkin and you want to filter for age-appropriateness. After all, we don't want small children adding pumpkin boobies or penises. That would be sick and wrong and we're a good company that Thinks of the Children.®
So the game collects all of this information for a good reason but it never says, "Hey, you mind if I ship it off to advertisers?"
Again, I've never used this App. I don't know much about it. But these are some ways you could get the information.
According to the press release, it is on "previously-disturbed land." So, nope, no problem there.
...and that's why it got approved. Sex sells!
The problem is that you can make that judgement about the Pentagon Papers because it was leaked. If it hadn't been leaked, you wouldn't have the opportunity to make that judgement because you'd never know that the papers existed.
Frankly, I believe that any leak is good because it allows me judge these things. I may decide that it is unimportant. I may decide that it is very important. But keeping it from me does not allow me to judge anything.
Uh, I think they're referring to a "simian" monkey. Not the one you spank. For that, there's still viagra...
It's somewhat intriguing...
"Star Wars, Episode 4, Revision C coming to a theater near you! Starring Heath Ledger as Luke Skywalker, Humphrey Bogart as Han Solo, Katherine Hepburn as Princess Leia, Peter Lorre as Grand Moff Tarkin..."
Hm...
The point is there is no distinction between sick days and vacation days. It's just "Paid Time Off." I've worked for a few companies and I prefer it.
The advantages:
The disadvantages:
Personally, I prefer PTO. Many places I've worked let you accumulate it up to a given amount. Last places I worked with PTO, I ended up getting laid off with 6 weeks of PTO. Because of various California laws, I ended up getting 3 paychecks when I left plus my severance. PTO is more flexible and less hassle.
While I certainly don't approve negotiations designed to keep the people in the dark (ACTA), it's a false dichotomy to suggest that *all* secrets are bad.
The problem is that you cannot tell which secrets are bad and which secrets are good because you need to know the secret in order to judge whether it is bad or good. If you know the secret, it isn't a secret anymore.
I'd rather have an elected representative that actually gets things done that better my life.
Even if that means other's lives aren't better?
Personally, I'd love to see all bans on off-shore drilling removed. It would lower gasoline prices and that would give me more disposable income and definitely better my life. Of course, the people who live near the ocean or use it for their income might not be quite so pleased when an oil spill occurs. But, hey, as long as I get cheap gas, fuck them. They're just a bunch of NIMBYs anyway...
(Yes, I know, removing all the bans wouldn't change gasoline prices, etc. etc. I was using the above as an example.)
I've brought it up a few times, but I always think back on a letter-to-the-editor I read in US World & News shortly after George Bush Sr. was elected in 1988 but democrats controlled Congress. I don't remember the exact phrase, but it was something to effect of, "The American People are not stupid. We elected a Congress that said, 'You can have all the social programs you want!' and we elected a President that said, 'And you're not going to have to pay for them!' This sounds like a great deal to me."
[...] but don't flush all of the soap down the toilet.
Too late. On the plus side, it's the cleanest it's been in a long time...
Trust me, as a long time Mac user (my first Mac was a Macintosh), I know the argument well.
Way back when, Macs couldn't do accounting. Why? Because there was no QuickBooks for Mac. No QuickBooks, no accounting. It was that simple for most people. Sure there was AccountEdge and other products, but would you want to trust your company's accounting information to them? All your friends had QuickBooks and they had no problems.
So it becomes a branding issue. QuickBooks = Accounting. AutoCAD = CAD. Microsoft Word = Word Processing. If those programs aren't available, then the fact that you have AccountEdge, ArchiCAD, or Mariner Write that are "just as good, if not better" doesn't mean diddly.
It becomes even more difficult with games, where branding is key. Angry Birds, for example, is a fun game. I'm sure there are plenty of Angry Bird clones out there. But everybody has heard of Angry Birds and they've heard it's a fun game. Which means that's the game you're looking for on your respective platform. If there's no Angry Birds on Windows Phone, for example, then it doesn't have any good games. The fact that "Annoyed Armadillo" is basically the same game is beside the point--no "Angry Birds", no fun games.
Honestly, I'm not sure why this is such a big deal -- it's as if we (Americans) think we have a God-given right to fly.
Well, it can be argued that we have a constitutional right to travel between states and the government cannot restrict this. If this is true, why should the government be able to restrict me based upon the method that I use to travel?
Yet in everyday life, we must give up certain liberties; when I'm driving on public roads, I don't have the right to slam my foot to the floor and keep it there.
True. You missed one thing, though: Public Roads. Are you saying that federal government owns the sky?
You're correct that you cannot speed, etc. But how would you feel if, before you got into your car, you had to pass a breathalyzer test (even though you don't drink), you have to have your blood sugar checked (can't have you passing out behind the wheel--you could kill somebody!), and you have to pass a barrage of psychological tests (don't drive angry!) before you were allowed to even start your car? And, hey, don't like it? Too bad. You can always walk to work.
You're welcome to take a bus, train, car or boat to your destination instead.
What's to say the government won't restrict those other methods? What am I to do then? Walk?
There are situations where, realistically, flying is your only option. For example, this holiday season I plan to travel to my folks in the frigid climes of Vermont, leaving sunny southern California. According to Google, I can walk there in 39 days and bike there in 12 days, assuming I don't stop to eat or sleep. If I travel by bus, it will take me 3 days on Greyhound. The train isn't much better (2 days, 20 hours on Amtrak). Driving, I can make it in 2 days according to Google--again, assuming I don't stop to eat or sleep. I have no idea how to find out how long a boat trip would take, though I assume a trip through the Panama canal would be involved.
Compare that to a five hour airplane flight and you see that, realistically, flying is my only option.
Go a step further then -- isolate communications from cockpit to cabin as one way only.
"Sorry, passenger having heart palpitations. You'll just have to hope you make it another 4 hours to Los Angeles. See, we can't communicate with the guys in the front of the airplane and ask them for an emergency landing. It's for your own safety, you understand. Good luck."
Or, "Gee, we smell smoke back here. Maybe we should tell the guys flying the airplane. Oops! Can't do that. Well, it's hopefully nothing..."
In today's litigious society? The airline would get sued to within an inch of bankruptcy.
I'm not 100% convinced.
A securely locked cockpit resolves this issue entirely. Even better if it can only be locked or unlocked from the inside.
I'm reminded of my local bank and the solid blocks of plexiglas that are between me and the teller. If I had a gun, grabbed a random woman in line, dragged her over to the teller window and said, "Give me what I want or I'll blow her brains all over your pretty plexiglas!" I'm pretty sure the teller would give me what I want. They wouldn't sit there and say, "Nah, go ahead. I'm safe."
I start torturing passengers and the door will open.
But even if it doesn't, what this means is that I kill everyone on the airplane and underneath with a bomb.
Now that it's clear it can mean potential death, the passengers who wildly outnumber the terrorists can almost certainly stop him. Even if he's armed -- after all, resist and maybe die is a better bet than don't and certainly die.
Agreed. You go first.
Keep in mind a couple of things about an airplane. On most domestic flights, you have one aisle. I station myself at the head of the aisle. Remove all people from the first four rows. Grab a few carry-on bags and throw them in the aisle to hinder people who try to run up the aisle. Anyone stands up, they get shot. Turn the cabin audio up as loud as it will go so that passengers have a harder time communicating with each other. Any passengers seen communicating get shot.
What you would need to do is convince the people in the first couple of rows to stand up and get shot so that someone behind them could successful jump me. The odds that you're going to find six people who happen to be in the first rows who are willing to die so that others may live is pretty low. At the very least, rearrange it so that mothers and their children are in the first few rows. They're probably not going to stand up and take a bullet.
True, depending on your definition of "market."
Ferrari and Hyundai (mentioned below) are not in the same market. They appear that way in that they are both making things called "cars" but the customer for a Hyundai is probably not considering a Ferrari and a customer for Ferrari is probably not considering a Hyundai.
If you have a market, you compete for customers. Since they do not share customers, they do not compete.
Furthermore, I'm quite sure that Ferrari will make decisions based on whatever's cheaper as long as they don't lose customers. If I'm selling leather for seats to Ferrari for $1000 and you're selling leather for seats for $100 and assuming the leather is of the same quality, I really doubt that Ferrari is going to say, "Yeah, we'll pay 10x the amount because our customers can afford it!"
Not much sunlight at night, which is when you'd really want these things.
Mac Pros? It's not like they don't have the room for them...