I'm not sure I actually believe it, but the conspiracy theorist in me wants to think that the whole bonus thing was intentional. Someone sensed the populist anger rising and saw an opportunity to direct it at something wholly unimportant. And I don't just mean the bonuses, I mean AIG in general.
The reason AIG is "too big to fail" is that they owe so much money to the various banks that are "too big to fail", but if AIG were to pay back that money, they're no longer really important to keep operating. Essentially, the gov't is funneling even more money to their bank buddies through AIG, then if the anger becomes too much to handle they can drop AIG and let them go under as a way of placating the masses.
Again, I might be missing something (I'm no expert) or I might just be stretching a bit too far, but it seems plausible, at least.
Well, short term thinking is a classic problem with the corporate model, but I think it's a bit of that combined with a bit of ignorance. I don't think they fully understand what they're dealing with. They want to treat the internet like a secondary, smaller version of tv. They think they can limit it so that they retain as much control of it as they do with cable. Of course, everyone here knows they can't. The internet is an inherently different medium than tv. Until the people in charge understand this and embrace it we're going to keep seeing these sorts of decisions that make no sense to us.
I'm not sure when that will happen, though. They were making buckets of money in the old system and, since the advent of internet viewing, they've seen revenues steadily decline. From their perspective, what makes the most sense is to make the internet act like tv. We know that can't happen, but what we think doesn't really matter. Eventually they'll have to come to terms with the new reality, but it might take awhile.
What content producers, software producers, and so forth are STILL failing to realize is that they are making the "pirated"[sic]/counterfeit product MORE valuable than the real thing because the "pirated"[sic] content is invariably not crippled by DRM.
I think they realize what they're doing, and I think they know the consequences. Right now they have content that generates different revenue in different forms. TV is the highest, the internet is lower, and pirated is zero. They were losing some viewers to piracy before, so they countered with Hulu. Now they're losing more viewers from TV to the other two. By limiting Hulu, some portion of the people affected will resort to piracy, but I think they're betting on some portion resorting to plain old TV.
How the various content owners think is much easier to understand if you view it from their perspective. They want to make as much money as possible. They only care about how many viewers they have so far as it makes them more money. I'd bet that they think they're increasing revenue with this move, even if they decrease legal viewership. If we're lucky, they're wrong. Otherwise, this will continue.
I disagree. With the current system, only a few states matter. The majority of states are not competitive and can be safely ignored. No one spends time in Alabama or California. They go to Florida, Ohio, Missouri, etc. Just look at how everyone reacted to McCain's push in Pennsylvania. They thought he was crazy because, even though he made some headway, he wasn't going to be close to winning. There are probably 10 or so states max that matter.
Without the electoral college, it would still make sense for McCain to campaign in a place like Pennsylvania. He's not going to win the state, so right now there is no reason to even think about them but without the electoral college in place, even if he increases his vote count by from 35% to 40%, that's a good gain.
Further, losing the electoral college allows every individual's vote to count. Right now, a fairly significant portion of voters don't matter. Republicans in New England don't matter. Democrats in the south don't matter. Removing the electoral college means that everyone matters.
So yes, large population centers may become more important when campaigning, but I don't see that as very different from the current situation where only a few states matter. Plus, even if you're not the focus of a campaign because you don't live in NY or LA, you still have the same voting power as people who live in those places. Right now, if you don't live in a swing state, you have no voting power.
If you're in the US, it actually seems like a good bet that gas will stay fairly cheap. If you look at the past few decades, we've had cheap gas with spikes here and there. There's no reason to think that things have fundamentally changed.
That said, there are plenty of good reasons to pursue electric/alternative cars. Pollution, energy independence, etc.
My thoughts are that a specific implementation is patentable, but not just an idea. I understand that even an implementation is an idea in itself, but it's a specific type of idea that says how to put together certain parts to create something that fulfills some purpose. So, for instance, you can't patent predicting heart attacks in general, but you can patent a specific way to do so. You can't patent selling things online with a single click, but you can patent your database system and code that allows that to happen. I don't claim this to be perfect (I'm sure holes can be shot in it), but it seems like a good starting point to me.
The best way I've ever seen the GPL vs. BSD debate put was something like this: GPL makes software free, BSD makes people free. BSD allows people to do much more with the code, meaning they have more freedom. However, GPL forces that code and any changes you make to be free as well, taking away some choice from the people, but ensuring the software itself and all variations will remain free. It seems like this argument is centering around the definition of free and what it applies to. Really, there are two different applications of the word.
I'm personally a fan of GPL. I think that if code is made free, companies shouldn't take it and make money off it without giving anything back. I'll even admit that, yes, it's a restriction on their freedom. However, I think it's worth it to force them to share with the community that allowed them to make their money in the first place. That said, BSD certainly has its uses depending on your goals. I think they're both very good and useful licenses. You really shouldn't worry too much about which is better, because there isn't actually a good answer. It's just a matter of preference. They're both good, they're both useful, and they can both coexist just fine. Neither will go away, and they aren't competing with each other. It's just a developer choice.
True. I'm just saying that many people don't have that sort of discipline (as you pointed out). Experience is always a good teacher. Additionally, the simple fact that they can't have it makes a lot of people want it. Giving it to them (even in limited amounts) will at least take that out of the equation. I'm not saying we should force everyone to drink underage so they know what it's like, just that raising the age only makes the problem worse.
As an American who grew up in the Cayman Islands (where the drinking age is 18 and until recently was very lax) I have to agree with you. When I got to college in the US I didn't really feel the need to overdrink (either too much at once or too often), while a lot of people I met did. The best way to get people to not drink too much or do stupid things while drinking (ie drive) is for parents to expose them to what it's like before they get out and figure it out on their own.
Really, since that's our money they're spending, and this is a government of the people, they're just doing the hard work of hunting down and actually buying the things for us!
[/sarcasm]
It's too bad that politicians always forget who they're supposed to be serving. More importantly, it's sad that the people they're supposed to be serving forget that.
The information they're collecting here is public as it's on the internet, but my question is why? First of all, it may or may not be accurate. People do lie on the internet. Second of all, do they really think terrorists will post incriminating evidence on MySpace? Honestly? Maybe some criminals are stupid enough to do so, but no one the NSA would be worried about. Lastly, can't they think of anything better to spend their budget on? If this is the best they can come up with, we should probably take some of their money away...
Even though Congress has no direct power over these treaties, let your reps know that you're concerned. That, plus the Senate will have to ratify it for it take effect here. If you're not in the US I recommend you do whatever your equivalent is...this is important.
Re:Here's what I see coming out of this
on
Both Sides of Wii
·
· Score: 1
What I meant was more along the lines of every time someone sees the name for the first time it will draw their attention. Obviously the news will die down on the internet and everyone will stop talking, but when a casual gamer sees it for the first time they'll probably at least check it out because it looks new and different. By now everyone knows what the PS3 and XBox360 bring to the table, but not a Wii. I think that was part of the goal.
Here's what I see coming out of this
on
Both Sides of Wii
·
· Score: 1
So they chose a strange name that everyone is now talking and arguing about. How's that for advertising? No one's talking about the Xbox360 or PS3 right now, they're talking about the Wii. This will continue. People will see it in stores and wonder what it is. It's an instant attraction, even if it's only because it's weird. That, plus who really is going to not buy a console they want because the name is stupid? Seriously, the name gets attention, but no matter what the name is the console will live and die by fun factor.
Seriously, if this passes look where we stand. Perhaps this one bill is not the end in and of itself, but it shows the direction we're headed. We're fighting for our rights and, unfortunately, we're losing. I think our only hope is the upcoming elections. We need to vote in a Congress that is not already in the pocket of the corporations/Bush administration so that we can at least slow down what is happening. Then, in 2008, we need to vote in an executive branch that will actually fight with us. If we get another Congress and executive branch like the one we have now, I'm not sure the 2012 elections will ever happen.
In a way, I feel like I'm going way overboard here. Imagining everything in this country could fall apart so fast still seems ridiculous, but the more I see the less ridiculous it looks. Hardly a day passes without seeing something take away more of our freedom, and it just keeps coming. It's like there's no end. Maybe it's just me, but this is depressing. I've seen these restrictions pass over and over, but I've always had hope that someone will stand up against them and have at least some measure of success. That hope still exists, and there is still a chance to save this country, but it's all fading much faster than I ever thought possible.
I just bought a DS this past weekend along with Castlevania and Advance Wars. I also wandered into a Best Buy and played a bunch of the free demos from their download center and have tried a few of my friend's games. I must say that so far, this is shaping up to be the best console purchase I've made, especially for the $200 total I spent on it with two games and a couple accessories:)
Re:GooCal not very responsive right now :-|
on
Google Calendar
·
· Score: 1
The only integration I've really noticed besides the tiny button in the top left is that it can be configured to send you email as a reminder for events. However, that's probably the best part:)
Well then you're not who they're targeting. If you see yourself buying a Mac and then running half of your applications in Windows, then yes, Boot Camp is useless. But a lot of people find OSX to be attractive and would love to use it primarily, but cannot be without a few critical apps that they use every so often (games are the most obvious). Those are the people that Boot Camp was created for, because now they can make the switch and not lose anything.
If politicians vote on a bill based on how much money the corporations can give them, they're evil.
I think politicians often forget that they were elected by and for the people, not the corporations. Unfortunately, I think most of the people forget that as well.
You are correct that they are not the underdog anymore, but my point was more that they tend to do things differently and that they rely more on the masses for content. For instance, gmail is different than any other webmail. Google has released a few things that were copies of other things, but for the most part their products are either new or substantially improved over other offerings.
Another point is that Google seems to rely a lot more on their users for content than other companies. For instance, the Google Maps API, Google Video upload service, or Google Pages. They create a product that somehow uses their search technology, then allow users to create all kinds of unique content. I'm hoping they'll follow either or both of these trends.
It'll be like iTunes, but worse. I don't think that even the mighty Google can convince the record labels to do things the right way (no DRM, reasonable prices, etc.).
My only hope is that Google will focus more on the "indie" artist population and expose the world to some mostly unheard of music. That would be more in line with their style (and motto), but I'm not sure it will work (but I can hope!).
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure I actually believe it, but the conspiracy theorist in me wants to think that the whole bonus thing was intentional. Someone sensed the populist anger rising and saw an opportunity to direct it at something wholly unimportant. And I don't just mean the bonuses, I mean AIG in general.
The reason AIG is "too big to fail" is that they owe so much money to the various banks that are "too big to fail", but if AIG were to pay back that money, they're no longer really important to keep operating. Essentially, the gov't is funneling even more money to their bank buddies through AIG, then if the anger becomes too much to handle they can drop AIG and let them go under as a way of placating the masses.
Again, I might be missing something (I'm no expert) or I might just be stretching a bit too far, but it seems plausible, at least.
Well, short term thinking is a classic problem with the corporate model, but I think it's a bit of that combined with a bit of ignorance. I don't think they fully understand what they're dealing with. They want to treat the internet like a secondary, smaller version of tv. They think they can limit it so that they retain as much control of it as they do with cable. Of course, everyone here knows they can't. The internet is an inherently different medium than tv. Until the people in charge understand this and embrace it we're going to keep seeing these sorts of decisions that make no sense to us.
I'm not sure when that will happen, though. They were making buckets of money in the old system and, since the advent of internet viewing, they've seen revenues steadily decline. From their perspective, what makes the most sense is to make the internet act like tv. We know that can't happen, but what we think doesn't really matter. Eventually they'll have to come to terms with the new reality, but it might take awhile.
What content producers, software producers, and so forth are STILL failing to realize is that they are making the "pirated"[sic]/counterfeit product MORE valuable than the real thing because the "pirated"[sic] content is invariably not crippled by DRM.
I think they realize what they're doing, and I think they know the consequences. Right now they have content that generates different revenue in different forms. TV is the highest, the internet is lower, and pirated is zero. They were losing some viewers to piracy before, so they countered with Hulu. Now they're losing more viewers from TV to the other two. By limiting Hulu, some portion of the people affected will resort to piracy, but I think they're betting on some portion resorting to plain old TV.
How the various content owners think is much easier to understand if you view it from their perspective. They want to make as much money as possible. They only care about how many viewers they have so far as it makes them more money. I'd bet that they think they're increasing revenue with this move, even if they decrease legal viewership. If we're lucky, they're wrong. Otherwise, this will continue.
I disagree. With the current system, only a few states matter. The majority of states are not competitive and can be safely ignored. No one spends time in Alabama or California. They go to Florida, Ohio, Missouri, etc. Just look at how everyone reacted to McCain's push in Pennsylvania. They thought he was crazy because, even though he made some headway, he wasn't going to be close to winning. There are probably 10 or so states max that matter.
Without the electoral college, it would still make sense for McCain to campaign in a place like Pennsylvania. He's not going to win the state, so right now there is no reason to even think about them but without the electoral college in place, even if he increases his vote count by from 35% to 40%, that's a good gain.
Further, losing the electoral college allows every individual's vote to count. Right now, a fairly significant portion of voters don't matter. Republicans in New England don't matter. Democrats in the south don't matter. Removing the electoral college means that everyone matters.
So yes, large population centers may become more important when campaigning, but I don't see that as very different from the current situation where only a few states matter. Plus, even if you're not the focus of a campaign because you don't live in NY or LA, you still have the same voting power as people who live in those places. Right now, if you don't live in a swing state, you have no voting power.
If you're in the US, it actually seems like a good bet that gas will stay fairly cheap. If you look at the past few decades, we've had cheap gas with spikes here and there. There's no reason to think that things have fundamentally changed.
That said, there are plenty of good reasons to pursue electric/alternative cars. Pollution, energy independence, etc.
Mute is your friend.
My thoughts are that a specific implementation is patentable, but not just an idea. I understand that even an implementation is an idea in itself, but it's a specific type of idea that says how to put together certain parts to create something that fulfills some purpose. So, for instance, you can't patent predicting heart attacks in general, but you can patent a specific way to do so. You can't patent selling things online with a single click, but you can patent your database system and code that allows that to happen. I don't claim this to be perfect (I'm sure holes can be shot in it), but it seems like a good starting point to me.
I'm personally a fan of GPL. I think that if code is made free, companies shouldn't take it and make money off it without giving anything back. I'll even admit that, yes, it's a restriction on their freedom. However, I think it's worth it to force them to share with the community that allowed them to make their money in the first place. That said, BSD certainly has its uses depending on your goals. I think they're both very good and useful licenses. You really shouldn't worry too much about which is better, because there isn't actually a good answer. It's just a matter of preference. They're both good, they're both useful, and they can both coexist just fine. Neither will go away, and they aren't competing with each other. It's just a developer choice.
Proof that more != better.
True. I'm just saying that many people don't have that sort of discipline (as you pointed out). Experience is always a good teacher. Additionally, the simple fact that they can't have it makes a lot of people want it. Giving it to them (even in limited amounts) will at least take that out of the equation. I'm not saying we should force everyone to drink underage so they know what it's like, just that raising the age only makes the problem worse.
As an American who grew up in the Cayman Islands (where the drinking age is 18 and until recently was very lax) I have to agree with you. When I got to college in the US I didn't really feel the need to overdrink (either too much at once or too often), while a lot of people I met did. The best way to get people to not drink too much or do stupid things while drinking (ie drive) is for parents to expose them to what it's like before they get out and figure it out on their own.
[/sarcasm]
It's too bad that politicians always forget who they're supposed to be serving. More importantly, it's sad that the people they're supposed to be serving forget that.
I remember the good old days of 50 hours for $50 on 56k. Ah, gotta love Cayman ;)
The information they're collecting here is public as it's on the internet, but my question is why? First of all, it may or may not be accurate. People do lie on the internet. Second of all, do they really think terrorists will post incriminating evidence on MySpace? Honestly? Maybe some criminals are stupid enough to do so, but no one the NSA would be worried about. Lastly, can't they think of anything better to spend their budget on? If this is the best they can come up with, we should probably take some of their money away...
Even though Congress has no direct power over these treaties, let your reps know that you're concerned. That, plus the Senate will have to ratify it for it take effect here. If you're not in the US I recommend you do whatever your equivalent is...this is important.
What I meant was more along the lines of every time someone sees the name for the first time it will draw their attention. Obviously the news will die down on the internet and everyone will stop talking, but when a casual gamer sees it for the first time they'll probably at least check it out because it looks new and different. By now everyone knows what the PS3 and XBox360 bring to the table, but not a Wii. I think that was part of the goal.
So they chose a strange name that everyone is now talking and arguing about. How's that for advertising? No one's talking about the Xbox360 or PS3 right now, they're talking about the Wii. This will continue. People will see it in stores and wonder what it is. It's an instant attraction, even if it's only because it's weird. That, plus who really is going to not buy a console they want because the name is stupid? Seriously, the name gets attention, but no matter what the name is the console will live and die by fun factor.
Can I use ls to get a file listing yet?
In a way, I feel like I'm going way overboard here. Imagining everything in this country could fall apart so fast still seems ridiculous, but the more I see the less ridiculous it looks. Hardly a day passes without seeing something take away more of our freedom, and it just keeps coming. It's like there's no end. Maybe it's just me, but this is depressing. I've seen these restrictions pass over and over, but I've always had hope that someone will stand up against them and have at least some measure of success. That hope still exists, and there is still a chance to save this country, but it's all fading much faster than I ever thought possible.
I just bought a DS this past weekend along with Castlevania and Advance Wars. I also wandered into a Best Buy and played a bunch of the free demos from their download center and have tried a few of my friend's games. I must say that so far, this is shaping up to be the best console purchase I've made, especially for the $200 total I spent on it with two games and a couple accessories :)
The only integration I've really noticed besides the tiny button in the top left is that it can be configured to send you email as a reminder for events. However, that's probably the best part :)
Well then you're not who they're targeting. If you see yourself buying a Mac and then running half of your applications in Windows, then yes, Boot Camp is useless. But a lot of people find OSX to be attractive and would love to use it primarily, but cannot be without a few critical apps that they use every so often (games are the most obvious). Those are the people that Boot Camp was created for, because now they can make the switch and not lose anything.
If politicians vote on a bill based on how much money the corporations can give them, they're evil.
I think politicians often forget that they were elected by and for the people, not the corporations. Unfortunately, I think most of the people forget that as well.
Another point is that Google seems to rely a lot more on their users for content than other companies. For instance, the Google Maps API, Google Video upload service, or Google Pages. They create a product that somehow uses their search technology, then allow users to create all kinds of unique content. I'm hoping they'll follow either or both of these trends.
My only hope is that Google will focus more on the "indie" artist population and expose the world to some mostly unheard of music. That would be more in line with their style (and motto), but I'm not sure it will work (but I can hope!).