Not only that, but he didn't even coin the phrase. Hell, even the Enquirer used that phrase in a headline in 2000. Of course, they didn't put a 80-teraflop chip into the puppy in the article in order to get it to perform aide tasks -- now that would have been innovative.
Maybe I'm a little confused as to what you were originally referring to -- I thought the article was about the impact of global warming. My interpretation was that you were saying that economic retaliation against historic polluters would harm those polluters the most, and cause more damage than the global warming itself. The problem with that line of thought is that when push comes to shove, fossil fuels will go to the highest bidder -- therefore, those with the best economies (oversimplified, I know). Keep in mind that the 'highest bidder' is not necessarily a purely cash transaction; goodwill is part of the equation, and the goodwill of economically strong nations is more valuable than the goodwill of weak nations.
Those who have dipped deepest and longest into the carbon fuels trough the will have an uncomfortable time of it.
I've gotta disagree with you there. Those who have the stongest economies* will have the less uncomfortable time of it. People can point fingers and complain all they want, but in the end, the quality of life will remain highest for those who have the best economies.
*This doesn't necessarily correlate directly with those countries who have had the longest dependence on fossil fuels. But it's not so far off.
When pollsters introduced the concept to poll takers, they described it solely as "enhancing Internet neutrality by barring high speed internet providers from offering specialized services like faster speed and increased security for a fee."
The only question I have (for the committee members touting these results) is, "Senator, when did you stop beating your wife?"
When he said "destruction of your enemy", he was referring to the destruction of your enemies army. That does not mean killing every last man, woman and child. But beating the bloody hell out of them such that they say "We give up!"
Not at all. Forcing capitulation doesn't have to be by violent means. Sometimes the threat of destruction is what it takes (see: WWII V-J Day). Sometimes it's about economic domination (see the Cold War; the west won that solely because the cost of 'fighting' it crippled the Soviet economy).
War is not "our troops versus your troops" -- anyone who thinks that is doomed to lose in the long run.
The control of public opinion is called politics. War is an extension of politics by other means, but it exists when diplomacy has failed.
Not at all. Politics is the process and method of making group decisions; it is also considered to be the social relations involving power (which I think is closer to what you're saying). The control of public opinion may be used in politics, but it doesn't define politics except in a pure democracy (which doesn't exist).
War is simply a tool to be used to obtain objectives. It doesn't always follow the exhaustion of diplomatic pursuit of the objectives (see Gulf War II, much of modern Africa). Sometimes it's used to consolidate power (again, the African "Republics" are infamous for this), sometimes it's used "legitimately." But war is still only a tool, and is used for political* purposes as much as legitimate ones.
* By political, I mean here that it's used to manipulate the social relations (e.g., public opinion) that affect who wields power.
Athletes often use the same excuse, that since there will be "other" players on drugs, they need to use the same drugs to stay competitive.
I think there's a difference between recreational gaming and professional sports, however. Professional sports are ALL about winning (unfortunately, IMO -- it sets a bad example). Look at the famous quote by Vince Lombardi -- "Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
Recreational gaming is about competition, win or lose -- and the fact that some people are willing to cheat doesn't change the fact that if I cheat, I'm throwing away the concepts of fair play and good sportsmanship.
In life, as in gaming, there will always be people who cheat. The questions are:
1) Does your moral system acknowledge that when competing within a ruleset, it is immoral to reach outside that rule set? And,
2) Are you willing to suffer negative consequences for sticking to your morals, even when others are obviously acting outside the rules?
People who cheat usually justify their actions by their response to these two questions; a negative response to the first indicates a contextually amoral system, a negative response to the second indicates an immoral attitude.
The subject of TFA is of the second camp; his justification is that because others have broken the rules, and he doesn't want to suffer thereby, that the rules have changed to allow cheating.
However, this should only be the case if the drugs are allowed, because any given cheater could be exposed and stripped of their titles, video game or otherwise. That's the ultimate slap-down, because anyone after that will assume you're cheating even if you're not.
That works in professional sports; not so in on-line gaming, where anonymity cancels it out. I don't really see a solution -- I know that when I play, there are others playing with whom I'm not competing (the cheaters). It's frustrating, but I can always get my jollies from feeling that I've got the moral high ground. When there are too many cheaters, I play a different, less popular game -- where cheating is less rampant.
Give me a break. When you get to the point where you are trying to care about what people think about you in a war you are losing. War is for one thing only--the destruction of your enemy.
Wars have always been fought for things other than destruction of your enemy.
Independence (which doesn't require destruction of enemy. Territory (ditto). Other scarce resources (food, water, oil, gold, etc. -- doesn't necessarily require destruction of your enemy).
War isn't about destroying your enemy (that's genocide you're thinking of, there). War is typically about the control of resources, and one of those resources is popular opinion. Plenty of wars have been fought for PR reasons -- an external enemy is one way of helping ensure you don't have to deal with an internal enemy.
I think the author meant "all but eliminated" with respect to the target market for the PS3. A lot of the people are still on dialup because of the cost of broadband. These people aren't in the market for the PS3 anyway -- if they don't value broadband enough to pay $35-60/mo for it, then they are very unlikely to value the PS3 enough to pay $600.
This doesn't take into account those people for whom broadband isn't available, who are going the way of the dodo (especially with satellite broadband).
Or just recognize the key in the subject line... this isn't the first time that subject line and ROT-13 have been used in a comment on a story tangentially relating to codebreaking...
Well, to be pedantic, you're wrong there. D&D was made by Gary Gygax and Don Kay; it was first published by the company they formed, Tactical Studies Rules. When Kay passed away, Gygax & Blume dissolved TSR and created TSR Hobbies, Inc. Sometime in the early 80s, TSR Hobbies Inc. became TSR, Inc.
So to play a little one-upmanship and be a complete ass, Wizards of the Coast bought TSR, Inc, the 2nd publisher (not maker) of D&D.
It took me 30 years to start getting overweight, I carried it for 40, and now its taking 10 to get rid of it. If I live that 10 years. But I went out and played in the summers, or worked the fields in season in my teens, something thats completely beyond the pale for todays kids that don't actually live on a farm.
I put on a solid 50+ pounds in my twenties when I got off the farm: I didn't adjust my diet to account for the missing 6 hours of physical activity each day. Solidly into my thirties, I've still got half of the extra to get rid of (plus an additional twenty to account for the atrophied muscle). Not really relevant, except as an anecdotal example of what happens when physical activity is reduced. Note that I still get a good amount of exercise, except during the times when I need to work 70 hours a week.
My point is, a famous person executive producing a movie means nothing. None of their talent, none of their expertise, none of their influence is put into the movie. If you use this as reasoning as to whether or not a movie will do good, you're not using sound judgement.
That's like saying that VC investors have no input into the operations of a tech startup. They may not manage the operations, but their input will definitely influence the people who do manage the operations.
You'll notice, for example, that Jerry Bruckheimer has a very talented staff around him that help bring in the best (or most popular) actors. You don't think that has anything to do with him personally? You better believe it does -- if I'm a young-ish but established actor, you think I'm going to risk my career on a POS by a no-name producer? Or will I leap at the opportunity to star in a Bruckheimer film?
Now that more and more work is mind-work done one computer and electronic equipment, it makes sense for children to play with electronic toys and games, using their minds more than their bodies.
Possibly -- except that the social interaction is very different when a child plays almost exclusively with electronics. Physical activity is also important to one's health, and establishing a habit of exercise in a child bodes well for their future physical condition and health.
IMO, the key is balance. Exercising only the mind or only the body is unhealthy in a child, and in an adult.
In other words, is there some reasonable way where if they were interested DirecTV (or even Dish) could make a CableCARD compatible thing to let you view/record their signal?
I'm sure it's possible. But, it's not likely -- satellite companies are not required by the FCC (since they're not regulated by the FCC) to use them, so why would they implement a technology that would take away their hardware lock-in?
BTW, the cable companies fought the concept of the cable card for years, but finally lost out to the FCC last year. I, for one, am glad that the FCC has mandated technology that actually increases consumer choice.
Can I say "No, I'm not going to cooperate. Depose me if you want, but I'm not going to utter my password" without finding myself sitting in a jail cell for contempt, or worse?
No, you can't. At best, you'll find yourself with a summary judgment against you. At worst, you'll be held in contempt of court and have to deal with fines, possible jail time, etc.
(1) Show up to court. Lose. RIAA enters an income execution and gets your wages garnished.
(2) Skip court. Lose by default. RIAA enters an income execution and gets your wages garnished.
(3) Lose. File for bankruptcy. RIAA takes all your assets except your vehicle and housing. Seven years of credit hell costing you more than the $5k in the first place. You're better off taking out a HELOC if you can.
While I would very much like the Governator return to cinema after his brilliant political career... Terminator 4? Didn't they blow up the world at the end of the last Terminator movie?
No, they're planning on doing the The Thomas Hobbinator Affair 4. See, what happens is that Gandalf was sent back in time by the Dunedain of the future in order to save Middle Earth from the invading hosts of goblins, and then there's this bobbit, see, who will grow up to be the one who organizes a party of 14 (a Fellowship, one might say) that plans on heisting the biggest hoard EVAR, that is, the one that Smaug accumulated.
This is the beginning of the new "Mashup" style of movies that are the obvious answer to Hollywood's lack of inventiveness.
I propose we figure a way to extract the methane from the athmosphere and burn it, thus creating less catastrophic gases:-)
That's not entirely off base.
Who woulda thunk that swamp-gas flares would actually decrease the greenhouse effect? The only thing I'd be concerned about would be whether the heat released from "wasteful" burning would outweight the greenhouse effect energy trapping.
In addition, there have been several attempts to harness escaping methane for energy before it is dispersed into the atmosphere... from cow flatulence, for example. A little harder to do for dispersed release systems, like permafrost, but if it's going to melt anyway, maybe there's an energy-efficient way to harvest the trapped methane before it escapes?
I'm sorry, was there something I was supposed to enjoy about this transaction?
You're not the target market of this release. Unboxed is for masochists only, it's the test market -- and they are sure to enjoy it. You'll have to wait release 2.0, which is currently under the working title "Unchained." They're still working out the kinks left from taking out the part where they walk on you while wearing stiletto heels.
Do you want to do business with someone who can hit you for billion dollar fines unless the rules are absolutely crystal clear and carved in stone?
Right, because no one has ever erred on the side of caution in a situation like this. MS has a huge legal team who are paid partly to figure out whether their software breaks laws. Asking the EU to give you specific answers is ridiculous -- it's just MS trying to cover their asses. "But, but, you didn't include this in your list of restrictions!!!" is what they want to be able to say two years from now.
Sure, but would you rather invest craploads of money in developing for an OS that will be phased out sooner? And without looking at what's possible under Vista that isn't under XP, wouldn't you rather be able to take advantange of any advances?
Yeah I know thats expensive, but the real estate they built those stores on would have recouped most of the money, and firing everyone else would have them squarely in the black, a place they havent been for a hot minute now...
Speaking of business models, maybe you're unaware of Blockbuster's? It's a franchise model. The parent company didn't lay out the cash for those b&m shops -- they may have helped the franchisees obtain financing, but that's a different story. Yes, the parent corporation has its own issues -- but keep in mind that 90% of the Blockbusters out there are owned by small businesspeople. Sure, they were/are complicit, but when your choice to own a video store becomes a choice between failing and assimilating, what do you think most people will do?
Slashdot Mirror
Not only that, but he didn't even coin the phrase. Hell, even the Enquirer used that phrase in a headline in 2000. Of course, they didn't put a 80-teraflop chip into the puppy in the article in order to get it to perform aide tasks -- now that would have been innovative.
The particular post I made should be taken in context with its parent -- which was discussing the impact of retaliatory action against past polluters.
If you check my complete post history (I don't know if you're a subscriber) you'll see that I advocate immediate action.
Maybe I'm a little confused as to what you were originally referring to -- I thought the article was about the impact of global warming. My interpretation was that you were saying that economic retaliation against historic polluters would harm those polluters the most, and cause more damage than the global warming itself. The problem with that line of thought is that when push comes to shove, fossil fuels will go to the highest bidder -- therefore, those with the best economies (oversimplified, I know). Keep in mind that the 'highest bidder' is not necessarily a purely cash transaction; goodwill is part of the equation, and the goodwill of economically strong nations is more valuable than the goodwill of weak nations.
*This doesn't necessarily correlate directly with those countries who have had the longest dependence on fossil fuels. But it's not so far off.
The only question I have (for the committee members touting these results) is, "Senator, when did you stop beating your wife?"
War is not "our troops versus your troops" -- anyone who thinks that is doomed to lose in the long run.
Not at all. Politics is the process and method of making group decisions; it is also considered to be the social relations involving power (which I think is closer to what you're saying). The control of public opinion may be used in politics, but it doesn't define politics except in a pure democracy (which doesn't exist).
War is simply a tool to be used to obtain objectives. It doesn't always follow the exhaustion of diplomatic pursuit of the objectives (see Gulf War II, much of modern Africa). Sometimes it's used to consolidate power (again, the African "Republics" are infamous for this), sometimes it's used "legitimately." But war is still only a tool, and is used for political* purposes as much as legitimate ones.
* By political, I mean here that it's used to manipulate the social relations (e.g., public opinion) that affect who wields power.
Recreational gaming is about competition, win or lose -- and the fact that some people are willing to cheat doesn't change the fact that if I cheat, I'm throwing away the concepts of fair play and good sportsmanship.
In life, as in gaming, there will always be people who cheat. The questions are:
1) Does your moral system acknowledge that when competing within a ruleset, it is immoral to reach outside that rule set? And,
2) Are you willing to suffer negative consequences for sticking to your morals, even when others are obviously acting outside the rules?
People who cheat usually justify their actions by their response to these two questions; a negative response to the first indicates a contextually amoral system, a negative response to the second indicates an immoral attitude.
The subject of TFA is of the second camp; his justification is that because others have broken the rules, and he doesn't want to suffer thereby, that the rules have changed to allow cheating.
That works in professional sports; not so in on-line gaming, where anonymity cancels it out. I don't really see a solution -- I know that when I play, there are others playing with whom I'm not competing (the cheaters). It's frustrating, but I can always get my jollies from feeling that I've got the moral high ground. When there are too many cheaters, I play a different, less popular game -- where cheating is less rampant.
Independence (which doesn't require destruction of enemy.
Territory (ditto).
Other scarce resources (food, water, oil, gold, etc. -- doesn't necessarily require destruction of your enemy).
War isn't about destroying your enemy (that's genocide you're thinking of, there). War is typically about the control of resources, and one of those resources is popular opinion. Plenty of wars have been fought for PR reasons -- an external enemy is one way of helping ensure you don't have to deal with an internal enemy.
I think the author meant "all but eliminated" with respect to the target market for the PS3. A lot of the people are still on dialup because of the cost of broadband. These people aren't in the market for the PS3 anyway -- if they don't value broadband enough to pay $35-60/mo for it, then they are very unlikely to value the PS3 enough to pay $600.
This doesn't take into account those people for whom broadband isn't available, who are going the way of the dodo (especially with satellite broadband).
Or just recognize the key in the subject line... this isn't the first time that subject line and ROT-13 have been used in a comment on a story tangentially relating to codebreaking...
I thought XFire was Sony's answer to XBattery.
Well, to be pedantic, you're wrong there. D&D was made by Gary Gygax and Don Kay; it was first published by the company they formed, Tactical Studies Rules. When Kay passed away, Gygax & Blume dissolved TSR and created TSR Hobbies, Inc. Sometime in the early 80s, TSR Hobbies Inc. became TSR, Inc.
So to play a little one-upmanship and be a complete ass, Wizards of the Coast bought TSR, Inc, the 2nd publisher (not maker) of D&D.
You'll notice, for example, that Jerry Bruckheimer has a very talented staff around him that help bring in the best (or most popular) actors. You don't think that has anything to do with him personally? You better believe it does -- if I'm a young-ish but established actor, you think I'm going to risk my career on a POS by a no-name producer? Or will I leap at the opportunity to star in a Bruckheimer film?
IMO, the key is balance. Exercising only the mind or only the body is unhealthy in a child, and in an adult.
BTW, the cable companies fought the concept of the cable card for years, but finally lost out to the FCC last year. I, for one, am glad that the FCC has mandated technology that actually increases consumer choice.
(1) Show up to court. Lose. RIAA enters an income execution and gets your wages garnished.
(2) Skip court. Lose by default. RIAA enters an income execution and gets your wages garnished.
(3) Lose. File for bankruptcy. RIAA takes all your assets except your vehicle and housing. Seven years of credit hell costing you more than the $5k in the first place. You're better off taking out a HELOC if you can.
This is the beginning of the new "Mashup" style of movies that are the obvious answer to Hollywood's lack of inventiveness.
Who woulda thunk that swamp-gas flares would actually decrease the greenhouse effect? The only thing I'd be concerned about would be whether the heat released from "wasteful" burning would outweight the greenhouse effect energy trapping.
In addition, there have been several attempts to harness escaping methane for energy before it is dispersed into the atmosphere... from cow flatulence, for example. A little harder to do for dispersed release systems, like permafrost, but if it's going to melt anyway, maybe there's an energy-efficient way to harvest the trapped methane before it escapes?