Look, I'm an accountant by trade. But I think you're missing the whole point of any hack. It's not about a CBA of potential solutions, it's about implementing a creative solution, particularly when done with excess parts on hand.
Is this a grade school-level hack? Sure. Is it 'cooler' than purchasing a fan? You betcha. Does the author deserve ridicule? Not at all (though I'll withhold judgment on whoever posted the submission).
It's hard to see, given all those factors, how it would be possible for them to crack down hard on the game. The superbowl thing was different, because they slipped some (arguably) adult content into an all-ages broadcast.
(emphasis mine)
That's the difference. Broadcast. Or, with movies, one could argue that it's in a public place. Videogames are consumed/viewed in a private place -- and if in public, it's the person doing the broadcast, not the creator of the content, that should be held liable.
Sorry, should have meant that I'd guarantee the way the chips would fall if it went to the courts right now. Look at all the laws being struck down as the pop up in the states. A federal censorship law for non-broadcast would drop like a duck in today's SCOTUS. The problem is that during the course of settling it, the game industry would get a bad rap and lose sales, in addition to having to spend tens of millions -- this is why the ESRB came about, not because of uncertainty about the outcome. The flip side was that conservative legislators began to detect the schism between their truly conservative followers and their 'morally/socially conservative' followers -- censorship of media would piss off one as much as it pleased the other. Too politically risky.
There are false advertising laws on the books, so if the box says the game doesn't contain any AO style material, but it does in fact contain AO material, that seems likely to be a legal breach to which parents could seek legal redress, and in that sense they do have a right to rely on the game ratings. Further, it is in fact the FTC's job to regulate trade, and to address violations of the false advertising laws.
Sure, but then it's an issue for tort suit, not for agency regulation. Without getting into a Libertarian theory confabulation about the FTC, I'll say that Hot Coffee was not included in the game. Period. On the disc is a different matter, but the ESRB is concerned with the game itself, not the physical medium. The product was not used in a manner consistent with its labeling, there should be a very limited avenue of redress.
Now, as to FOX, if they advertise that they are fair and balanced, you might have a claim (they don't, do they? I don't watch much tv, but I know they have a reputation for being right wing).
Not only do they advertise fair and balanced, but regular show hosts have admitted that they are not -- though I'm sure the management would have a different song to sing.
In addition to the fact that the current administration would let the FTC touch them with a ten-foot pole, we all know that the 'censorship' hue and cry would destroy any chances of a successful false advertising judgment, or of a tort suit (which would need to prove harm, anyway).
The problem with that argument is that it assumes that the government has the right to censor, and didn't only because the industry agreed to self-censor.
The truth of the matter is that the government's right to censor was never settled -- and this was a compromise that included little risk for either party, as compared to making the censorship debate get through Congress, the Executive, and to the SCOTUS. Therefore, the entire argument is invalid until that issue is settled. And I guarantee you which way the chips would fall -- and it wouldn't be on the side of government censorship.
I understand that, but why is a federal agency fining Rockstar? This type of issue should be settled in a tort suit if at all. What law did Take2 break?
The whole point of establishing the ESRB was to keep federal censorship from happening. Now we have a nebulous entity with governmental support in the role of censoring a form of media. Christ, if it were the government, it would at least be answerable to people in some form. Instead it's an organization that takes dubious care with its responsibilities and is accountable to no one other than mass retailers.
""Parents have the right to rely on the accuracy of the entertainment rating system," commented Lydia Parnes, Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection."
After reading TFA, this is the most remarkable line in it. Props to submitter.
Parents don't have the right to rely on ESRB ratings. They have the ability to do so -- and can if they want -- but that is not a right. If a parent decides the ESRB rating is untrustworthy, or that Take2 is untrustworthy, that is their right. It is their right to not purchase games they feel might not adhere to the voluntary ratings system. Parents have the rihght to choose what's best for their kids -- and if they don't have all the information, that's nobody's fault but their own.
You know what? If parents have the right to rely on an independent, private body for game ratings, then I have the right to rely on Fox News (an independent, private body, right?) for fair and balanced news, the right to have all the information presented to me. So where's Fox's fine for not presenting fair and balanced news? Please, Ms. Parnes, why doesn't Fox or CNN or ABC or any news or entertainment media entity not get fined $11,000 every time they don't give us all the information?
""Only the stupidest dolts in the universe?" Aside from being a little insulting, it's just not true."
Sure it's true. Assumption: the population considered includes only people who use computers and know that Linux/Unix/MacOS/Windows exists.
The stupidest dolts could be half the population if you wanted. No quantity of 'dolts' is specified, so for all it matters, the stupidest dolts could include all but the smartest dolt.
The real implication, however (and this is the part I love) is that it's logically implied that anyone who believes it is a dolt.
"Not really...after all, these firms have absolutely no interest in eliminating the problem, but only in treating the symptoms. "
Sounds familiar, hmm, where have I heard that business plan before?
Not a big coincidence that the anti-malware firms are doing so well, when their business model mimics that of the (consistent) market darlings for the last two decades, big pharma.
No need for the ad hominems, unless of course you feel you can't support your point without them -- I understand if you're not confident of your logical abilities -- I wouldn't be if I were you.
Oh, and stop arguing against points I never made but are easy to dispute -- that's called a straw man. Like pretending that I think litigation is the answer.
My post was in response the the parent of my post -- why don't you bother reading it in context? The parent said that the specific employee is responsible for exposing the information, and that the problem is not institutional. I was disputing that. My solution would be to make sure that that person, their supervisor, and possibly their supervisor be sacked.
"Spare me all this 'but our politicians are too corrupt it won't change anything'."
Where the hell is that coming from? Check out my post history (I dunno how much will show in the recent history, but if you're a subscriber, check out the older stuff). I've always maintained that voter education, pressuring legislators, and voting on the issues are the keys to improving government.
In short, get off your high horse, stop putting words into people's mouths, stop the ad hominem attacks, and stop the straw men arguments, and maybe I'll get the chance to read a post of yours worth reading.
This was discussed at length in my Drug Discovery class at Rutgers College of Pharmacy -- yes, indigenous remedies are often analyzed for active compounds. So are illness trends among local populations -- look at the discovery of the significance of omega-3 fatty acids from studying Inuit populations, or the continuing search for a cancer preventative/suppressant (not just antioxidants) in green tea.
I think shortly we'll be seeing more direct analysis of the target site from genome-derived protein info -- this is where US Pharma is looking, IMO, instead of stem cells.
I do agree that the profit extension of current druglines and methods is a major motive, but the biggest issue I see (and why I no longer work in pharma) is that a cure is worthless to the bottom line. US pharma is business -- big business -- and that is practically it. Individually, many pharma employees are well-meaning, but institutionally, it's a different matter.
"But I make the point that stemcell morality is a cover for the vested economic interests of the current industry. "
This is a very important point you make. The whole "conservative" resurgence in the US is based on marrying wedge issues (like stem cell research or abortion or same-sex marriage) to pro-corporate policy. This is a great example of the wedge issue (morality of SC research) being married to the corporate interest (big pharma long-term profits) -- it's very clear because the issues are related. What's the Matter with Kansas treats this subject fairly well, even though it's largely anecdotal.
Just as an aside, in the long run, I think Britain is far better off for focusing on rail than on autos. The US now finds itself far behind the curve on mass-transit, and the economic costs of the infrastructure are insane now -- nevr mind the cultural problems, like all the NIMBYs who protest trainlines running anywhere near them. Boise ID is a great example -- population projected to double in the next ten years, and the already have gridlock downtown -- yet they voted against a light rail system (involving a short extension from the old freight depot) because of NIMBYism.
Well, the American switch to nearly 100% petrol was due more to Prohibition than anything else -- ethanol distillers were outlawed. Though it coincides nicely with a lot of corporate interests.
As to the parellel with the drug industry, I think it's fairly superficial, and simplifies too greatly where drug discovery has come from. 'Colonial plant medicine formulas' form a very small proportion of drugs, even of drug families. The most famous example being aspirin, which was not colonial, but from a native European plant source. Or most antibiotic families -- sulfa drugs from chemical dyes, penicillins from ubiquitous mold. And regarding petroleum as the source, that has more to do with the fact that most drugs are organic in nature, and petroleum happens to be the cheapest, most plentiful source of hydrocarbons. During the pre-war era, drug technology was not making use of petroleum to any great extent -- though techniques developed at the time in other industries (and in academia) have been of course greatly utilized.
Finally, the biggest reason I can't buy into your parallelism is that the 'moral' issues of stem cell research are nothing remotely like the social issues facing early cars in Britain. Though I definitely credit the concept of Britain wanting to railroa the world -- after all, they were basing their economic model on the naval superiority model they had until the end of the 19th c.
"This person had the trust, and access to the data and foolishly or intentionally abused their priviledge."
And that's exactly why his employer, the US government is responsible. Employers in the private sector are responsible for the behavior of their employees with respect to their business, why is this not true for government?
"Britain has an auto industry, but it was easily eclipsed by the American car startups like Henry Ford."
That's due more to Ford's innovations (assembly line, etc) and philosophy of producing a car for the masses than any industry obsession. Also, the size and low population density of the US was a deciding factor for capitalists -- most train lines in the US weren't that profitable unless you had a monopoly and could exploit it. In addition, coal was widely available in Britain, but gasoline was not for quite some time. Trains can run on coal; it's far too impractical for autos.
Finally, the US economy was in a different position than the British economy at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, Britain was slower to enter and recover from the recession of the 1880s, resulting in few consumers with the reosurces to purchase Britain's relatively expensive cars. It wasn't until the 1930s that Britain's agricultural depression lifted, mostly as a result of scarcity of supply in the European mainland and the US -- and at this point British carmakers did quite well considering their late entry into the market.
Also, note that it was the Germans who invented the gas-powered motor and the gas-powered car.
Re:Rejection in classic transplants only possible?
on
3D Human Cells Grown
·
· Score: 1
Yes, in identical twins and with cloned tissue, rejection does not occur.
"Of course, if non-DRMed content was made illegal, then that would change things dramatically, but I don't see how that would **ever** happen."
All it takes is the major channels of distribution to not distribute non-DRM-ed content. Not so farfetched. And in terms of legal limits, do you think every country in the world has the same (even if diminishing) respect for freedom of speech that the US has? The places that need it the most are the places least likely to have it.
FTA/S: "The full capability of the Internet must remain available to all, without restriction by religious, business, or political interests."
These interests hold a lot of sway all over the world, and can often act with impugnity. And, as a side note, they are quickly losing their distinctions from each other.
I have a service contract with the phone company relating to those specific calls. I do not have a service contract with the government relating to those specific calls. Due to the history of telephone monopoly in the US, neither I nor anyone else has the ability to demand confidentiality as part of our telephone service contract. The problem is that the government regulates a monopoly where it is in the direct interest of some parts of government to not regulate always in the favor of the citizen.
As to the 4th amendment (which was not metioned in the OP or my response), note that every time the Supreme Court has ruled that the 4th amendment does not apply, the government has requested access to phone records in relation to the investigation of a specific crime. Data mining (which definitely falls under the umbrella of 'monitoring') is a whole different story, because law enforcement is now looking for evidence of behavior that does not necessarily have anything to do with ANY crime. This, my friend, is specifically forbidden by laws governing the operation of domestic surveillance -- and makes the US a police state.
"Besides, domestic calls are not monitored without a warrant."
Depends on what you mean by 'monitored'. Are records of domestic calls being kept and stored in a database for potential future use? You betcha. Is this monitoring? Maybe. I think so.
And the point that was being made in the editsummary is, AFAICT, that the US government is capable of monitoring domestic phone calls, and willing to brute force the issue with the telcos, but not capable of of preventing this kind of stupid human error.
"But he keeps telling me that is technically impossible."
That's the key. By 'technically impossible' he means economically infeasible.
The animation is far above what we normally see in video games, and is expensive to develop. Evenutally, there will be more highly realistic avatars, but for the time being, they cost too much.
I'm curious why someone doesn't make some very realistic avatars and then license them out to companies like this? There's a business opportunity there...
Have you looked into butler service? Regular maintenance on the damn thing is a bitch. Plus unexpected downtime for random reasons, susceptibility to viruses and worms (though the latter is very rare).
Wait, am I talking about a butler or Cleopatra on Windows?
Seriously, though, butler service is damn expensive. A good full-time butler easily makes 50-70 grand a year (often much more), plus health insurance, etc. And they are unionizing, so you'll be looking at having to pay someone else to do the laundry or light maintenance. Even a butler service will cost you a bunch though the butlers tend to be not quite as good -- often in training, or relatively inexperienced. The nice thing is that you'll have someone even when your primary is on vacation, and have an easy option for extra staff for events or multiple staff for extended hours.
My point is that over the course of a just a year or two, Cleo (including installation) will be cheaper than a full-time butler. Automation is becoming a reality in service industries just like it has in manufacturing.
1. Agree completely. I find myself, when countering preconceived (but wrong) ideas, that I end up teaching a lot. Which is not what I'm paid for, and frustrating when pitching a solution, but that's a different story.
2. Good point. I'm used to dealing with grossly uninformed people (and I am by NO means an expert, especially in engineering -- finance is my main bag) in which case I can see their eyes glaze over when I get technical on non-finance stuff... I find myself explaining as best I can in plain English. This happens so often, that plain English is my default, and I'll step it up if they seem to know enough. I've encountered quite a few decision-makers who think tech terms are meant to obfuscate so people can bill more hours:)
A better turn of phrase might have been, 'Digg is about aggregating links to articles'. People go to Digg to go to articles (though, I'd have to say that a lot of the "articles" are just rehash blog posts).
The two sites are different in their approach as well as their results.
There have been a ton of discussions previously on this topic, you could search old article discussions for good info.
Keep in mind that Slashdot isn't Digg (thank goodness!) and that getting a scoop isn't necessarily that important to the Slashdot editors (or so it seems to me).
Digg is about the articles. Slashdot is about the discussion (IMO).
Slashdot Mirror
Look, I'm an accountant by trade. But I think you're missing the whole point of any hack. It's not about a CBA of potential solutions, it's about implementing a creative solution, particularly when done with excess parts on hand.
Is this a grade school-level hack? Sure. Is it 'cooler' than purchasing a fan? You betcha. Does the author deserve ridicule? Not at all (though I'll withhold judgment on whoever posted the submission).
That's the difference. Broadcast. Or, with movies, one could argue that it's in a public place. Videogames are consumed/viewed in a private place -- and if in public, it's the person doing the broadcast, not the creator of the content, that should be held liable.
Sorry, should have meant that I'd guarantee the way the chips would fall if it went to the courts right now. Look at all the laws being struck down as the pop up in the states. A federal censorship law for non-broadcast would drop like a duck in today's SCOTUS. The problem is that during the course of settling it, the game industry would get a bad rap and lose sales, in addition to having to spend tens of millions -- this is why the ESRB came about, not because of uncertainty about the outcome. The flip side was that conservative legislators began to detect the schism between their truly conservative followers and their 'morally/socially conservative' followers -- censorship of media would piss off one as much as it pleased the other. Too politically risky.
Sure, but then it's an issue for tort suit, not for agency regulation. Without getting into a Libertarian theory confabulation about the FTC, I'll say that Hot Coffee was not included in the game. Period. On the disc is a different matter, but the ESRB is concerned with the game itself, not the physical medium. The product was not used in a manner consistent with its labeling, there should be a very limited avenue of redress.
Not only do they advertise fair and balanced, but regular show hosts have admitted that they are not -- though I'm sure the management would have a different song to sing.
In addition to the fact that the current administration would let the FTC touch them with a ten-foot pole, we all know that the 'censorship' hue and cry would destroy any chances of a successful false advertising judgment, or of a tort suit (which would need to prove harm, anyway).
The problem with that argument is that it assumes that the government has the right to censor, and didn't only because the industry agreed to self-censor.
The truth of the matter is that the government's right to censor was never settled -- and this was a compromise that included little risk for either party, as compared to making the censorship debate get through Congress, the Executive, and to the SCOTUS. Therefore, the entire argument is invalid until that issue is settled. And I guarantee you which way the chips would fall -- and it wouldn't be on the side of government censorship.
I understand that, but why is a federal agency fining Rockstar? This type of issue should be settled in a tort suit if at all. What law did Take2 break?
The whole point of establishing the ESRB was to keep federal censorship from happening. Now we have a nebulous entity with governmental support in the role of censoring a form of media. Christ, if it were the government, it would at least be answerable to people in some form. Instead it's an organization that takes dubious care with its responsibilities and is accountable to no one other than mass retailers.
""Parents have the right to rely on the accuracy of the entertainment rating system," commented Lydia Parnes, Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection."
After reading TFA, this is the most remarkable line in it. Props to submitter.
Parents don't have the right to rely on ESRB ratings. They have the ability to do so -- and can if they want -- but that is not a right. If a parent decides the ESRB rating is untrustworthy, or that Take2 is untrustworthy, that is their right. It is their right to not purchase games they feel might not adhere to the voluntary ratings system. Parents have the rihght to choose what's best for their kids -- and if they don't have all the information, that's nobody's fault but their own.
You know what? If parents have the right to rely on an independent, private body for game ratings, then I have the right to rely on Fox News (an independent, private body, right?) for fair and balanced news, the right to have all the information presented to me. So where's Fox's fine for not presenting fair and balanced news? Please, Ms. Parnes, why doesn't Fox or CNN or ABC or any news or entertainment media entity not get fined $11,000 every time they don't give us all the information?
/rant
""Only the stupidest dolts in the universe?" Aside from being a little insulting, it's just not true."
Sure it's true. Assumption: the population considered includes only people who use computers and know that Linux/Unix/MacOS/Windows exists.
The stupidest dolts could be half the population if you wanted. No quantity of 'dolts' is specified, so for all it matters, the stupidest dolts could include all but the smartest dolt.
The real implication, however (and this is the part I love) is that it's logically implied that anyone who believes it is a dolt.
"Not really...after all, these firms have absolutely no interest in eliminating the problem, but only in treating the symptoms. "
Sounds familiar, hmm, where have I heard that business plan before?
Not a big coincidence that the anti-malware firms are doing so well, when their business model mimics that of the (consistent) market darlings for the last two decades, big pharma.
Ah, sorry, mistook it for the US Dairy Association. Though lactation is a turn-on for some...
No need for the ad hominems, unless of course you feel you can't support your point without them -- I understand if you're not confident of your logical abilities -- I wouldn't be if I were you.
Oh, and stop arguing against points I never made but are easy to dispute -- that's called a straw man. Like pretending that I think litigation is the answer.
My post was in response the the parent of my post -- why don't you bother reading it in context? The parent said that the specific employee is responsible for exposing the information, and that the problem is not institutional. I was disputing that. My solution would be to make sure that that person, their supervisor, and possibly their supervisor be sacked.
"Spare me all this 'but our politicians are too corrupt it won't change anything'."
Where the hell is that coming from? Check out my post history (I dunno how much will show in the recent history, but if you're a subscriber, check out the older stuff). I've always maintained that voter education, pressuring legislators, and voting on the issues are the keys to improving government.
In short, get off your high horse, stop putting words into people's mouths, stop the ad hominem attacks, and stop the straw men arguments, and maybe I'll get the chance to read a post of yours worth reading.
This was discussed at length in my Drug Discovery class at Rutgers College of Pharmacy -- yes, indigenous remedies are often analyzed for active compounds. So are illness trends among local populations -- look at the discovery of the significance of omega-3 fatty acids from studying Inuit populations, or the continuing search for a cancer preventative/suppressant (not just antioxidants) in green tea.
Here's a link that supports your statement that most NCEs come from or are derived from natural sources.
I think shortly we'll be seeing more direct analysis of the target site from genome-derived protein info -- this is where US Pharma is looking, IMO, instead of stem cells.
I do agree that the profit extension of current druglines and methods is a major motive, but the biggest issue I see (and why I no longer work in pharma) is that a cure is worthless to the bottom line. US pharma is business -- big business -- and that is practically it. Individually, many pharma employees are well-meaning, but institutionally, it's a different matter.
"But I make the point that stemcell morality is a cover for the vested economic interests of the current industry. "
This is a very important point you make. The whole "conservative" resurgence in the US is based on marrying wedge issues (like stem cell research or abortion or same-sex marriage) to pro-corporate policy. This is a great example of the wedge issue (morality of SC research) being married to the corporate interest (big pharma long-term profits) -- it's very clear because the issues are related. What's the Matter with Kansas treats this subject fairly well, even though it's largely anecdotal.
Just as an aside, in the long run, I think Britain is far better off for focusing on rail than on autos. The US now finds itself far behind the curve on mass-transit, and the economic costs of the infrastructure are insane now -- nevr mind the cultural problems, like all the NIMBYs who protest trainlines running anywhere near them. Boise ID is a great example -- population projected to double in the next ten years, and the already have gridlock downtown -- yet they voted against a light rail system (involving a short extension from the old freight depot) because of NIMBYism.
Well, the American switch to nearly 100% petrol was due more to Prohibition than anything else -- ethanol distillers were outlawed. Though it coincides nicely with a lot of corporate interests.
As to the parellel with the drug industry, I think it's fairly superficial, and simplifies too greatly where drug discovery has come from. 'Colonial plant medicine formulas' form a very small proportion of drugs, even of drug families. The most famous example being aspirin, which was not colonial, but from a native European plant source. Or most antibiotic families -- sulfa drugs from chemical dyes, penicillins from ubiquitous mold. And regarding petroleum as the source, that has more to do with the fact that most drugs are organic in nature, and petroleum happens to be the cheapest, most plentiful source of hydrocarbons. During the pre-war era, drug technology was not making use of petroleum to any great extent -- though techniques developed at the time in other industries (and in academia) have been of course greatly utilized.
Finally, the biggest reason I can't buy into your parallelism is that the 'moral' issues of stem cell research are nothing remotely like the social issues facing early cars in Britain. Though I definitely credit the concept of Britain wanting to railroa the world -- after all, they were basing their economic model on the naval superiority model they had until the end of the 19th c.
"This person had the trust, and access to the data and foolishly or intentionally abused their priviledge."
And that's exactly why his employer, the US government is responsible. Employers in the private sector are responsible for the behavior of their employees with respect to their business, why is this not true for government?
"Britain has an auto industry, but it was easily eclipsed by the American car startups like Henry Ford."
That's due more to Ford's innovations (assembly line, etc) and philosophy of producing a car for the masses than any industry obsession. Also, the size and low population density of the US was a deciding factor for capitalists -- most train lines in the US weren't that profitable unless you had a monopoly and could exploit it. In addition, coal was widely available in Britain, but gasoline was not for quite some time. Trains can run on coal; it's far too impractical for autos.
Finally, the US economy was in a different position than the British economy at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, Britain was slower to enter and recover from the recession of the 1880s, resulting in few consumers with the reosurces to purchase Britain's relatively expensive cars. It wasn't until the 1930s that Britain's agricultural depression lifted, mostly as a result of scarcity of supply in the European mainland and the US -- and at this point British carmakers did quite well considering their late entry into the market.
Also, note that it was the Germans who invented the gas-powered motor and the gas-powered car.
Yes, in identical twins and with cloned tissue, rejection does not occur.
"Of course, if non-DRMed content was made illegal, then that would change things dramatically, but I don't see how that would **ever** happen."
All it takes is the major channels of distribution to not distribute non-DRM-ed content. Not so farfetched. And in terms of legal limits, do you think every country in the world has the same (even if diminishing) respect for freedom of speech that the US has? The places that need it the most are the places least likely to have it.
FTA/S: "The full capability of the Internet must remain available to all, without restriction by religious, business, or political interests."
These interests hold a lot of sway all over the world, and can often act with impugnity. And, as a side note, they are quickly losing their distinctions from each other.
I have a service contract with the phone company relating to those specific calls. I do not have a service contract with the government relating to those specific calls. Due to the history of telephone monopoly in the US, neither I nor anyone else has the ability to demand confidentiality as part of our telephone service contract. The problem is that the government regulates a monopoly where it is in the direct interest of some parts of government to not regulate always in the favor of the citizen.
As to the 4th amendment (which was not metioned in the OP or my response), note that every time the Supreme Court has ruled that the 4th amendment does not apply, the government has requested access to phone records in relation to the investigation of a specific crime. Data mining (which definitely falls under the umbrella of 'monitoring') is a whole different story, because law enforcement is now looking for evidence of behavior that does not necessarily have anything to do with ANY crime. This, my friend, is specifically forbidden by laws governing the operation of domestic surveillance -- and makes the US a police state.
The USDA? Are you sure you want to correspond with an 18yo bovine virgin?
"Besides, domestic calls are not monitored without a warrant."
Depends on what you mean by 'monitored'. Are records of domestic calls being kept and stored in a database for potential future use? You betcha. Is this monitoring? Maybe. I think so.
And the point that was being made in the editsummary is, AFAICT, that the US government is capable of monitoring domestic phone calls, and willing to brute force the issue with the telcos, but not capable of of preventing this kind of stupid human error.
"But he keeps telling me that is technically impossible."
That's the key. By 'technically impossible' he means economically infeasible.
The animation is far above what we normally see in video games, and is expensive to develop. Evenutally, there will be more highly realistic avatars, but for the time being, they cost too much.
I'm curious why someone doesn't make some very realistic avatars and then license them out to companies like this? There's a business opportunity there...
Have you looked into butler service? Regular maintenance on the damn thing is a bitch. Plus unexpected downtime for random reasons, susceptibility to viruses and worms (though the latter is very rare).
Wait, am I talking about a butler or Cleopatra on Windows?
Seriously, though, butler service is damn expensive. A good full-time butler easily makes 50-70 grand a year (often much more), plus health insurance, etc. And they are unionizing, so you'll be looking at having to pay someone else to do the laundry or light maintenance. Even a butler service will cost you a bunch though the butlers tend to be not quite as good -- often in training, or relatively inexperienced. The nice thing is that you'll have someone even when your primary is on vacation, and have an easy option for extra staff for events or multiple staff for extended hours.
My point is that over the course of a just a year or two, Cleo (including installation) will be cheaper than a full-time butler. Automation is becoming a reality in service industries just like it has in manufacturing.
1. Agree completely. I find myself, when countering preconceived (but wrong) ideas, that I end up teaching a lot. Which is not what I'm paid for, and frustrating when pitching a solution, but that's a different story.
:)
2. Good point. I'm used to dealing with grossly uninformed people (and I am by NO means an expert, especially in engineering -- finance is my main bag) in which case I can see their eyes glaze over when I get technical on non-finance stuff... I find myself explaining as best I can in plain English. This happens so often, that plain English is my default, and I'll step it up if they seem to know enough. I've encountered quite a few decision-makers who think tech terms are meant to obfuscate so people can bill more hours
A better turn of phrase might have been, 'Digg is about aggregating links to articles'. People go to Digg to go to articles (though, I'd have to say that a lot of the "articles" are just rehash blog posts).
The two sites are different in their approach as well as their results.
There have been a ton of discussions previously on this topic, you could search old article discussions for good info.
Keep in mind that Slashdot isn't Digg (thank goodness!) and that getting a scoop isn't necessarily that important to the Slashdot editors (or so it seems to me).
Digg is about the articles. Slashdot is about the discussion (IMO).