"The very first time I miss an emergency call because of this paint, I will be suing both the building and the company that made the paint. I might even sue the guy who applied the paint on the walls..
Some people RELY on their cell phones' ability to receive calls...
"
That's fine. But don't sue because you chose to enter an area where cell phone use is disabled -- you have no universal right to cell phone coverage, and BS lawsuits are a waste of MY money as a taxpayer.
If you rely on your cell phone, don't stay where you can't receive calls. It's that simple, and no one's responsibility but your own.
FTS: " It is perhaps somewhat presumptuous to disagree with someone like Greg Costikyan"
Not really. There is no reason in particular why his views should be considered more valid than yours, or anyone else's who is familiar with gaming. In fact, I'd say that some other's opinions tend to be more valid, since Costikyan is dependent upon his writing and his rep for funding.
The best opinions out there are the ones that are well-informed, but have no personal stake in the topic at hand, IMO.
That said, Costikyan has expressed some valid opinions covered in previous slashdot threads.
"When we demand uncompensated cooperation from an American Private Business for any damn reason we please, they damn sure better cooperate with us....and not give us any lip about it".... "
Given the amount of aid that select businesses get from the US government (typically in the form of cushy contracts), it's no wonder that the justice department expects full cooperation. Apparently they forgot that Google is not an affiliate of KBR or other company that's been 'gifted' with hundreds of millions in profits.
No, not at all. Knowledge workers are distinct from other types of workers, such as production workers, and there is a need to distinguish them.
For one thing, it makes it easy for management to identify them for pink slips during downsizings, since they do not tangibly, immediately contribute to the bottom line. They can always be rehired as consultants later.
Except acid rain is primarily sulfuric acid, with some nitric/ous thrown in. Hence limitations on SO2 and NOx emissions from power plants.
Not that I disagree with you, at all.
Another compound that likely really exacerbates any breathing problems you might have is ground-level ozone (a major component of smog). But high O3 concentrations are less from huge single point-sources like power plants, but instead from the millions of cars with far less stringent pollution controls.
"Here in Sausalito CA the city routinely sends out mails to large groups of people with the while address list in the To: or CC: field - I now have an almost complete list of the politically important folks in town "
Are you sure those are really the politically important people in town? Seems to me the movers and shakers would geta phone call, not a mass-distributed email.
"This is why it is very important to make sure that children don't swear. Swearing is addictive because it is easy to do and doesn't require thinking and as long as someone uses swear words he/she won't learn to take advantage of the full range of the language."
I think that's a crock. Swearing doesn't prevent vocabulary development, nor does it stunt verbal communication skills. What I think you're missing is the primary reason some people choose to swear so much -- because it causes a reaction different from non-swear words. If anything, people who swear all the time have better non-verbal and verbal intonation communications skills -- inflection is much more important when you use the same words a lot.
Considering that so many people on the planet speak a different language than a given person, that person would be well served to have better non-verbal and intonation skills.
Finally, swearing isn't addictive because it's easy to do -- it's addictive because people get positive reinforcement of the behavior. People swear to get a reaction, and it works. The best way to make swearing ineffective, and therefore to lessen the positive reinforcement, is for everyone to swear more.
Then don't put the vote results for the ballot on the one the voter takes home. In the case of a recount or irregularity, the voter would be able to verify their vote, and no one else's. Employer, etc, wouldn't have access to the vote result. Publish all votes cast by vote ID#.
"The definition of quality in production is "as close as possible to the set measurements."
This isn't about quality in production, it's about quality of design. What's the better design, one that best meets your customers' wants, or one that best meets 'expert' ideas of benchmarks?
Keep in mind, these displays are consumer products.
"But seriously, I wouldn't expect a "lay person" to be able to understand the technology involved in these units and to be able to make any intelligent\educated distinctions about their quality"
You've got to define quality here -- it depends on your goal and what metrics you assign to measure achievement.
Is your goal to maximize appreciation of the picture quality in your target market? If so, what's your target market -- video experts or typical consumer? What's the crossover between the two markets?
If my customers are more satisfied with my product than the 'experts' say they should be, then good for me. The problem here is not that experts and customers disagree -- the problem is that they are using different metrics. And to the people actually buying my product, it's their metrics that really matter.
" If they can be sure of who the vote is coming from, then they can assume the vote is indeed accurate."
Not at all. And printed receipts don't necessarily help the matter either. It would just make John Q. Public feel better about the fact that they are unaware their vote was switched after they pressed the 'accept' spot on the touchscreen.
Two ballots with matching unique IDs, with no other identifying info on them. One goes in the bin to be counted, the other goes home with the voter. In the case of a recount or irregularities, voters can ensure their unique ID number reflects the way they actually voted.
"Look at the Forbes 400. I think you'll find more intellectually inclined people than sports figures and entertainers. They include software developers, mathematicians, economists."
But, most people don't look at the Forbes 400. They look at movies and television programming. The Forbes 400 is less and less relevant to American culture.
Also, the majority of the people on the Forbes 400 didn't rise to the Forbes 400 through their own actions -- they earned their money the old-fashioned way -- they inherited it.
I didn't mean to imply that we need intellectuals as politicians (though, I'd much rather have a thinking man/woman in a position of leadership, someone who is willing to recognize that some issues are not one-sided); the point I was making with that sentence was that the lack of intellectuals in public office is a symptom of the anti-intellectualism that pervades most of the country.
Re: GWB, I agree that he's craftier than is commonly perceived. But, it's one thing to select capable advisors and to take their advisement under consideration; it's another thing entirely to have advisors and to take their advisement as gospel. I don't want a figurehead or puppet as president.
"Remember how the smarter, more productive Japanese were taking our jobs and taking over the country? You had similar "Buy American" and "The Cold War is over & the Japanese won" fear mongering."
But fear-mongering is not what we're seeing now. I don't understand this parallel you're drawing when what the American culture is experiencing now is not remotely the same as the cultural attitude during the 80s.
"The wars in the middle east are about securing strategic resources and trade"
That's not all they are about. They are also about increasing government spending to stimulate the economy, they are also about making the common American feel good about the country (and thus it's leadership). Maybe not so successful at that, but definitely intended to do so.
"Throughout US history there have been periods of religious fervor like "The Great Awakenings" then the pendulum moves back. It isn't like the current sense of nationalism and spirtuality is unprecedented."
The nation is comprised of individuals, and it's the effort of some of those individuals that cause the 'pendulum' to swing back, or to push the boulder back up the hill. It's a Sisyphusian struggle, not a passive pendulum that we can afford to sit back and wait for it to swing back in the direction we like.
""Generally attack against science is part of a greater attack against intellectualism in general. I think right now we're in an anti-intellectual period in the United States, but I think the pendulum will swing back in the other direction again."
"
I'm not so sure about the pendulum eventually swinging back. I think American culture tends to look away from those things we are not the best at -- and since we're losing the lead in science, Americans will no longer consider scientific achievement to be a benchmark of success. Sour grapes and all that.
he fact of the matter is that intellectualism is no longer the primary route to riches, fame, or other rewards in the US. Sports figures and other entertainers dominate pop culture. Intellectuals do not get elected to national positions of leadership, nor do they often get elected to state leadership positions.
As other nations take the lead in various areas (whether it's scientific achievement, literature, or what-have-you), Americans will always find something else to feel superior and smug about. We've seen this since the dawn of mass media.
What scares me is that the American superiority/inferiority complex seems to be directing itself at world power. Sure, we're not the smarterst anymore. Nor are we the most productive. But you can bet yer bottom dollar that we could whup anyone if we devotyed the resources to it.
My end point is this -- the American inferiority complex, reinforced by the loss/coming loss of our lead in economy, science, athletics, etc, is leading to a classic bully syndrome. The wars in the Mideast we'll be fighting aren't just about oil -- they're also about proving to ourselves that we're still #1 in some fashion, that we still matter.
Sorry for the long-windedness, but the only way we're going to "swing back" is if people push really hard for it. There's no natural tendency to do so, IMO.
"Folks, it sounds more and more like a communist state here in the good old US of A every day."
This is not an example of communism. Government-regulated economic sanctions != communism. Communism and Capitalism, despite the efforts of our government to teach us otherwise, are not the only two politico-economic systems.
If you still think this is a communist act, then the US must have been a communist state since its inception. Protective tariffs, punitive tariffs, retaliatory tariffs, restrictions on business with foreign nations during cold wars...
It's very simple-minded to think that any exception to free trade is communist.
"The Austrians see the boom/bust cycle as directly related to the pressure of having a coerced currency, backed by nothing, and manipulated in such ways as to encourage or discourage savings and investing rather than letting the free market prompt what is truly needed."
That's because the Austrian economy collapsed worse than the US did in the late '20s and early '30s. What you'll see if you actually examine the economc history in the US is that fiat currency actually stabilizes the economy and stimulates growth and better economic conditions for all.
Of course, if you prefer to have a cycle of severe depressions and the concentration of wealth and widespread misery that results, then you're entitled to your belief.
But it's disingenuous at best to say that
(1) interest rates and currency values are changed on a whim (you're ignoring the research and scientific study that goes into it) and
(2) modern macroeconomic theory changes every few months to prevent repetition of failures. Would you prefer sticking to a silly standard tha is not supported by most scientific study?
"Positions of power are better suited to be competitive rather than elected"
Then the only people who will assume positions of power are those who are motivated completely by self-interest. I know you think that's the solution, for everyone to do what is best for their personal interests...
But really, competing for positions of power? How, by amount of money given (sounds like the current system)? By willingness to kill or intimidate your opposition? By a game of checkers?
Elections ARE a form of competition. What other form would you suggest?
"Since the offspring is so dependant on the mother for food for many years after birth, the species needs to ensure that the mother lives to provide"
Not only that, but the mother surviving means that she will be more likely to produce more children, thus further perpetuating her genes. This is why (IMO) in some cultures, women who have already borne a child are considered better marriage prospects.
Well, a good CFO (CEO is something different), will ensure that accounting increases business efficiency. Other than compliance with regulations, and the basic measuring of cash, that's what accountants are for. How can you make good business decisions without good information?
Not only that, but you wouldn't even have a computer if it weren't for accountants. What do you think drove the demand for early computers? Actuaries, the fathers of nerd-dom.
"And here I was looking forward to paying 14,274 bills each month. Oh, no, wait, I have 3 sites, triple that."
If it happens, you won't be paying that many bills. Economies of scale in ISPs will have greater effect, and all the mom-and-pop ISPs will no longer be able to compete (read: will be driven out of business). So instead, you'll be paying three or four bills per month to the survuving companies.
Furthermore, you won't even be paying the bill. You'll prefund an account that will be debited according to their measurement of your share of their network traffic. That way, they get to keep your money as working capital even before you 'spend' it, and force you to refund when you get low (just like EZ-Pass).
Slashdot Mirror
"The very first time I miss an emergency call because of this paint, I will be suing both the building and the company that made the paint. I might even sue the guy who applied the paint on the walls..
Some people RELY on their cell phones' ability to receive calls... "
That's fine. But don't sue because you chose to enter an area where cell phone use is disabled -- you have no universal right to cell phone coverage, and BS lawsuits are a waste of MY money as a taxpayer.
If you rely on your cell phone, don't stay where you can't receive calls. It's that simple, and no one's responsibility but your own.
FTS: " It is perhaps somewhat presumptuous to disagree with someone like Greg Costikyan"
Not really. There is no reason in particular why his views should be considered more valid than yours, or anyone else's who is familiar with gaming. In fact, I'd say that some other's opinions tend to be more valid, since Costikyan is dependent upon his writing and his rep for funding.
The best opinions out there are the ones that are well-informed, but have no personal stake in the topic at hand, IMO.
That said, Costikyan has expressed some valid opinions covered in previous slashdot threads.
"When we demand uncompensated cooperation from an American Private Business for any damn reason we please, they damn sure better cooperate with us....and not give us any lip about it".... "
Given the amount of aid that select businesses get from the US government (typically in the form of cushy contracts), it's no wonder that the justice department expects full cooperation. Apparently they forgot that Google is not an affiliate of KBR or other company that's been 'gifted' with hundreds of millions in profits.
No, not at all. Knowledge workers are distinct from other types of workers, such as production workers, and there is a need to distinguish them.
For one thing, it makes it easy for management to identify them for pink slips during downsizings, since they do not tangibly, immediately contribute to the bottom line. They can always be rehired as consultants later.
"hydro-chloric acid in our acid rain"
Except acid rain is primarily sulfuric acid, with some nitric/ous thrown in. Hence limitations on SO2 and NOx emissions from power plants.
Not that I disagree with you, at all.
Another compound that likely really exacerbates any breathing problems you might have is ground-level ozone (a major component of smog). But high O3 concentrations are less from huge single point-sources like power plants, but instead from the millions of cars with far less stringent pollution controls.
"Administration makes a blunder, residents get punished."
The citizens blundered when they elected the administration and those who appointed them. That's why they are paying for the administration's mistake.
Government is not us vs them; it's us vs. the subset of us we elected to speak/act for us.
"Here in Sausalito CA the city routinely sends out mails to large groups of people with the while address list in the To: or CC: field - I now have an almost complete list of the politically important folks in town "
Are you sure those are really the politically important people in town? Seems to me the movers and shakers would geta phone call, not a mass-distributed email.
"From now on, I'd like everyone to call it a "wooha" (emphasis on second syllable, like Bruce Lee is hitting someone)"
Methinks Busta Rhymes already hit that up. Woo-ha Woo-ha.
"This is why it is very important to make sure that children don't swear. Swearing is addictive because it is easy to do and doesn't require thinking and as long as someone uses swear words he/she won't learn to take advantage of the full range of the language."
I think that's a crock. Swearing doesn't prevent vocabulary development, nor does it stunt verbal communication skills. What I think you're missing is the primary reason some people choose to swear so much -- because it causes a reaction different from non-swear words. If anything, people who swear all the time have better non-verbal and verbal intonation communications skills -- inflection is much more important when you use the same words a lot.
Considering that so many people on the planet speak a different language than a given person, that person would be well served to have better non-verbal and intonation skills.
Finally, swearing isn't addictive because it's easy to do -- it's addictive because people get positive reinforcement of the behavior. People swear to get a reaction, and it works. The best way to make swearing ineffective, and therefore to lessen the positive reinforcement, is for everyone to swear more.
Then don't put the vote results for the ballot on the one the voter takes home. In the case of a recount or irregularity, the voter would be able to verify their vote, and no one else's. Employer, etc, wouldn't have access to the vote result. Publish all votes cast by vote ID#.
"The definition of quality in production is "as close as possible to the set measurements."
This isn't about quality in production, it's about quality of design. What's the better design, one that best meets your customers' wants, or one that best meets 'expert' ideas of benchmarks?
Keep in mind, these displays are consumer products.
"But seriously, I wouldn't expect a "lay person" to be able to understand the technology involved in these units and to be able to make any intelligent\educated distinctions about their quality"
You've got to define quality here -- it depends on your goal and what metrics you assign to measure achievement.
Is your goal to maximize appreciation of the picture quality in your target market? If so, what's your target market -- video experts or typical consumer? What's the crossover between the two markets?
If my customers are more satisfied with my product than the 'experts' say they should be, then good for me. The problem here is not that experts and customers disagree -- the problem is that they are using different metrics. And to the people actually buying my product, it's their metrics that really matter.
" If they can be sure of who the vote is coming from, then they can assume the vote is indeed accurate."
Not at all. And printed receipts don't necessarily help the matter either. It would just make John Q. Public feel better about the fact that they are unaware their vote was switched after they pressed the 'accept' spot on the touchscreen.
Two ballots with matching unique IDs, with no other identifying info on them. One goes in the bin to be counted, the other goes home with the voter. In the case of a recount or irregularities, voters can ensure their unique ID number reflects the way they actually voted.
"Look at the Forbes 400. I think you'll find more intellectually inclined people than sports figures and entertainers. They include software developers, mathematicians, economists."
But, most people don't look at the Forbes 400. They look at movies and television programming. The Forbes 400 is less and less relevant to American culture.
Also, the majority of the people on the Forbes 400 didn't rise to the Forbes 400 through their own actions -- they earned their money the old-fashioned way -- they inherited it.
I didn't mean to imply that we need intellectuals as politicians (though, I'd much rather have a thinking man/woman in a position of leadership, someone who is willing to recognize that some issues are not one-sided); the point I was making with that sentence was that the lack of intellectuals in public office is a symptom of the anti-intellectualism that pervades most of the country.
Re: GWB, I agree that he's craftier than is commonly perceived. But, it's one thing to select capable advisors and to take their advisement under consideration; it's another thing entirely to have advisors and to take their advisement as gospel. I don't want a figurehead or puppet as president.
"Remember how the smarter, more productive Japanese were taking our jobs and taking over the country? You had similar "Buy American" and "The Cold War is over & the Japanese won" fear mongering."
But fear-mongering is not what we're seeing now. I don't understand this parallel you're drawing when what the American culture is experiencing now is not remotely the same as the cultural attitude during the 80s.
"The wars in the middle east are about securing strategic resources and trade"
That's not all they are about. They are also about increasing government spending to stimulate the economy, they are also about making the common American feel good about the country (and thus it's leadership). Maybe not so successful at that, but definitely intended to do so.
"Throughout US history there have been periods of religious fervor like "The Great Awakenings" then the pendulum moves back. It isn't like the current sense of nationalism and spirtuality is unprecedented."
The nation is comprised of individuals, and it's the effort of some of those individuals that cause the 'pendulum' to swing back, or to push the boulder back up the hill. It's a Sisyphusian struggle, not a passive pendulum that we can afford to sit back and wait for it to swing back in the direction we like.
Well, /.ed for me. But to comment on the summary:
""Generally attack against science is part of a greater attack against intellectualism in general. I think right now we're in an anti-intellectual period in the United States, but I think the pendulum will swing back in the other direction again." "
I'm not so sure about the pendulum eventually swinging back. I think American culture tends to look away from those things we are not the best at -- and since we're losing the lead in science, Americans will no longer consider scientific achievement to be a benchmark of success. Sour grapes and all that.
he fact of the matter is that intellectualism is no longer the primary route to riches, fame, or other rewards in the US. Sports figures and other entertainers dominate pop culture. Intellectuals do not get elected to national positions of leadership, nor do they often get elected to state leadership positions.
As other nations take the lead in various areas (whether it's scientific achievement, literature, or what-have-you), Americans will always find something else to feel superior and smug about. We've seen this since the dawn of mass media.
What scares me is that the American superiority/inferiority complex seems to be directing itself at world power. Sure, we're not the smarterst anymore. Nor are we the most productive. But you can bet yer bottom dollar that we could whup anyone if we devotyed the resources to it.
My end point is this -- the American inferiority complex, reinforced by the loss/coming loss of our lead in economy, science, athletics, etc, is leading to a classic bully syndrome. The wars in the Mideast we'll be fighting aren't just about oil -- they're also about proving to ourselves that we're still #1 in some fashion, that we still matter.
Sorry for the long-windedness, but the only way we're going to "swing back" is if people push really hard for it. There's no natural tendency to do so, IMO.
"Soon we'll be living in U-stor-its."
I live in California on $80,000 a year[1], where do you think I live, you insensitive clod?
Seriously, though, people do live in storage facilities. It's not legal, but it's the only option other than homelessness for some people.
[1] Not really. No one can afford to live in CA on $80k a year, even in a U-Stor-It.
"Folks, it sounds more and more like a communist state here in the good old US of A every day."
This is not an example of communism. Government-regulated economic sanctions != communism. Communism and Capitalism, despite the efforts of our government to teach us otherwise, are not the only two politico-economic systems.
If you still think this is a communist act, then the US must have been a communist state since its inception. Protective tariffs, punitive tariffs, retaliatory tariffs, restrictions on business with foreign nations during cold wars...
It's very simple-minded to think that any exception to free trade is communist.
That's exactly why they're considered better marriage prospects.
"The Austrians see the boom/bust cycle as directly related to the pressure of having a coerced currency, backed by nothing, and manipulated in such ways as to encourage or discourage savings and investing rather than letting the free market prompt what is truly needed."
That's because the Austrian economy collapsed worse than the US did in the late '20s and early '30s. What you'll see if you actually examine the economc history in the US is that fiat currency actually stabilizes the economy and stimulates growth and better economic conditions for all.
Of course, if you prefer to have a cycle of severe depressions and the concentration of wealth and widespread misery that results, then you're entitled to your belief.
But it's disingenuous at best to say that
(1) interest rates and currency values are changed on a whim (you're ignoring the research and scientific study that goes into it) and
(2) modern macroeconomic theory changes every few months to prevent repetition of failures. Would you prefer sticking to a silly standard tha is not supported by most scientific study?
Your hyperbole is unwelcome and inappropriate.
"Positions of power are better suited to be competitive rather than elected"
Then the only people who will assume positions of power are those who are motivated completely by self-interest. I know you think that's the solution, for everyone to do what is best for their personal interests...
But really, competing for positions of power? How, by amount of money given (sounds like the current system)? By willingness to kill or intimidate your opposition? By a game of checkers?
Elections ARE a form of competition. What other form would you suggest?
"Since the offspring is so dependant on the mother for food for many years after birth, the species needs to ensure that the mother lives to provide"
Not only that, but the mother surviving means that she will be more likely to produce more children, thus further perpetuating her genes. This is why (IMO) in some cultures, women who have already borne a child are considered better marriage prospects.
Well, a good CFO (CEO is something different), will ensure that accounting increases business efficiency. Other than compliance with regulations, and the basic measuring of cash, that's what accountants are for. How can you make good business decisions without good information?
Not only that, but you wouldn't even have a computer if it weren't for accountants. What do you think drove the demand for early computers? Actuaries, the fathers of nerd-dom.
"And here I was looking forward to paying 14,274 bills each month. Oh, no, wait, I have 3 sites, triple that."
If it happens, you won't be paying that many bills. Economies of scale in ISPs will have greater effect, and all the mom-and-pop ISPs will no longer be able to compete (read: will be driven out of business). So instead, you'll be paying three or four bills per month to the survuving companies.
Furthermore, you won't even be paying the bill. You'll prefund an account that will be debited according to their measurement of your share of their network traffic. That way, they get to keep your money as working capital even before you 'spend' it, and force you to refund when you get low (just like EZ-Pass).