[1] Well, all about speculation about something that will have already occured by the time you read it.
From the summary: "But one Baghdad political insider says that the imbroglio is likely to end 'imminently'--possibly by the time this magazine hits newsstands--with ICANN handing over.iq to the new government."
I have to commend the article writer, the submitter, and the editors for giving us 'news' that is obviously (obviously as in noted in the article summary) outdated. When an article tells you itself that it is outdated, that's a really, really big hint that some more research is in order before the article gets submitted and/or posted.
Of course, that's what the readers are for -- to do the research themselves and post comments with updated information.
This website has the text of a CNN article from last June explaining why.iq has not been made available to Iraq, and why reassignment has been problematic:
http://forums.hostmysite.com/about228.html
FTA: "Theft of online 'virtual' goods is on the rise in Japan, as the popularity of MMOGs increases."
Then the article goes on to describe a single incident as anecdotal evidence of this trend. Poor reporting, headline and teaser have nothing to do with article.
That said, the instance cited involves one player using another player's password. How did he get it?
If she gave him the password, then it does not excuse his behavior, but she messed up.
If he cracked her password, then that's a different story.
But really, online goods, if they have real-world value, need to be protected. Secure passwords, etc. Do you let your kids leave their YuGiOh cards unattended at the mall?
The answer, to me, is to not let your kids play games that you can't trust to protect your property.
"disclosure of a problem is always in the USERS best interest"
Unless, of course, the software publisher does not take steps to address the security flaw, and an exploit is developed.
Sure, we may want to know the risk we are taking by using the unpatched software, but if the software is critical to the users' operations? Better to lessen the chance of an exploit.
At any rate, if you're using an irresponsible software firm for critical software, that's your own problem.
I do agree with your post in entirety, except for the ALWAYS qualifiers.
"Allowing harm that you can reasonably prevent is the same as causing harm."
Reasonably is the key -- refusal on Yahoo's part could theoretically prevent them from doing ANY good in China. Furthermore, reasonably is a relative term -- and your definition in this case may be different from mine.
"Pardon my stupidity here, but what's so objectionable about the idea that people have a right to freedom, a decent standard of living, and a duty to uphold the same for all other?"
Nothing, according to me. But possibly plenty, according to others. I was refuting your denial of relative ethics.
By the very definition of suffering that's not possible.
Not so. I suffer when I have a fever, but the fever helps kill off infection. My children suffer when I don't give them everything on a platter, but they learn to depend upon themselves. According to Bushido, you gain great honor by suffering in silence due to circumstances beyond your control. This honor may outweigh the suffering. According to many disciplines of Christianity, suffering is good for the soul.
"Both good points, but I don't have enough faith in corporations to assume that that is what's going on without it being bloody obvious.
"
Neither do I -- but we have to allow for the possibility, no? And even if that is not the intention, it may be the end effect. So, do you judge intentions or results?
"give me one good reason it is ethical under any circumstances to profit from causing others to suffer"
Yahoo is not causing the suffering, the Chinese government is. That is the fallacy in your argument. Is Yahoo profiting by obeying the local authority? Does it lessen their responsibility, according to my ethics? Yes.
If you want to try to force your moral code on others, go ahead and try. But your values are not my values, please do not assume that your code of ethics applies to everyone.
Before you call relative ethics a crock of shit, maybe you should think about it some. Were ethics handed down by God, or some absolute power? What defines them?
What if suffering is good for a person? What if by causing one person to suffer, you can prevent thousands of others from suffering? What if Yahoo allowing this, then allowing it to be publicized, will prevent more suffering in the long run?
But, at any rate, spare me your egotistical BS that assumes your interpretation of some universal ethics code is the correct one.
Except that the exchange of information, and view of other stimuli, often leads to creative thinking.
Look at Slashdot, for example -- yes, I'm being exposed to knowledge. However, my "creative juices" are stirred when I am faced with viewpoints and information that differ from mine.
Also, the Web is no longer a passive viewing system. You've got blogging, forums, creative content hosting, all kinds of interaction that require creativity.
And I totally agree with you that at times easy availability of solutions can stifle creativity. They can, however, also stimulate it. ("How can these solutions be combined/improved to better fit my needs?")
"It is not a case of ethics (although I agree it is personally reprehensible), but this was a sensible business decision by Yahoo!."
Just because something is a business decision, does not mean that it has no ethical implications.
If you believe it to be reprehensible, then it violates YOUR ethics. But the Chinese ethic (as the government defines it) is not violated here.
And since Yahoo, in China, needs to obey Chinese law, I must say that they did nothing improper. The media watchdog group that is reporting this, Media Without Borders, should be criticizing the Chinese government, not a company that abides by their directives.
Look, the Gulf Dead Zone is scary enough to those concerned about the coastal environment. But listing multiple sources in your post that reference New Jersey?
There's no reason to make the Dead Zone seem that bad.
"The internet is fun, don't get me wrong. But it isn't helping people become more interactive and creative. it is a tool to do work, it is a tool to communicate."
Yes, it is a tool to communicate. It allows a much wider source of contacts with whom to communicate with. This can stimulate creativity that the activities you mention cannot.
The internet also offers myriad ways for kids to express themselves, to formulate new indeas, and to try them out with their peers. Watching slideshows and movies is far from the only content available on the Web.
Anecdotally, I was interested in a ton of subjects that none of my firends or family members were knowledgeable about. My info source: the library. Not convenient at all (did not go to often, and too far to ride the bike too). Plus, most of the library resources were WAY over my head when I was 10. The internet would have allowed me to explore those subjects easily.
Do I think that the internet should replace traditional socialization? No way in hell. But does it stimulate creativity in ways that traditional socialization does not? You betcha.
"There is no accounting for discrepancy except that Sony and the stores are in gouge mode right now."
Except, it's not really gouging. Sony and retailers are, and should be, able to maximize profit on its products[1], especially considering that the PSP is a luxury item. Yes, it sucks that it's more expensive where you live.
But, your market is different than the US market. Increased demand, smaller supply, less competition in the general games market (according to previous posters to this article). This affects the market price that Sony and/or the retailers set.
"For instance, the Net does not change the number of hours in the day or the number of things you can keep in your head." (emphasis mine)
Sure, it hasn't changed the potential of our memory -- but I would speculate that the internet has decreased the amount of information we do keep in our heads. Because information is so easily available, we need to remember less.
Is this a bad thing? Not as long as the Web is available to us. It probably makes us more effective in general, since we have more info at hand. But if the Web were to fail due to apocalypse or something, I think we'd have some cache-ing up to do.
"Besides, what fool would waste time and resources trying to take "nearby" photos of a place we've already been when the telescope can clearly be put to much more useful scientific endeavors?"
Well, possibly to stimulate public curiosity to garner political support for more publicly funded projects?
In the US, PR stunts are very important to science in terms of getting budget $$. See "NASA" circa 1965-2005. And what a great way for US to garner more support for a Mars invas... um, landing.
Of course, it being a non-USian telescope, perhaps capturing images of the US flag on the moon is not the best way to get public funds for your projects...
"For if [existing oil/energy companies] don't have an interest in this product, it will never come to fruition, regardless of its technical merit."
Well, these pellets are a form of hydrogen storage. It's not a source of an energy, but a way to transport it and store it without loss (according to the article/spec sheet/press release).
In effect, it allows a standard distribution method (and combustion method) for energy derived from any source.
There's no reason why petrol couldn't still be used as a source of the energy -- only the distribution would be different.
""A group of scientists are going to present their breakthrough in hydrogen storage this Wednesday."
Seeing as neither the article nor the summary give any specifics, why is a press release being passed along as an article?
Why not wait until they've presented their findings, and then submit an article with more information?
Whoever submitted this article is probably interested enough in the subject to search for a better article come Thursday or Friday -- and if it gets on/. again, I, for one, will not cry "Dupe".
"My thought on day 1,2 and 3 wasnt to get the people help it was WOW thats crazy down there."
Of course, it's not your job to think to get the people help. Those people whose job it was, and still is, have got some 'splainin to do.
Anyone responsible for disaster relief who looked to the news for their primary information, should be canned. Preferably in a sardine processing facility.
Well, the major flooding downtown didn't happen until the levees broke. This didn't happen right away, as it was due to huge amounts of rainfall, not the storm surge or wind damage.
For a little while, it seemed like NO was spared much of the destruction... which might be part of the reason some of the response teams were told to stand down.
Gotta love the B-list heroes -- it allows for more creative license in plot and character development. Marvel doesn't have as large of a fan base for these characters -- less people to get PO'd when they change the backstory.
That's the plus side -- maybe we'll get one or two excellent screenplays in there that will be produced and directed well.
OTOH, we've got an average budget of 52.5 million for each film. Assuming that a couple of these guys get the lion's share, that leaves us with...
B-movies!!! B-movies that don't have some silly giant snake in the jungle, or intelligent sharks (hopefully), that are marketed to your average (sub)urban potsmoker.
I, for one, welcome the return of our nerd-targeted B-Movie overlords... speaking of which, I have a plot to pitch to Marvel Entertainment...
On a more serious note, what most of the comics have in common is a clear dichotomy between right (the hero) and wrong (often protrayed as a group). Complex heroes? Unnecessary. Maybe Marvel wants to try to tap into today's youth, who are much more exposed to the boogeyman ideal of the bad guy. Or maybe I'm tired and need to go to bed, not sure.
Slashdot Mirror
[1] Well, all about speculation about something that will have already occured by the time you read it.
.iq to the new government."
.iq has not been made available to Iraq, and why reassignment has been problematic:
http://forums.hostmysite.com/about228.html
.iq reassignment:
http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/new s/editorial/12314495.htm
l ?articleID=167600327
From the summary: "But one Baghdad political insider says that the imbroglio is likely to end 'imminently'--possibly by the time this magazine hits newsstands--with ICANN handing over
I have to commend the article writer, the submitter, and the editors for giving us 'news' that is obviously (obviously as in noted in the article summary) outdated. When an article tells you itself that it is outdated, that's a really, really big hint that some more research is in order before the article gets submitted and/or posted.
Of course, that's what the readers are for -- to do the research themselves and post comments with updated information.
This website has the text of a CNN article from last June explaining why
Here's some news from 8/5 (over a month ago!) about the
And here it is again: http://informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtm
A couple seconds with Google is all it took.
Please, submitters, you should be checking your submissions for accuracy and 'datedness'.
FTA: "Theft of online 'virtual' goods is on the rise in Japan, as the popularity of MMOGs increases."
Then the article goes on to describe a single incident as anecdotal evidence of this trend. Poor reporting, headline and teaser have nothing to do with article.
That said, the instance cited involves one player using another player's password. How did he get it?
If she gave him the password, then it does not excuse his behavior, but she messed up.
If he cracked her password, then that's a different story.
But really, online goods, if they have real-world value, need to be protected. Secure passwords, etc. Do you let your kids leave their YuGiOh cards unattended at the mall?
The answer, to me, is to not let your kids play games that you can't trust to protect your property.
"disclosure of a problem is always in the USERS best interest"
Unless, of course, the software publisher does not take steps to address the security flaw, and an exploit is developed.
Sure, we may want to know the risk we are taking by using the unpatched software, but if the software is critical to the users' operations? Better to lessen the chance of an exploit.
At any rate, if you're using an irresponsible software firm for critical software, that's your own problem.
I do agree with your post in entirety, except for the ALWAYS qualifiers.
"Allowing harm that you can reasonably prevent is the same as causing harm."
Reasonably is the key -- refusal on Yahoo's part could theoretically prevent them from doing ANY good in China. Furthermore, reasonably is a relative term -- and your definition in this case may be different from mine.
"Pardon my stupidity here, but what's so objectionable about the idea that people have a right to freedom, a decent standard of living, and a duty to uphold the same for all other?"
Nothing, according to me. But possibly plenty, according to others. I was refuting your denial of relative ethics.
By the very definition of suffering that's not possible.
Not so. I suffer when I have a fever, but the fever helps kill off infection. My children suffer when I don't give them everything on a platter, but they learn to depend upon themselves. According to Bushido, you gain great honor by suffering in silence due to circumstances beyond your control. This honor may outweigh the suffering. According to many disciplines of Christianity, suffering is good for the soul.
"Both good points, but I don't have enough faith in corporations to assume that that is what's going on without it being bloody obvious. "
Neither do I -- but we have to allow for the possibility, no? And even if that is not the intention, it may be the end effect. So, do you judge intentions or results?
"give me one good reason it is ethical under any circumstances to profit from causing others to suffer"
Yahoo is not causing the suffering, the Chinese government is. That is the fallacy in your argument. Is Yahoo profiting by obeying the local authority? Does it lessen their responsibility, according to my ethics? Yes.
If you want to try to force your moral code on others, go ahead and try. But your values are not my values, please do not assume that your code of ethics applies to everyone.
Before you call relative ethics a crock of shit, maybe you should think about it some. Were ethics handed down by God, or some absolute power? What defines them?
What if suffering is good for a person? What if by causing one person to suffer, you can prevent thousands of others from suffering? What if Yahoo allowing this, then allowing it to be publicized, will prevent more suffering in the long run?
But, at any rate, spare me your egotistical BS that assumes your interpretation of some universal ethics code is the correct one.
Please see original post in this thread. I mention it there...
Except that the exchange of information, and view of other stimuli, often leads to creative thinking.
Look at Slashdot, for example -- yes, I'm being exposed to knowledge. However, my "creative juices" are stirred when I am faced with viewpoints and information that differ from mine.
Also, the Web is no longer a passive viewing system. You've got blogging, forums, creative content hosting, all kinds of interaction that require creativity.
And I totally agree with you that at times easy availability of solutions can stifle creativity. They can, however, also stimulate it. ("How can these solutions be combined/improved to better fit my needs?")
Sure, but a ton of information will be useful post-apocalypse. Easier to rebuild when you've got a knowledge base to rely on...
I'd hate to be the person who has to reinvent billing mechanisms for pr0n site memberships.
"It is not a case of ethics (although I agree it is personally reprehensible), but this was a sensible business decision by Yahoo!."
Just because something is a business decision, does not mean that it has no ethical implications.
If you believe it to be reprehensible, then it violates YOUR ethics. But the Chinese ethic (as the government defines it) is not violated here.
And since Yahoo, in China, needs to obey Chinese law, I must say that they did nothing improper. The media watchdog group that is reporting this, Media Without Borders, should be criticizing the Chinese government, not a company that abides by their directives.
Look, the Gulf Dead Zone is scary enough to those concerned about the coastal environment. But listing multiple sources in your post that reference New Jersey?
There's no reason to make the Dead Zone seem that bad.
Yes, I'm from NJ.
"The internet is fun, don't get me wrong. But it isn't helping people become more interactive and creative. it is a tool to do work, it is a tool to communicate."
Yes, it is a tool to communicate. It allows a much wider source of contacts with whom to communicate with. This can stimulate creativity that the activities you mention cannot.
The internet also offers myriad ways for kids to express themselves, to formulate new indeas, and to try them out with their peers. Watching slideshows and movies is far from the only content available on the Web.
Anecdotally, I was interested in a ton of subjects that none of my firends or family members were knowledgeable about. My info source: the library. Not convenient at all (did not go to often, and too far to ride the bike too). Plus, most of the library resources were WAY over my head when I was 10. The internet would have allowed me to explore those subjects easily.
Do I think that the internet should replace traditional socialization? No way in hell. But does it stimulate creativity in ways that traditional socialization does not? You betcha.
Actually, power usage for this laptop, according to spec, is very low.
... and the battery back is a 6-cell Li unit.
"Battery Life: Approximately 8 hours for AtomChip® Quantum® II processor"
OTOH, I suspect that the true power usage for this laptop will be zero.
Seeing as vaporware doesn't actually draw any current.
Yes, but your response was to my posting, which had nothing to do at all with the public at large, only Slashdot.
And my last post was a poor attempt at humor...
Sorry, forgot the tag.
"There is no accounting for discrepancy except that Sony and the stores are in gouge mode right now."
Except, it's not really gouging. Sony and retailers are, and should be, able to maximize profit on its products[1], especially considering that the PSP is a luxury item. Yes, it sucks that it's more expensive where you live.
But, your market is different than the US market. Increased demand, smaller supply, less competition in the general games market (according to previous posters to this article). This affects the market price that Sony and/or the retailers set.
See the wikipedia entry for "price gouging":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_gouging
[1] In the context of our economic system.
Aynone who wants a little more detail (though not much) should definitely read the press release Nyh links to.
"The markets (i.e. the irrational people that operate them) need a message that there's a light at the end of the tunnel."
/. article was accepted, you just implied that the article was posted because
Hmmm. Since this is your answer to why the
(1) Slashdotters control the markets.
(2) Slashdotters are irrational.
As far as number two is concerned, I'm not so sure you're incorrect. As far as number one, I wish it were so.
"For instance, the Net does not change the number of hours in the day or the number of things you can keep in your head." (emphasis mine)
Sure, it hasn't changed the potential of our memory -- but I would speculate that the internet has decreased the amount of information we do keep in our heads. Because information is so easily available, we need to remember less.
Is this a bad thing? Not as long as the Web is available to us. It probably makes us more effective in general, since we have more info at hand. But if the Web were to fail due to apocalypse or something, I think we'd have some cache-ing up to do.
"Besides, what fool would waste time and resources trying to take "nearby" photos of a place we've already been when the telescope can clearly be put to much more useful scientific endeavors?"
Well, possibly to stimulate public curiosity to garner political support for more publicly funded projects?
In the US, PR stunts are very important to science in terms of getting budget $$. See "NASA" circa 1965-2005. And what a great way for US to garner more support for a Mars invas... um, landing.
Of course, it being a non-USian telescope, perhaps capturing images of the US flag on the moon is not the best way to get public funds for your projects...
"For if [existing oil/energy companies] don't have an interest in this product, it will never come to fruition, regardless of its technical merit."
Well, these pellets are a form of hydrogen storage. It's not a source of an energy, but a way to transport it and store it without loss (according to the article/spec sheet/press release).
In effect, it allows a standard distribution method (and combustion method) for energy derived from any source.
There's no reason why petrol couldn't still be used as a source of the energy -- only the distribution would be different.
""A group of scientists are going to present their breakthrough in hydrogen storage this Wednesday."
/. again, I, for one, will not cry "Dupe".
Seeing as neither the article nor the summary give any specifics, why is a press release being passed along as an article?
Why not wait until they've presented their findings, and then submit an article with more information?
Whoever submitted this article is probably interested enough in the subject to search for a better article come Thursday or Friday -- and if it gets on
"My thought on day 1,2 and 3 wasnt to get the people help it was WOW thats crazy down there."
Of course, it's not your job to think to get the people help. Those people whose job it was, and still is, have got some 'splainin to do.
Anyone responsible for disaster relief who looked to the news for their primary information, should be canned. Preferably in a sardine processing facility.
Well, the major flooding downtown didn't happen until the levees broke. This didn't happen right away, as it was due to huge amounts of rainfall, not the storm surge or wind damage.
For a little while, it seemed like NO was spared much of the destruction... which might be part of the reason some of the response teams were told to stand down.
Ostensibly, in the long run, it's much cheaper to move the historic sections to a new locale.
Will it be slightly different? Sure. But it will still be there.
"Otherwise this just reads like a pitch for his "consultancy"."
Exactly. He even makes that reference in the article:
FTA: "And to do that, you need more than ads. You need manifestoes. Brickbats. Slogans. Outrageous stunts. You need to rabble-rouse.
Like, say, by writing articles like this.
Costikyan's just a self-promoting hack with a professional-looking blog.
Gotta love the B-list heroes -- it allows for more creative license in plot and character development. Marvel doesn't have as large of a fan base for these characters -- less people to get PO'd when they change the backstory.
That's the plus side -- maybe we'll get one or two excellent screenplays in there that will be produced and directed well.
OTOH, we've got an average budget of 52.5 million for each film. Assuming that a couple of these guys get the lion's share, that leaves us with...
B-movies!!! B-movies that don't have some silly giant snake in the jungle, or intelligent sharks (hopefully), that are marketed to your average (sub)urban potsmoker.
I, for one, welcome the return of our nerd-targeted B-Movie overlords... speaking of which, I have a plot to pitch to Marvel Entertainment...
On a more serious note, what most of the comics have in common is a clear dichotomy between right (the hero) and wrong (often protrayed as a group). Complex heroes? Unnecessary. Maybe Marvel wants to try to tap into today's youth, who are much more exposed to the boogeyman ideal of the bad guy. Or maybe I'm tired and need to go to bed, not sure.