The economy is good; there is no problem. See, everybody has a job, except for the ones who don't. And inflation is low, besides where the prices are increasing. And the banks, they are lending money again, unless you don't qualify.
Effectively, you're saying to ask the question, "Who are my readers, and what are they willing to pay for my content?" Payment includes the price of the item and the cost of delivery.
People in the online world tend to forget that their customers are already paying for the delivery, just to their ISP. They forget to factor that into their fancy equations. Nobody wants to pay a second time for content because it's effectively double-dipping. The internet subscription is payment to access content.
Now, premium content is a different matter, which is what WSJ and The Economist offer. Not only is their content premium, but it's also aimed towards a demographic of people who can afford the premium price, namely the wealthy financial and business types.
For Newsday, the content isn't worth $5 a week. It probably isn't worth $5 a month. (It might be worth $5 a year.) Of course, their $5 a week number might've been based off their advertising revenue. That's probably how much each unique visit was worth in terms of impressions. But marketers and large corporations have a significantly different view of money than people. It might be worthwhile for a company to pay $5 (or some subset of $5) a week per unique visitor to market their product, but it's certainly not worthwhile for a person to do the same just for news.
Evil is evil, even if you use the excuse of a good cause.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
criminals like Scientology are always going to win if you play by their rules and fight them with their own dirty methods; they have much more experience in that game.
What happens when their game is the US judicial and legal systems?
Ohhhh, it's going to be ugly. I certainly wouldn't want to live in Taiwan in the next 20 years, for a start.
I don't imagine this to be an issue. One country, two systems is used in many places in China, including Hong Kong and Macau. It may very well be that Taiwan will eventually fold back in, though the exact details of the process will have to be hammered out when they're ready.
The only hope I have is that China has not shown any expansionist tendencies in recent history.
This is a cultural thing. With very rare exceptions, China has never had expansionist tendencies in the past 2000 years.
But if suddenly they decide to play the imperialism game - watch out!
Imperialism is a western concept. China already does reach out to other, less-developed countries for natural resources, but they're using cooperation instead of dominance to obtain those resources.
That shifts the burden to developers in the US, who would be unable to contribute to projects hosted outside of the US.
That having been said, source code is not a product. It's a blueprint of a product at best. It can also constitute as speech. IANAL, and I haven't read the law in question, but I think restricting binaries is sufficient to comply. On the other hand, nothing short of an outright firewall still might bring the authorities knocking, and result in a costly legal battle, win or lose.
But it's a stupid restriction anyway. If you post something to the internet, you'd expect anybody and everybody to be able to get to it. The internet was designed to know no borders. Laws like those are analogous to laws that mandate the Great Firewall of China.
Wow, ok, let me pick this apart, since it's modded +5.
In order to prevent widespread unrest, they must keep the peasants peasantlike.
No, they have to keep the peasants busy working and trying to make money to raise their standard of living, instead of out of work and making trouble. That means they need to continue to grow and increase their middle class, or the populace won't be happy at all. Remember, it's all about standard of living, or as another guy said it, having a TV in every household.
Therefore, the government keeps hording money.
This is a non-sequitor. The government hording money does not affect the populace's standard of living. Nor does it make sense for the government to horde money to keep the populace poor if they want to keep the populace happy. If the divide between the wealthy (government) and the poor is great, there is a greater chance of unreset.
Because the government is hording money, they buy our 'worthless' dollars and prop the value up therefore spreading the wealth to the US rather than spreading it through their citizenry.
The first part doesn't make sense. If the chinese government is hording money, they won't be buying up dollars. That's spending their money to buy dollars.
They are propping up the US economy. But they're also spending a lot of it domestically. Their entire bailout package was to throw money around to stimulate the economy. Where've you been for the past 2 years?
Once their citizenry see this, and begin to realize their lack of wealth in relation to the rest of the world, and began to want the things they feel a middle class should deserve, there will have to be widespread social unrest to effect the inevitable change. Further, an economy with widespread social arrest is less desirable to investors.
Non-sequitors. And they don't even make sense. In a healthy economy, everybody is growing wealthier. This is basic econ, 101. And what does investors have to do with anything?
Either the Chinese middle class becomes more affluent through shared prosperity of the Chinese economy - prompting social unrest because of middle class desires such as free speech, the right to own property, the right to ones' investments
A happy middle class is a complacent middle class. Just look to the US. Happy middle class means the government can trample over the people's rights. It's when things are bad that people start to get up in arms. Social unrest doesn't happen when everything's fine and dandy.
or the Chinese government continues to prosper at the expense of the peasant class prompting social unrest.
Which isn't happening. The Chinese government (and China in general) is prospering at the expense of the rest of the developed world. What's left of the peasant class is prospering along with everybody else.
My prediction: Eventual widespread social unrest and burst of the economic bubble that is China. The US has nothing to lose from social unrest in China.
That's a nice prediction, but it's not predicated on anything you said before. You threw around social unrest everywhere like they were some kind of key word, without neither understanding what causes social unrest, nor what social unrest actually entails.
Thanks for playing, troll. I praise your cleverness in getting yourself modded +5 despite being completely wrong about--well, almost everything. I guess it's easy to fake knowing things when you're talking to like-minded ignorant people. But anybody who knows even a morsel about the specific subject at hand will shred you apart and expose you for the troll you are.
"First World" refers to the US, Western Europe, and allies. "Second World" refers to the Soviets and their allies. China was and has always firmly been among the "Third World."
Since the fall of the USSR, the "Second World" doesn't really exist, though the countries that made up the Eastern Bloc, including most of Eastern Europe, could be said to have been in the "Second World."
The same could be said of the rest of the world too. Sure, there'll be some political posturing, some grandstanding by local loud-mouths talking about boycotting Chinese goods. But at the end of the day, people will go back to their same old lives, using their China-made toothbrushes to brush their teeth, wearing their China-made clothes, walking in their China-made shoes or driving in cars with, among other parts, China-made tires, sipping from their China-made coffee mugs, working on their China-made mice, keyboards, and monitors, cooking with their China-made pots and pans, eating their meals with China-made utensils on their China-made plates, and sleeping on their China-made mattresses.
Yeah, you can cut a few of those thing out of the chain, but even if it's not explicitly "Made In China," the raw materials, or numerous componenets thereof quite possibly could be from China. Short of buying your own manufacturing plant and hiring your own workers, it's practically impossible to avoid Chinese-made goods. So in the end, nobody's going to do a damn thing about it except make a lot of noise.
It's a sad but unfortunate reality. And that's why the Chinese government does what they do; they know they can get away with it.
It's why most diseases that affect one person can affect just about anybody. That goes for the common cold and the seasonal flu all the way to AIDS and ebola. We've just been very lucky that 1) nothing's really showed up that's been that bad and 2) most populations where bad diseases occur are relatively isolated. The worst thing to have come our way is the swine flu, and that's nothing compared to what could be (imagine Ebola with an incubation period as long as AIDS).
I'd like to see a map of the genetic variation of local populations. I'll bet it's even smaller. Like, everybody's a cousin of everybody else.
It cost take a lot of money to get those legal degrees in order to write the counter-notice. I mean, if you were a layman and your video got taken down by the DMCA, would you know how to produce the appropriate response (besides running around the intarwebs screaming your head off about the evils of the DMCA)? I didn't think so.
Which is at least a huge step up from putting it under the keyboard or stuck to the monitor.
This depends, again, on the application. If there are multiple security levels within an organization, then putting a password next to the terminal may not be a good idea. Or, it may be an excellent idea if there are many other post-its and odd notes with various alphanumeric combinations. The best place to hide a tree is in a forest.
But if there's only one security level for the majority of the company, and that's whether a person is an employee or not, then a password on a post-it wouldn't matter so much. Anybody who'd be able to gain entrance into the premises would already be vetted. In such a case, the only advantage is to prevent one person from mascarading as another person, or to prevent someone from digging into the private files of another person. But that's only an issue for upper management where people might conceivably want to dig into their private files.
Domestication of animals, selective breeding, these are ancient practices that go back further than agriculture, which is the breeding of plants. Considering that humans have been successfully "toying" with life for some 10 millenia and more, I'd say there's probably nothing disastrous with it. Heck, many modern day cow species were selectively bred from aurochsen.
Perhaps not under Sr. but certainly under Jr. There was so much corruption in the latter's administration (recall the firing of attorney generals scandal) you had to differenciate the regular "politics as usual" with stuff done under his presidency.
Kingdoms didn't kill Cavedog. Chris Taylor leaving to start up GPG killed Cavedog. The vision he had left with him, and it was all over at that point. Even had TA:K been moderately successful, Cavedog would've gone under. TA:K needed to be a smash hit, and without a visionary, there was no way it could be.
Now, say what you will about Supreme Commander, but that's a completely different story.
there's no possible way to remotely exploit this (outside of another vulnerability)
Your caveat says more than the rest of your post. Considering how many external-facing exploits exist, and how many probably remain undiscovered, I wouldn't be surprised if this one is often used to root a machine once it's been compromised. You can clean infected files, but only if you can detect them, and they're separate and distinct from your files.
One external-facing exploit can wreck havoc before it's fixed or the machine's reformatted. Add this one into play, and the operator simply won't realize the machine's compromised.
The other problem with your comparison is that libraries have permission to lend books
Yeah, I was up to you until that point. It's the other way around. Nobody "gives" people permission to lend or even copy books. Instead, the government grants authors and "content creators" the ability to restrict this right of copy for a limited time. That's copyright.
The right to use information is among the inalienable right granted by our Creator (whomever this might be), the right of liberty. It is enshrined in the first amendment, the right to free speech, because the written word is a manifestation of speech.
Slashdot Mirror
How can any thinking person defend these types of policies?
Most people don't think. And of the few who do, once you throw the world "children" into the mix, they also stop thinking.
It's like this product has wings.
That's coming in the next version. I hear they're great for preventing leaks.
The economy is good; there is no problem. See, everybody has a job, except for the ones who don't. And inflation is low, besides where the prices are increasing. And the banks, they are lending money again, unless you don't qualify.
Effectively, you're saying to ask the question, "Who are my readers, and what are they willing to pay for my content?" Payment includes the price of the item and the cost of delivery.
People in the online world tend to forget that their customers are already paying for the delivery, just to their ISP. They forget to factor that into their fancy equations. Nobody wants to pay a second time for content because it's effectively double-dipping. The internet subscription is payment to access content.
Now, premium content is a different matter, which is what WSJ and The Economist offer. Not only is their content premium, but it's also aimed towards a demographic of people who can afford the premium price, namely the wealthy financial and business types.
For Newsday, the content isn't worth $5 a week. It probably isn't worth $5 a month. (It might be worth $5 a year.) Of course, their $5 a week number might've been based off their advertising revenue. That's probably how much each unique visit was worth in terms of impressions. But marketers and large corporations have a significantly different view of money than people. It might be worthwhile for a company to pay $5 (or some subset of $5) a week per unique visitor to market their product, but it's certainly not worthwhile for a person to do the same just for news.
Evil is evil, even if you use the excuse of a good cause.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
criminals like Scientology are always going to win if you play by their rules and fight them with their own dirty methods; they have much more experience in that game.
What happens when their game is the US judicial and legal systems?
Ohhhh, it's going to be ugly. I certainly wouldn't want to live in Taiwan in the next 20 years, for a start.
I don't imagine this to be an issue. One country, two systems is used in many places in China, including Hong Kong and Macau. It may very well be that Taiwan will eventually fold back in, though the exact details of the process will have to be hammered out when they're ready.
The only hope I have is that China has not shown any expansionist tendencies in recent history.
This is a cultural thing. With very rare exceptions, China has never had expansionist tendencies in the past 2000 years.
But if suddenly they decide to play the imperialism game - watch out!
Imperialism is a western concept. China already does reach out to other, less-developed countries for natural resources, but they're using cooperation instead of dominance to obtain those resources.
That shifts the burden to developers in the US, who would be unable to contribute to projects hosted outside of the US.
That having been said, source code is not a product. It's a blueprint of a product at best. It can also constitute as speech. IANAL, and I haven't read the law in question, but I think restricting binaries is sufficient to comply. On the other hand, nothing short of an outright firewall still might bring the authorities knocking, and result in a costly legal battle, win or lose.
But it's a stupid restriction anyway. If you post something to the internet, you'd expect anybody and everybody to be able to get to it. The internet was designed to know no borders. Laws like those are analogous to laws that mandate the Great Firewall of China.
Wow, ok, let me pick this apart, since it's modded +5.
In order to prevent widespread unrest, they must keep the peasants peasantlike.
No, they have to keep the peasants busy working and trying to make money to raise their standard of living, instead of out of work and making trouble. That means they need to continue to grow and increase their middle class, or the populace won't be happy at all. Remember, it's all about standard of living, or as another guy said it, having a TV in every household.
Therefore, the government keeps hording money.
This is a non-sequitor. The government hording money does not affect the populace's standard of living. Nor does it make sense for the government to horde money to keep the populace poor if they want to keep the populace happy. If the divide between the wealthy (government) and the poor is great, there is a greater chance of unreset.
Because the government is hording money, they buy our 'worthless' dollars and prop the value up therefore spreading the wealth to the US rather than spreading it through their citizenry.
The first part doesn't make sense. If the chinese government is hording money, they won't be buying up dollars. That's spending their money to buy dollars.
They are propping up the US economy. But they're also spending a lot of it domestically. Their entire bailout package was to throw money around to stimulate the economy. Where've you been for the past 2 years?
Once their citizenry see this, and begin to realize their lack of wealth in relation to the rest of the world, and began to want the things they feel a middle class should deserve, there will have to be widespread social unrest to effect the inevitable change. Further, an economy with widespread social arrest is less desirable to investors.
Non-sequitors. And they don't even make sense. In a healthy economy, everybody is growing wealthier. This is basic econ, 101. And what does investors have to do with anything?
Either the Chinese middle class becomes more affluent through shared prosperity of the Chinese economy - prompting social unrest because of middle class desires such as free speech, the right to own property, the right to ones' investments
A happy middle class is a complacent middle class. Just look to the US. Happy middle class means the government can trample over the people's rights. It's when things are bad that people start to get up in arms. Social unrest doesn't happen when everything's fine and dandy.
or the Chinese government continues to prosper at the expense of the peasant class prompting social unrest.
Which isn't happening. The Chinese government (and China in general) is prospering at the expense of the rest of the developed world. What's left of the peasant class is prospering along with everybody else.
My prediction: Eventual widespread social unrest and burst of the economic bubble that is China. The US has nothing to lose from social unrest in China.
That's a nice prediction, but it's not predicated on anything you said before. You threw around social unrest everywhere like they were some kind of key word, without neither understanding what causes social unrest, nor what social unrest actually entails.
Thanks for playing, troll. I praise your cleverness in getting yourself modded +5 despite being completely wrong about--well, almost everything. I guess it's easy to fake knowing things when you're talking to like-minded ignorant people. But anybody who knows even a morsel about the specific subject at hand will shred you apart and expose you for the troll you are.
No mods, not informative.
"First World" refers to the US, Western Europe, and allies. "Second World" refers to the Soviets and their allies. China was and has always firmly been among the "Third World."
Since the fall of the USSR, the "Second World" doesn't really exist, though the countries that made up the Eastern Bloc, including most of Eastern Europe, could be said to have been in the "Second World."
From the looks of it, I doubt they care.
The same could be said of the rest of the world too. Sure, there'll be some political posturing, some grandstanding by local loud-mouths talking about boycotting Chinese goods. But at the end of the day, people will go back to their same old lives, using their China-made toothbrushes to brush their teeth, wearing their China-made clothes, walking in their China-made shoes or driving in cars with, among other parts, China-made tires, sipping from their China-made coffee mugs, working on their China-made mice, keyboards, and monitors, cooking with their China-made pots and pans, eating their meals with China-made utensils on their China-made plates, and sleeping on their China-made mattresses.
Yeah, you can cut a few of those thing out of the chain, but even if it's not explicitly "Made In China," the raw materials, or numerous componenets thereof quite possibly could be from China. Short of buying your own manufacturing plant and hiring your own workers, it's practically impossible to avoid Chinese-made goods. So in the end, nobody's going to do a damn thing about it except make a lot of noise.
It's a sad but unfortunate reality. And that's why the Chinese government does what they do; they know they can get away with it.
Wow, I didn't know Adam was the first to yank his bone. I guess that's why they call him the first man.
If Creationist walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, let us just call him a duck and be done with it.
But what if a Creationist walks like a troll and quacks like a troll? Is he duck or troll?
Finally, somebody's come up with a quick fix to global warming!
It's why most diseases that affect one person can affect just about anybody. That goes for the common cold and the seasonal flu all the way to AIDS and ebola. We've just been very lucky that 1) nothing's really showed up that's been that bad and 2) most populations where bad diseases occur are relatively isolated. The worst thing to have come our way is the swine flu, and that's nothing compared to what could be (imagine Ebola with an incubation period as long as AIDS).
I'd like to see a map of the genetic variation of local populations. I'll bet it's even smaller. Like, everybody's a cousin of everybody else.
It cost take a lot of money to get those legal degrees in order to write the counter-notice. I mean, if you were a layman and your video got taken down by the DMCA, would you know how to produce the appropriate response (besides running around the intarwebs screaming your head off about the evils of the DMCA)? I didn't think so.
Academia isn't the real world.
Everyone's suddenly saying FLOSS these days
The better to clean your teeth with, my dear.
(From Wikipedia) FLOSS: Free/Libre/Open Source Software.
I think I'll stick with FOSS myself. Less typing.
That's the fourth monocle I've broken this week.
That'd make a spectacle or two.
Hey, how'd you know my password is hunter2?
Which is at least a huge step up from putting it under the keyboard or stuck to the monitor.
This depends, again, on the application. If there are multiple security levels within an organization, then putting a password next to the terminal may not be a good idea. Or, it may be an excellent idea if there are many other post-its and odd notes with various alphanumeric combinations. The best place to hide a tree is in a forest.
But if there's only one security level for the majority of the company, and that's whether a person is an employee or not, then a password on a post-it wouldn't matter so much. Anybody who'd be able to gain entrance into the premises would already be vetted. In such a case, the only advantage is to prevent one person from mascarading as another person, or to prevent someone from digging into the private files of another person. But that's only an issue for upper management where people might conceivably want to dig into their private files.
Domestication of animals, selective breeding, these are ancient practices that go back further than agriculture, which is the breeding of plants. Considering that humans have been successfully "toying" with life for some 10 millenia and more, I'd say there's probably nothing disastrous with it. Heck, many modern day cow species were selectively bred from aurochsen.
Perhaps not under Sr. but certainly under Jr. There was so much corruption in the latter's administration (recall the firing of attorney generals scandal) you had to differenciate the regular "politics as usual" with stuff done under his presidency.
Kingdoms didn't kill Cavedog. Chris Taylor leaving to start up GPG killed Cavedog. The vision he had left with him, and it was all over at that point. Even had TA:K been moderately successful, Cavedog would've gone under. TA:K needed to be a smash hit, and without a visionary, there was no way it could be.
Now, say what you will about Supreme Commander, but that's a completely different story.
there's no possible way to remotely exploit this (outside of another vulnerability)
Your caveat says more than the rest of your post. Considering how many external-facing exploits exist, and how many probably remain undiscovered, I wouldn't be surprised if this one is often used to root a machine once it's been compromised. You can clean infected files, but only if you can detect them, and they're separate and distinct from your files.
One external-facing exploit can wreck havoc before it's fixed or the machine's reformatted. Add this one into play, and the operator simply won't realize the machine's compromised.
The other problem with your comparison is that libraries have permission to lend books
Yeah, I was up to you until that point. It's the other way around. Nobody "gives" people permission to lend or even copy books. Instead, the government grants authors and "content creators" the ability to restrict this right of copy for a limited time. That's copyright.
The right to use information is among the inalienable right granted by our Creator (whomever this might be), the right of liberty. It is enshrined in the first amendment, the right to free speech, because the written word is a manifestation of speech.