If you had people generate a four word pass phrase, it's quite likely that most of them would contain only words from a relatively small subset of the English language.
Which is why the computer would generate the phrase.
2Correcthorse4batteryStapple!
Varying capitalization, and optionally separating the 4 words with 3 character symbols adds: 2*2*2*2*90*90*90*5*4*3 possible permutations: 6.9e8
Now that's not bad, and it definitely is more secure than the plain 4 words. BUT:
Assuming 200,000 words in the dictionary. Simply adding 3 more words to the end gives you 8e15 additional permutations.
8e15 is a LOT bigger than 6.9e8
And now we are at 7 symbols either way.
Remembering 3 more words is both easier and ridiculously more secure too.
Peppering a passphrase with difficult to remember symbols is missing the point. If you want more security, just add another random word or two. Either method increases its brute force complexity, but perhaps counterintuitively, adding a few words is far more secure than mangling the pass phrase with a few symbols.
4 symbols chosen randomly from a dictionary of ~200,000 by a computer not by you because you won't choose words randomly.
that makes it a 1 in 200000^4 to guess... or 1.6 x 10^21
compare that to an 8 character password also randomly generated. Passwords which are drawn from a set of around 90 symbols. (50 letters including upper and lower case, 10 digits, and ~30 symbols)
that's 90^8 or a measly 4.3 x10^15
a 4 word randomly chosen password from a dictionary is by far the better password, and much easier to remember too.
An 11 character password of completely random gibberish is about equivalent, to 4 random dictionary words. Good luck remembering somthing like `oN{/QM9PKb
That isn't to say that all dishonesty is necessarily negative, but I challenge anyone to think of a single instance of "privacy" that isn't also "dishonest" if you assume that withholding the truth is also being dishonest.
Why would I ever accept such an idiotic assumption.
By your line of reasoning wearing underwear counts as "dishonest". Having your blinds closed is "dishonest". Peeing behind the bush instead of in front of it where i can see you is "dishonest". Keeping your bank PIN code a secret is "dishonest". Stubbing your toe and thinking "ouch" without saying it is "dishonest".
GIVE ME A FUCKING BREAK.
Only a complete idiot would categorize any of that as dishonesty. Sure we can all agree that not telling your girlfriend that you banged the neighbor should count as dishonest as you've breached the implicit agreement that is likely in effect to be mutually faithful and then concealed this fact, but simply electing not to volunteer an estimate of how many ounces you urinated this morning is not "dishonesty" by any reasonable stretch.
Well, let's see.. it has a CPU, memory, can do input, processing, and output (the Von Neumann definition). It's capable of doing Turing complete things, and writing code written for it.
And my OLD cellphone... not my new fancy galaxy s3... I'm tallking my old Motorola StarTAC.
Apparently that was a PC too. It even had some sort of Java and a hideous WAP browser as i recall... still miles better than what you could do with an Apple II though am i right?
So why didn't we see any articles in the 90s about how Motorola was a top 5 PC manufacturer I wonder?
So, tell us, what aspects of a phone or tablet make it not a computer in your mind? They'll both run rings around an old 486.
Because the term "personal computer" means something more than meeting the computer science definition of being capable of computing and being owned / operated by a person.
Why aren't phones or tablets personal computers? Because they are severely restricted in terms of capability relative to a contemporary personal computer.
But yeah, giving women freedom of choice means some women choosing things you don't like
What made you think I objected to women choosing to be booth babes?
I am disputing the idea that many women actually are "choosing" to be booth babes in the sense that it is a positive choice they are making vs it being the 'least objectionable option' they have available.
And I object to calling "taking the least objectionable option" some sort of "freedom of expression" and an example of women defining their own femininity for themselves.
So anybody will do anything for a paycheck? Nobody has any kind of personal level beneath which they will not stoop?
How does this help your argument? Anyone making choices along that boundary line is doing so because they have to, not because they want to. To try and talk about "freedom" in that context is absurd -- if they had actual freedom they'd choose something they wanted to do.
If for example they wanted to show of their bodies then instead of being booth babes they'd head to the beach.
Where they can do what they want, dress how they want, and they don't have to conform to any one elses standards of attractiveness to be there.
If you want to see women who are defining femininity for themselves... go to the beach. Everyone there chose to be there, and chose to wear what they are wearing.
but would still choose to do something similar, for a shorter amount of time.
Like actual modelling? Fashion shows. Magazine covers, cover girl for a lipstick brand, the sort of thing models actually aspire to?
But not booth babes.
Some girls like to show off their body.
And I don't dispute that. However, I will again point out that the cross section of women who like to show off their bodies includes a lot of women who could not get a job as a booth babe because they do not meet the 'standards of attractiveness' imposed on them.
Which circles round back to my argument that the booth babe job (and other 'model' class jobs) is not an example of women 'expressing themselves' and 'defining femininity for themselves'.
Mod this up! Really, is there anything more to be said?
Just because someone chose to be a model doesn't mean they look forward to going to work as a booth babe. It doesn't mean they endorse the job, the working conditions, or anything else. Its a job, they have the skills for it, and they happen to fit the EXTERNALLY IMPOSED definitions of 'attractiveness'.
Just because out of the jobs they were able to get they picked 'booth babe' that does not represent some lofty ideal concerning letting women define what it means to be feminine for themselves.
I personally know a very independent, very intelligent geek women who has in the past and intends in the future to work as a stripper, because she enjoys it and it makes her feel good about her body.
And I really don't see how that is at all relevant to the conversation. I don't dispute that you have a friend who likes being a stripper.
The women you find at booths are models. This is their chosen profession. Why should you denigrate them for it?
How many of them would show up for work as a booth babe if there wasn't a paycheck? I highly doubt many would.
Calling it their 'chosen profession' is absurd. As far as modelling gigs go "booth babe" isn't exactly what most models aspire to.
And more importantly did they set the standard of attractiveness to qualify as a model to get the booth babe job? Absolutely Not.
They happen to fit (and likely work at maintaining their fit) to an external view of femininity imposed on them and are taking advantage of that to make a living. There is nothing wrong with this per se, but I am disputing that it represents some sort high brow freedom of self expression or liberation, because it is nothing of the sort.
And if I decide it means running around in a miniskirt and pom poms, well... screw you.
And if you decide to do that on your own time, I don't have any criticism of it.
Me, if I lived in a world where I didn't need money, I'd still do what I do for a living for the enjoyment of doing it.
How many people would get up in the morning, with the actual freedom to decide how they want to spend their time instead of being constrained to get a paycheck, and decide to be a booth-babe?
You want to talk about "freedom" fine, lets remove the requirement that they collect a paycheck, and see how many of them would freely choose to spend their days as booth babes. Their might be a few and that's fine, but it wouldn't be most of them, not by a longshot. And to top it off many of the women who might freely choose to be a 'booth babe' probably couldn't get hired as one due to not living up to the standards of femininity and attractiveness set by OTHERS.
So much for calling the choice to be a booth babe "SELF EXPRESSION".
And how dare someone choose a job based on those factors. Those sluts!
Sure but lets not pretend they are "defining their own femininity" here. That's all I'm saying.
And the fact that they are choosing it does not qualify as an endorsement of the job or the working conditions or what it stands for.
They need money. It pays money. There is nothing deeper than that.
Just as a guy who takes an under the counter construction job that violates all kinds of labor laws, and all kinds of safety regulation is not making some sort of personal statement endorsing those conditions. Its just a paycheck.
If so, then so should these women, for themselves.
Sure, but lets not pretend they are "defining what femininity" is for themselves.
So do you get to make decisions for yourself about what is and is not acceptable for you how you make a paycheck?
No not me personally, but as a society yes, that's precisely what we do. For example, we set safety regulations even though there are plenty of people who would take a job that did not meet those safety standards. Should we let companies exploit that too?
We also prohibit many forms of sexual harassment now that many women used to endure. I suppose they were they just "expressing their femininity" when they chose to continue to work feed and support their families instead of making a stand about what they wouldn't tolerate in the workplace.
Recently some countries are starting to regulate models to promote better body image for regular women, and prevent the models themselves to subject themselves to starvation and other self abuse to attain the "desired weight".
If we're a free society, then every woman should feel free to define that for themselves...
Is that what you think 'scantily clad booth babes' are? Its free women deciding for themselves how to define their femininity? Yeah, you keep telling yourself that.
I'm finding it hard to swallow that there are any women out there looking to define their own femininity for themselves who ended up deciding that the best way to express their femininity is "scantily clad booth babe"
I'm pretty confident the women who have that option open to them aren't doing any lofty self-definition. Its a paycheck. And its better hours, working conditions, and pay than their other options.
I have a skill set. This company will pay me 1M for it, that one for 1.5M. I choose the 1.5M. I work there 6 consecutive years.
So far so good.
In that time I increase revenue by 300%, stock price doubles, everyones happy, and I even got a boost to 1.9M 18 months ago.
Now lets take a diversion... lets say you are the CEO at say, JP Morgan, where under your skilled leadership the company is participating in massive fraud. When the fraud bubble bursts, revenues drop drastically, and the bank needs a federal bailout to stay solvent and operational, meahwhile the share price slides from $55 to $15, and nobody is happy.
You've now established that you are not good at what you do, you are reckless, criminal, and ought to be in jail.
You still keep your job though, and are not only paid an exorbitant salary, but bonuses too for your performance, and if you ever leave you will have plenty of open doors at other companies.
Why should Apple go through Windows store to have a tiled application on Windows 8?
Which apple application are you referring too here? An imaginary hypothetical one doesn't count. Apple doesn't sell any windows software. The only software they even distribute for windows is itunes/quicktime which is free.
Microsoft doesn't have a leg to stand on. They jus tlook like hypocrites.
They'd only be hypocrites if they refuse to negotiate with large companies that want to sell popular software that costs hundreds of dollars through the app store.
30% cuts make sense for $1 to $5 apps from vendors who have no infrastructure. They don't make sense for autocad and adobe CS or Microsoft Office etc.
But we have no evidence that microsoft is completely inflexible on rates for large partners who wish to sell expensive software in their store. So they aren't hypocrites.
And what fee do you think is right for someone that has to supply unlimited bandwidth and insfratructure support to get your app to people everytime they want to reinstall it as well as free 5gb of backup space.
You mean like Microsoft already has in place to support its customers? With its online store, and skydrive?
Why should Microsoft have to give 30% to apple to duplicate infrastructure it ALREADY has in place.
Microsoft isn't a small app developer with no brand recgonition and no infrastructure.
The ONLY reason they "need" apple is because Apple's walled-garden prevents them from interacting directly with customers.
They ~interpret~ Biden's statement, to determine what he could have meant a number of groups by "we".
They acknowledge It could very well be true that he and Obama weren't personally told Libya had
And then decide its 'mostly false' because even if by 'we' he meant potus and vpotus the statedepartment knew, and that it was misleading to imply otherwise. requested more security.
They fact checked the claim "American jobs were being outsourced and lost because Chrysler would build Jeeps in China."
Politifact interpreted what they thought the claim was, and then fact checked it.
Statements like "The sky is blue." are simpler to interpret but you still have to interpret that the speaker is making a claim that the sky is blue. All but the very simplest of statements require interpretation.
You are plainly mistaken when you argue that politifact wasn't checking facts.
Now you can handwave all you want that poltifact interpreted the claim Romney was making wrong, and fact checked "the wrong claim". But even Mitt Romney didn't say that, so why would you spend so much time claiming that Romney might have meant something else, when even he didn't?
This statement by Obama was a bigger lie, "I believe the only way to create an economy built to last is to strengthen the middle class, asking the wealthy to pay a little more so we can pay down our debt in a balanced way,"
This is no deception there. Obama was clear. You can agree or disagree with the statement, because it is his opinion.
And its a statement of a pretty abstract belief about macro-economic theory; it is almost ridiculous to compare it to a statement about where jeeps are made.
The theory of fact checkers is that they will check the facts that politicians use and point out when those facts are wrong. In this case, Politifact, as part of a "fact check", called that statement a lie?
The "lie" was not that jeeps would be made in china. The lie was that "American jobs were being outsourced and lost because Chrysler would build Jeeps in China."
And he put that ad out in Ohio, where Jeeps are made, thus it didn't merely suggest that abstract American jobs were being lost, but the LOCAL economy was being affected.
It was lie of the year in large part because it took on a life of its own, and may well have contributed to Romney losing the election.
You are failing to defend Politifact, you don't have a problem with them calling it a lie because you opposed Romney.
The lie of the year the previous year was by Democrats that Republicans were going to shut down medicare -- so I don't see the partisan bias you seem to be implying exists.
See, now you are discussing what you believe that Romney should have said/how he should have made his point. That is not the question.
And you are splitting semantic hairs. He strung a few true statements next to eachother calculated to alledge a fact wihtout outright stating it. And along with reporting on the veracity of the actual jeep statement, acknowledging it was true. Poltifact also reported on the implied allegation that American jobs were being outsourced to China.
I don't see anything wrong with that, especially as the implication was the entire point of the message.
"Why is a company that just received a generous bailout from the U.S. government creating jobs in China rather than in the U.S.?
Are you suggesting the Chrysler not building a factory in China to build Jeeps for the Chinese would somehow benefit Americans?
Could that money not have been better spent improving production and increasing jobs in the U.S.? If the answer to the second question is 'No", is it really a good use of U.S. taxpayer dollars to help a company create jobs in China?"
If that's the message then that's what he should have said. In stead he said that "... Chrysler will build Jeep in China" and immediately followed that with "Mitt Romney will fight for American jobs".
Specifically note that he did not follow "... build Jeeps in China" with "Mitt Romney will fight to ensure tax dollars are not spent bailing out multinational companies"
I think its pretty clear he was talking about jobs.
I do not know that Romney was saying
It's pretty clear to me, but if your still not sure then Romney should have spoken clearly and directly. Period.
After all this wasn't some off the cuff statement this was a produced commercial -- he had complete control of the message, time to review how it would be interpreted, time to run it by other people to ensure it would be interpreted they way he meant it.
If you "don't know what Romney was saying" then it was because Romney was deliberately attempting to be deceptive and misleading.
Personally I think his message was pretty clear. And your just struggling very hard to find some way of avoiding admitting it.
I don't disagree that in some cases politicians will say something ambiguous inadvertently. But this wasn't one of those times.
In both of my modifications, the fact checker does not call the original speaker a liar... they merely add the facts which the original speaker left out
I'm perfectly fine for them to call them out as the half truths that they are. If the fact checker is compelled to 'add facts' to qualify something as true, then that says something about the original speaker don't you think?
You can't communicate without interpretation. And quite bluntly if a fact checker is presented with something with multiple reasonable interpretations then that should be called out as well.
"The fences didn't kill the Ostriches. The fire did. I don't think we need to worry about whether fences are leading to trapped birds because birds can fly."
fences didn't kill the Ostriches -- true fact. fire killed the ostriches -- true fact I don't think we need to worry about whether fences are leading to trapped birds -- authors opinion birds can fly -- true fact
While most birds do indeed fly, the birds in question here do not fly. So while "birds can fly" is a generally true statement, its in "bald faced lie" territory in context.
If you don't think a fact checkers should call attention to that sort of deception then there is no point in fact checking because it is trivial to construct arguments using only true statements:
"Industry experts reported 8000 cars in America. Clearly we don't need to be spending billions on highway improvements."
Fact checked as true. Omitted detail: 8000 cars on the road was reported in 1900.
I want fact checkers to to interpret and rate what the speaker is actually attempting to communicate. And if there are multiple reasonable interpretations, then they should report THAT too, as the speaker is then either a) failing to communicate effectively b) deliberately phrasing things that way to be misleading about what they actually mean.
Neither is good, so the speaker should be called out for it.
Newborn infants are often not named immediately. Whether they need an email address, user name, and permission to access a corporate domain prior to receiving a name is an entirely separate question.
But the point stands that there -are- people who are not named.
Now one could argue, and Politifact did, that Mitt Romney used that fact in a misleading way, but the fact itself is true.
He said Chrysler is going to be building Jeeps in China to imply that American jobs would be lost.
There is no other reasonable or rational way to interpret what he said. That was a bald faced lie, uttered without actually stating anything that was false
Everyone knows the best lies contain as much truth as possible, and this was easily the lie of the year.
Slashdot Mirror
If you had people generate a four word pass phrase, it's quite likely that most of them would contain only words from a relatively small subset of the English language.
Which is why the computer would generate the phrase.
2Correcthorse4batteryStapple!
Varying capitalization, and optionally separating the 4 words with 3 character symbols adds: 2*2*2*2*90*90*90*5*4*3 possible permutations: 6.9e8
Now that's not bad, and it definitely is more secure than the plain 4 words. BUT:
Assuming 200,000 words in the dictionary. Simply adding 3 more words to the end gives you 8e15 additional permutations.
8e15 is a LOT bigger than 6.9e8
And now we are at 7 symbols either way.
Remembering 3 more words is both easier and ridiculously more secure too.
Peppering a passphrase with difficult to remember symbols is missing the point. If you want more security, just add another random word or two. Either method increases its brute force complexity, but perhaps counterintuitively, adding a few words is far more secure than mangling the pass phrase with a few symbols.
4 symbols chosen randomly from a dictionary of ~200,000 by a computer not by you because you won't choose words randomly.
that makes it a 1 in 200000^4 to guess... or 1.6 x 10^21
compare that to an 8 character password also randomly generated. Passwords which are drawn from a set of around 90 symbols. (50 letters including upper and lower case, 10 digits, and ~30 symbols)
that's 90^8 or a measly 4.3 x10^15
a 4 word randomly chosen password from a dictionary is by far the better password, and much easier to remember too.
An 11 character password of completely random gibberish is about equivalent, to 4 random dictionary words. Good luck remembering somthing like `oN{/QM9PKb
which is no better than:
scald obsolescent period postpone
That isn't to say that all dishonesty is necessarily negative, but I challenge anyone to think of a single instance of "privacy" that isn't also "dishonest" if you assume that withholding the truth is also being dishonest.
Why would I ever accept such an idiotic assumption.
By your line of reasoning wearing underwear counts as "dishonest". Having your blinds closed is "dishonest". Peeing behind the bush instead of in front of it where i can see you is "dishonest". Keeping your bank PIN code a secret is "dishonest". Stubbing your toe and thinking "ouch" without saying it is "dishonest".
GIVE ME A FUCKING BREAK.
Only a complete idiot would categorize any of that as dishonesty. Sure we can all agree that not telling your girlfriend that you banged the neighbor should count as dishonest as you've breached the implicit agreement that is likely in effect to be mutually faithful and then concealed this fact, but simply electing not to volunteer an estimate of how many ounces you urinated this morning is not "dishonesty" by any reasonable stretch.
Well, let's see .. it has a CPU, memory, can do input, processing, and output (the Von Neumann definition). It's capable of doing Turing complete things, and writing code written for it.
And my OLD cellphone... not my new fancy galaxy s3... I'm tallking my old Motorola StarTAC.
Apparently that was a PC too. It even had some sort of Java and a hideous WAP browser as i recall... still miles better than what you could do with an Apple II though am i right?
So why didn't we see any articles in the 90s about how Motorola was a top 5 PC manufacturer I wonder?
So, tell us, what aspects of a phone or tablet make it not a computer in your mind? They'll both run rings around an old 486.
Because the term "personal computer" means something more than meeting the computer science definition of being capable of computing and being owned / operated by a person.
Why aren't phones or tablets personal computers? Because they are severely restricted in terms of capability relative to a contemporary personal computer.
But yeah, giving women freedom of choice means some women choosing things you don't like
What made you think I objected to women choosing to be booth babes?
I am disputing the idea that many women actually are "choosing" to be booth babes in the sense that it is a positive choice they are making vs it being the 'least objectionable option' they have available.
And I object to calling "taking the least objectionable option" some sort of "freedom of expression" and an example of women defining their own femininity for themselves.
So anybody will do anything for a paycheck? Nobody has any kind of personal level beneath which they will not stoop?
How does this help your argument? Anyone making choices along that boundary line is doing so because they have to, not because they want to. To try and talk about "freedom" in that context is absurd -- if they had actual freedom they'd choose something they wanted to do.
If for example they wanted to show of their bodies then instead of being booth babes they'd head to the beach.
Where they can do what they want, dress how they want, and they don't have to conform to any one elses standards of attractiveness to be there.
If you want to see women who are defining femininity for themselves... go to the beach. Everyone there chose to be there, and chose to wear what they are wearing.
Many girls probably wouldn't choose to do that
Nuff said?
but would still choose to do something similar, for a shorter amount of time.
Like actual modelling? Fashion shows. Magazine covers, cover girl for a lipstick brand, the sort of thing models actually aspire to?
But not booth babes.
Some girls like to show off their body.
And I don't dispute that. However, I will again point out that the cross section of women who like to show off their bodies includes a lot of women who could not get a job as a booth babe because they do not meet the 'standards of attractiveness' imposed on them.
Which circles round back to my argument that the booth babe job (and other 'model' class jobs) is not an example of women 'expressing themselves' and 'defining femininity for themselves'.
Mod this up! Really, is there anything more to be said?
Just because someone chose to be a model doesn't mean they look forward to going to work as a booth babe. It doesn't mean they endorse the job, the working conditions, or anything else. Its a job, they have the skills for it, and they happen to fit the EXTERNALLY IMPOSED definitions of 'attractiveness'.
Just because out of the jobs they were able to get they picked 'booth babe' that does not represent some lofty ideal concerning letting women define what it means to be feminine for themselves.
I personally know a very independent, very intelligent geek women who has in the past and intends in the future to work as a stripper, because she enjoys it and it makes her feel good about her body.
And I really don't see how that is at all relevant to the conversation. I don't dispute that you have a friend who likes being a stripper.
The women you find at booths are models. This is their chosen profession. Why should you denigrate them for it?
How many of them would show up for work as a booth babe if there wasn't a paycheck? I highly doubt many would.
Calling it their 'chosen profession' is absurd. As far as modelling gigs go "booth babe" isn't exactly what most models aspire to.
And more importantly did they set the standard of attractiveness to qualify as a model to get the booth babe job? Absolutely Not.
They happen to fit (and likely work at maintaining their fit) to an external view of femininity imposed on them and are taking advantage of that to make a living. There is nothing wrong with this per se, but I am disputing that it represents some sort high brow freedom of self expression or liberation, because it is nothing of the sort.
And if I decide it means running around in a miniskirt and pom poms, well... screw you.
And if you decide to do that on your own time, I don't have any criticism of it.
Me, if I lived in a world where I didn't need money, I'd still do what I do for a living for the enjoyment of doing it.
How many people would get up in the morning, with the actual freedom to decide how they want to spend their time instead of being constrained to get a paycheck, and decide to be a booth-babe?
You want to talk about "freedom" fine, lets remove the requirement that they collect a paycheck, and see how many of them would freely choose to spend their days as booth babes. Their might be a few and that's fine, but it wouldn't be most of them, not by a longshot. And to top it off many of the women who might freely choose to be a 'booth babe' probably couldn't get hired as one due to not living up to the standards of femininity and attractiveness set by OTHERS.
So much for calling the choice to be a booth babe "SELF EXPRESSION".
And how dare someone choose a job based on those factors. Those sluts!
Sure but lets not pretend they are "defining their own femininity" here. That's all I'm saying.
And the fact that they are choosing it does not qualify as an endorsement of the job or the working conditions or what it stands for.
They need money. It pays money. There is nothing deeper than that.
Just as a guy who takes an under the counter construction job that violates all kinds of labor laws, and all kinds of safety regulation is not making some sort of personal statement endorsing those conditions. Its just a paycheck.
If so, then so should these women, for themselves.
Sure, but lets not pretend they are "defining what femininity" is for themselves.
So do you get to make decisions for yourself about what is and is not acceptable for you how you make a paycheck?
No not me personally, but as a society yes, that's precisely what we do. For example, we set safety regulations even though there are plenty of people who would take a job that did not meet those safety standards. Should we let companies exploit that too?
We also prohibit many forms of sexual harassment now that many women used to endure. I suppose they were they just "expressing their femininity" when they chose to continue to work feed and support their families instead of making a stand about what they wouldn't tolerate in the workplace.
Recently some countries are starting to regulate models to promote better body image for regular women, and prevent the models themselves to subject themselves to starvation and other self abuse to attain the "desired weight".
If we're a free society, then every woman should feel free to define that for themselves...
Is that what you think 'scantily clad booth babes' are? Its free women deciding for themselves how to define their femininity? Yeah, you keep telling yourself that.
I'm finding it hard to swallow that there are any women out there looking to define their own femininity for themselves who ended up deciding that the best way to express their femininity is "scantily clad booth babe"
I'm pretty confident the women who have that option open to them aren't doing any lofty self-definition. Its a paycheck. And its better hours, working conditions, and pay than their other options.
I have a skill set. This company will pay me 1M for it, that one for 1.5M. I choose the 1.5M. I work there 6 consecutive years.
So far so good.
In that time I increase revenue by 300%, stock price doubles, everyones happy, and I even got a boost to 1.9M 18 months ago.
Now lets take a diversion... lets say you are the CEO at say, JP Morgan, where under your skilled leadership the company is participating in massive fraud. When the fraud bubble bursts, revenues drop drastically, and the bank needs a federal bailout to stay solvent and operational, meahwhile the share price slides from $55 to $15, and nobody is happy.
You've now established that you are not good at what you do, you are reckless, criminal, and ought to be in jail.
You still keep your job though, and are not only paid an exorbitant salary, but bonuses too for your performance, and if you ever leave you will have plenty of open doors at other companies.
The very definition of market forces indeed.
To have a Win 8 tile you apparently need to be in the store which means paying 30% and following their rules which are nearly identical to Apple's.
Except we don't actually know those rules are non-negotiable. You are assuming this is the case.
Why should Apple go through Windows store to have a tiled application on Windows 8?
Which apple application are you referring too here? An imaginary hypothetical one doesn't count. Apple doesn't sell any windows software. The only software they even distribute for windows is itunes/quicktime which is free.
Microsoft doesn't have a leg to stand on. They jus tlook like hypocrites.
They'd only be hypocrites if they refuse to negotiate with large companies that want to sell popular software that costs hundreds of dollars through the app store.
30% cuts make sense for $1 to $5 apps from vendors who have no infrastructure. They don't make sense for autocad and adobe CS or Microsoft Office etc.
But we have no evidence that microsoft is completely inflexible on rates for large partners who wish to sell expensive software in their store. So they aren't hypocrites.
And what fee do you think is right for someone that has to supply unlimited bandwidth and insfratructure support to get your app to people everytime they want to reinstall it as well as free 5gb of backup space.
You mean like Microsoft already has in place to support its customers? With its online store, and skydrive?
Why should Microsoft have to give 30% to apple to duplicate infrastructure it ALREADY has in place.
Microsoft isn't a small app developer with no brand recgonition and no infrastructure.
The ONLY reason they "need" apple is because Apple's walled-garden prevents them from interacting directly with customers.
I don't see it. Here's one...
"We weren't told they wanted more security " for diplomatic facilities in Libya.
Biden -- rated mostly false.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/12/joe-biden/biden-says-we-werent-told-Libya-security-requests/
They ~interpret~ Biden's statement, to determine what he could have meant a number of groups by "we".
They acknowledge It could very well be true that he and Obama weren't personally told Libya had
And then decide its 'mostly false' because even if by 'we' he meant potus and vpotus the statedepartment knew, and that it was misleading to imply otherwise.
requested more security.
They fact checked the claim "American jobs were being outsourced and lost because Chrysler would build Jeeps in China."
Politifact interpreted what they thought the claim was, and then fact checked it.
Statements like "The sky is blue." are simpler to interpret but you still have to interpret that the speaker is making a claim that the sky is blue. All but the very simplest of statements require interpretation.
You are plainly mistaken when you argue that politifact wasn't checking facts.
Now you can handwave all you want that poltifact interpreted the claim Romney was making wrong, and fact checked "the wrong claim". But even Mitt Romney didn't say that, so why would you spend so much time claiming that Romney might have meant something else, when even he didn't?
This statement by Obama was a bigger lie, "I believe the only way to create an economy built to last is to strengthen the middle class, asking the wealthy to pay a little more so we can pay down our debt in a balanced way,"
This is no deception there. Obama was clear. You can agree or disagree with the statement, because it is his opinion.
And its a statement of a pretty abstract belief about macro-economic theory; it is almost ridiculous to compare it to a statement about where jeeps are made.
The theory of fact checkers is that they will check the facts that politicians use and point out when those facts are wrong. In this case, Politifact, as part of a "fact check", called that statement a lie?
The "lie" was not that jeeps would be made in china. The lie was that "American jobs were being outsourced and lost because Chrysler would build Jeeps in China."
And he put that ad out in Ohio, where Jeeps are made, thus it didn't merely suggest that abstract American jobs were being lost, but the LOCAL economy was being affected.
It was lie of the year in large part because it took on a life of its own, and may well have contributed to Romney losing the election.
You are failing to defend Politifact, you don't have a problem with them calling it a lie because you opposed Romney.
The lie of the year the previous year was by Democrats that Republicans were going to shut down medicare -- so I don't see the partisan bias you seem to be implying exists.
See, now you are discussing what you believe that Romney should have said/how he should have made his point. That is not the question.
And you are splitting semantic hairs. He strung a few true statements next to eachother calculated to alledge a fact wihtout outright stating it. And along with reporting on the veracity of the actual jeep statement, acknowledging it was true. Poltifact also reported on the implied allegation that American jobs were being outsourced to China.
I don't see anything wrong with that, especially as the implication was the entire point of the message.
"Why is a company that just received a generous bailout from the U.S. government creating jobs in China rather than in the U.S.?
Are you suggesting the Chrysler not building a factory in China to build Jeeps for the Chinese would somehow benefit Americans?
Could that money not have been better spent improving production and increasing jobs in the U.S.? If the answer to the second question is 'No", is it really a good use of U.S. taxpayer dollars to help a company create jobs in China?"
If that's the message then that's what he should have said. In stead he said that "... Chrysler will build Jeep in China" and immediately followed that with "Mitt Romney will fight for American jobs".
Specifically note that he did not follow " ... build Jeeps in China" with "Mitt Romney will fight to ensure tax dollars are not spent bailing out multinational companies"
I think its pretty clear he was talking about jobs.
I do not know that Romney was saying
It's pretty clear to me, but if your still not sure then Romney should have spoken clearly and directly. Period.
After all this wasn't some off the cuff statement this was a produced commercial -- he had complete control of the message, time to review how it would be interpreted, time to run it by other people to ensure it would be interpreted they way he meant it.
If you "don't know what Romney was saying" then it was because Romney was deliberately attempting to be deceptive and misleading.
Personally I think his message was pretty clear. And your just struggling very hard to find some way of avoiding admitting it.
I don't disagree that in some cases politicians will say something ambiguous inadvertently. But this wasn't one of those times.
I'd like to know whether she's dealing directly with the streamer, or if their are middlemen, and if there are how much -they- take per play?
In both of my modifications, the fact checker does not call the original speaker a liar ... they merely add the facts which the original speaker left out
I'm perfectly fine for them to call them out as the half truths that they are. If the fact checker is compelled to 'add facts' to qualify something as true, then that says something about the original speaker don't you think?
As soon as you bring interpretation into it
You can't communicate without interpretation. And quite bluntly if a fact checker is presented with something with multiple reasonable interpretations then that should be called out as well.
"The fences didn't kill the Ostriches. The fire did. I don't think we need to worry about whether fences are leading to trapped birds because birds can fly."
fences didn't kill the Ostriches -- true fact.
fire killed the ostriches -- true fact
I don't think we need to worry about whether fences are leading to trapped birds -- authors opinion
birds can fly -- true fact
While most birds do indeed fly, the birds in question here do not fly. So while "birds can fly" is a generally true statement, its in "bald faced lie" territory in context.
If you don't think a fact checkers should call attention to that sort of deception then there is no point in fact checking because it is trivial to construct arguments using only true statements:
"Industry experts reported 8000 cars in America. Clearly we don't need to be spending billions on highway improvements."
Fact checked as true. Omitted detail: 8000 cars on the road was reported in 1900.
I want fact checkers to to interpret and rate what the speaker is actually attempting to communicate. And if there are multiple reasonable interpretations, then they should report THAT too, as the speaker is then either
a) failing to communicate effectively
b) deliberately phrasing things that way to be misleading about what they actually mean.
Neither is good, so the speaker should be called out for it.
40. People have names.
Newborn infants are often not named immediately. Whether they need an email address, user name, and permission to access a corporate domain prior to receiving a name is an entirely separate question.
But the point stands that there -are- people who are not named.
Now one could argue, and Politifact did, that Mitt Romney used that fact in a misleading way, but the fact itself is true.
He said Chrysler is going to be building Jeeps in China to imply that American jobs would be lost.
There is no other reasonable or rational way to interpret what he said. That was a bald faced lie, uttered without actually stating anything that was false
Everyone knows the best lies contain as much truth as possible, and this was easily the lie of the year.