Politicians are now getting into taxing people for their behaviors.
We now tax tobacco to help cover the costs that its use places on the health care system.
Now, politicians want to tax video games for the effects they have on social problems.
So, seeing as how we are now in a 'Tax-Happy' mood, using taxes to subsidize things, I propose the following:
Why don't we tax poorer people for the burden they place on the justice system? It's been proven that lower income areas have higher crime rates. So, if it is OK tax tobacco and alcohol for the burdens they place on the health system, then we can continue the process and tax lower income families for the increased costs of social problems and justice system costs.
I am just putting this idea forth as food for thought. It shows that the concept of taxing something for the costs that it places in a particular area is a very ill-conceived idea.
The tobacco taxes should be done away with, and people who have illnesses caused by tobacco usage should be required to pay for their own medical treatments. Nobody shoved that cigarette in their mouths and made them smoke it. And even when doctors told them it was safe, any idiot can understand that people can DIE FROM INHALING SMOKE. If a doctor told you that chugging gasoline was healthful, would you do it? If you are the kind of person who ignores common sense, and believes such outrageous things, then the world is better off without you. Cigarettes do not ALWAYS cause illness. Tobacco use does not ALWAYS cause cancer. Alcohol use does not ALWAYS cause cirrhosis. Alcohol use does not ALWAYS cause alcoholism. The links are strong, but using Substance X does not necessarily mean that Problem Y will occur.
If you choose to use a product that is hazardous, then they alone should be responsible for covering the medical costs related to its usage.
Sin Taxes are just a ploy used by politicians to generate money off of society's indulgences, because they need that money to replace all the dough they misspent in the first place. We wouldn't need the taxes we already have if politicians spent money correctly, rather than spending it on pet projects that they used to get themselves elected.
Social Darwinism isn't really a bad idea. If you do something stupid, and it comes back and bites you in the ass, why should I pay for your treatment?
"The functional replica will run the source code of an original program from 1952 by Christopher Strachey, whose sole purpose was generating love letters; it is historically interesting as one of the first examples of a text-generating program.".....You mean, one of the first examples of a spam-generating program. I see spammers have been doing their History homework.....
Nice pun. In my part of California, we've had people stealing live power cables and even pressurized irrigation and water pipes and such..... Even manhole covers, large statues, and industrial HVAC units off of building and gymnasium roofs (there was a case out here where 6 such units were removed off of the roofs of a high school overnight, and in a populated area)!
If they have ANY common sense, and are aware of the problems going on now, they will include stipulations that:
1. Service providers CANNOT oversell their bandwidth on the new networks, 2. Service providers CANNOT throttle customers on the new networks, 3. Agree and understand that the public owns the infrastructure, and NOT THEM, 4. That they can be fined for poor customer service, 5. Service providers CANNOT change contracts or force customers to sign new contracts when they change them that customers have already agreed to, 6. Cannot impose cap limits. 7. Rent the infrastructure from the public at a reasonable, publicly agreed rate, 8. Are not allowed to hold a "municipal monopoly", 9. Infrastructure cannot be purchased from the public, and can only be maintained and rented from the public. 10. Service providers cannot restrict content, inject advertising, prohibit ad-blocking, or record activity.
Although the chances of these being proposed, let alone accepted, are next to nil, there is bound to be SOME service provider that will notice the opportunity to offer services that no other major ISP will agree to, thereby nailing the market because large ISPs will not want the conditions. It's the same principle as satellite radio: People do not like commercials instead of music, and will pay a reasonable monthly fee to avoid having to listen to them. The terms are very hostile to large ISPs, and will allow smaller providers that are not as financially unstable and profit-centered as the large providers. Smaller companies tend to be more focused on service and reputation, while larger companies are focused on profit.
Seeing as how the Obama (Mis)administration has demonstrated its lack of concern for consumers, I highly doubt that it will require anything even *remotely* close to such conditions.
Bush was pretty bad. Ok, the Chief Party Turncoat and Control Freak when it came to domestic policy.
HOWEVER, after hearing Obama and his seemingly endless, droning, campaign of CHANGE and derision of Bush domestic policy, I have to ask:
WHAT FUCKING CHANGE?!
Where is the change in:
1. Classifying copyright laws as 'National Security"? 2. Supporting, continuing, and extending warrantless wiretaps? 3. Wasting money with bad stimulus packages? (AIG anyone?) 4. Denouncing lobbyists, and then appointing a Defense Industry lobbyist as Defense Secretary. 5. Denouncing terrorism, but wants to negotiate with the Taliban.
The list grows.....
Obama can take his change and shove it up his ass. He's just below Kwame Kilpatrick on the Corruption Scale.
A broken promise is a broken promise. You can put as much lipstick on a pig as you want, but it is still a pig. If Obama is as great a man as people are making him out to be, then he would admit to breaking the campaign promises he ran his campaign on.
It's really *not* that hard to get to underground conduits and vaults where utility and telecommunications lines run. Anybody who can pry open a manhole or defeat a lock can gain access to these lines, as the type of utility (water, power, gas, telecom) is usually cast into the metal cover itself. Any deranged individual with a screwdriver can access these points and cause a major outage. Even someone knocking down a utility pole or above-ground junction box (both most commonly by accident) can cause a major outage.
Telecom and power runs are particularly vulnerable, as they generally share the same pole, vault, or conduit, as it reduces the digging and pipe laying that needs to be done.
When it comes to fiber and phone lines, the risks are pretty small, as cutting or damaging fiber is easy, and there are no high-voltages to worry about. Phone lines are the same, since the voltage is low enough that a wooden or plastic handled tool is all the protection that is needed from shocks.
The downside of technology is that the more advanced it gets, the more vulnerable it is to failing. The only solution would be to armor fiber runs, but that would not stop a determined nutjob from success and would be extremely expensive.
Might be worth it though in areas where this kind of anarchic behavior is present.
As someone who refuses to fall for half-baked 'Green Thinking', and by that I mean ideas that win over our legislatures despite being more flawed than the current methods, I now own:
1. An illegal truck, 2. Illegal fuel cans, 3. Illegal light bulbs, and 4. Illegal toilets.
Whenever some new 'green' idea, it seems to overwhelm Congress and they spring for it, forgetting about the severe flaws in what they think is a wonderful technology.
Let's go down the list again:
1. An illegal truck. Currently, my old diesel pickup is more fuel efficient that a Toyota Prius, considering I get half the mileage, but at 2.31 times the weight. Also, there is the increased lifespan of the vehicle, and the fact that the Prius is not fully recyclable, and contains a very large and hazardous, non-recyclable battery. Yet, the Prius is considered more 'green' than my diesel pickup. Enough so that they have numerous incentives, such as using the carpool lane with no restrictions, and allow manufacturers and dealers to wronfully claim that they are more efficient, while placing heavier restrictions on more efficient vehicles.
2. Illegal Fuel Cans. I own and use the old-school Blitz fuel cans (the kind that resemble and old Jerry can) to store my extra fuel. They are now illegal to sell in California, because they do not meet emissions standards by having a rigid spring loaded nozzle to prevent vapors from escaping. Blitz cans have a large metal cap that screws onto the can, and the flexible screw-on spouts have a smaller metal screw-on cap. The new CA-legal nozzle is very cumbersome to use, especially when you are trying to pull back on the nozzle to open it AND hold and balance a very large and oddly-shaped 5 gallon fuel can. This usually results in fuel spilled which then evaporates to the atmosphere, completely defeating their intended purpose and causing a very hazardous situation. I many cases, the nozzles are too short to fuel up a car or vehicle without spillage. Irritatingly, unlike Blitz cans, they are also very oddly shaped, which makes stacking and storing them a hassle, not to mention the downsides of a meltable plastic container over a steel one. A steel can will rust, but it can easily be replaced before it fails, whereas a plastic one is more likely to be in proximity to heat sources that may cause it to melt and fail, spilling its contents rapidly.
3. Illegal Light Bulbs. I refuse to buy a CFL despite all the hype. Light bulbs break, and in their current widespread use, they break quite often. When a conventional incandescent bulb breaks, you just sweep up the shards and throw them away. When a CFL breaks, you have hazardous mercury thrown into the mix. Now, a simple broken bulb is now a hazardous materials accident. You now have mercury vapor coming into contact with a floor, and condensing on it. Where to children crawl? On the floor, and picking up the mercury. Where do people walk? On the floor, spreading it to various other surfaces and their hands when they touch their shoes or feet. If it were to break on a carpet (like from being accidentally stepped on, or after hitting furniture), that mercury vapor condenses and becomes embedded in the fibers.
4. Illegal Toilets. Low-flow toilets are more prone to clogging than regular toilets. I've seen shows where someone claims that their toilet can successfully flush a dozen or so golf balls down the drain without clogging. However, human feces are NOT golf balls. I know its disgusting to think about it, but in an engineering they are VERY different: Golf balls bounce, feces does not. Golf balls are hard, feces are not. Golf balls do not stick to porcelein, feces does. The differences are ones that you can figure out on your own. With a low-flow toilet, there is less energy available to overcome waste matter, its adhering to the toilet, and push it, and toilet paper, down the drain successfully. This requires more flushes and more clogged drains resulting in creased water use. The only thing low-flow toilet manufacturers have pro
"The value of a network equals the net value added to each user's transactions"
-----So, if I build a $25,000,000 computing center, and 1,000,000 people make searches for porn, then each search was worth $25?
I don't think so.
What determines a network's value is:
1. Quality of network hardware, 2. Quality of network software, 3. Network speed, 4. Network efficency.
However, this is just the value of the network.
The value of each transaction is dependent on the transaction's criticality value to the user, with 'criticality' being:
1. Usefulness of the transaction (to the customer), 2. Quality of the data (informational content), 3. Quality of the data (dropped bits, errors, etc.), 4. Urgency of the transaction (how badly the customer needs the information).
If the customer is in a situation where they need the information *NOW*, then the value of the transaction will increase as the deadline for the use of the information gets closer.
An Analogy:
If you have a research paper due in 2 months, the transactions you make are valuable, but not as valuable as transactions made 6 hours before the due date.
A company can have a cheap operation, but still have roughly the same value as any high-priced operation if they can make critical transactions just as fast. The limiting factor would be expansion capacity. Expansion capacity would limit the number of transactions that could be handled at comparative quality before needing to upgrade. If the need to expand does not justify the need for expenditures on an upgrade, than the values are roughly the same.
Are you kidding? Caffeine is the only thing that enables my cardiovascular system to FUNCTION.
Try 2 1L bottle of Diet Coke on the way to school, and then 3-4 cases after class and between the nest school day. By the time the weekend comes around, you pretty much crash and can sleep all weekend.....
So the AP wants money for web sites that list or link to it's articles?
NUTS TO THAT!
Just being the asshole that I am, here is my reply:
-----
A.P. Seeks to Rein in Sites Using Its Content
By RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑA Published: April 6, 2009
Taking aim at the way news is spread across the Internet, The Associated Press said on Monday that Web sites that used the work of news organizations must obtain permission and share revenue with them, and that it would take legal action against those that did not.
A.P. executives said they were concerned about a variety of news forums around the Web, including major search engines like Google and Yahoo and aggregators like the Drudge Report that link to news articles, smaller sites that sometimes reproduce articles whole, and companies that sell packaged news feeds.
They said they did not want to stop the appearance of articles around the Web, but to exercise some control over the practice and to profit from it.
The group's new stance applies to thousands of news organizations whose work is distributed by The A.P., as well as its own material, but the debate about unauthorized use has focused on newspapers, which are in serious financial trouble, and which own The A.P. The policies were adopted by the A.P. board, composed mostly of newspaper industry executives.
The A.P. will "work with portals and other partners who legally license our content" and will "seek legal and legislative remedies against those who don't," the A.P. chairman, William Dean Singleton, said Monday in a speech at the group's annual meeting, in San Diego. "We can no longer stand by and watch others walk off with our work under misguided legal theories."
News aggregators and search companies have long asserted that collecting snippets of articles -- usually headlines and a sentence or two -- is allowed under the legal doctrine of "fair use." News organizations have been reluctant to test that idea in court, and it is still not clear whether The A.P. is willing to test the fair use doctrine.
"This is not about defining fair use," said Sue A. Cross, a senior vice president of the group, who added several times during an interview that news organizations want to work with the aggregators, not against them. "There's a bigger economic issue at stake here that we're trying to tackle."
But the details remain to be worked out, she said, including how to limit use of articles and how to share revenue. When asked if The A.P. would require a licensing agreement before a search engine could show specific material, Ms. Cross said, "that could be an element of it," but added, "it's not that formed."
One goal of The A.P. and its members, she said, is to make sure that the top search engine results for news are "the original source or the most authoritative source," not a site that copied or paraphrased the work.
The A.P. will also pursue sites that reproduce large parts of articles, rather than using brief links, and it is developing a system to track articles online and determine whether they were used legally.
Neither Mr. Singleton nor a statement released by The A.P. mentioned any adversary by name. But many news executives, including some at The A.P., have voiced concern that their work has become a source of revenue for Google and other sites that can sell search terms or ads on pages that turn up articles.
At a time when newspaper revenue is collapsing and some papers are closing, the prospect of a share of revenue from Yahoo or Google is more tempting than ever. But executives at some news organizations have called the ire at the search engines misguided, saying that much of their own Web traffic arrives through links on search pages.
"We believe search engines are of real benefit to newspapers, driving valuable traffic to their Web sites and connecting them with new readers around the world," said Gabriel Stricker, a Google spokesman. "We believe that both Google Web Search and Google News are fully con
Bingo. There is nothing wrong with listing news articles in searches, especially since news sites, along with schools and governments institutions, have some of the downright crappiest search engines ever written.
Listing articles in search results is no different in telling someone where you read a particular article, or what news sites might be best, or actually have, the articles they are looking for. A query in a search engine is the electronic form of asking somebody a question.
AP just put themselves spread eagle. Now all they need to do is ask for a swift kick in the crotch ( read: file a lawsuit).
Piss off search engines badly enough by demanding that they pay you for listing your articles on a search will simply result in search engines NOT displaying sites that have the articles.
Search engines have multiple avenues of generating revenue, and will always have business, since they are generally the 'Starting Point' for internet activity, and are *very* well-known throughout the world. News sites, however, require that you know their url *exactly* if you want to view their site without having to use a search engine.
AP is trying to start a fight that it cannot possibly hope to win, and is on its way from reporting the news, to BEING the news. Google and other search engines have AP by the short hairs, and I don't forsee them playing nice on this one.
I think its about time MS finally realized that they weren't fooling anybody when they started touting Vista. I guess they finally realized that no matter what they, the manufacturers said, everybody who was a user told them otherwise.
Vista is the cadaver of software: Full of bugs and bloat.
""Except in a very small number of egregious and fraudulent cases, customers will not be responsible for losses (or gains) incurred for trades in excess of their buying power.""
-No fraud was perpetrated. The customer had no influence on what funds were available and how much they got.
Period. Why should people be held liable for someone else's mistakes?
If I were a Zecco customer, I would file suit to make them pick up the tab. If they are going to offer services as an online brokerage, they should have understood the risks, which, like all businesses, include making serious errors.
Think of it like this:
If a scalpel slips in the hands of a surgeon, and the patient bleeds to death, is the surgeon responsible because they were performing the surgery, or is the patient responsible because they bled to death? This issue of responsibility with Zecco is a no-brainer.
By changing the amounts of money in customers' account, Zecco basically 'gave' that extra money to the customers, and the customers spent it. Now, Zecco is trying to 'take back' that money. Regardless of the fact that Zecco made a mistake, they still *made the mistake*. I smell a lawsuit in the making.
"Just imagine, they argue, what television programs would be available if there were no commercials to fund their production. "
-TV show funding comes from the corporations that provide the financial backing from a variety of sources, not just advertising. Plus, the advertising products through ads isn't the only way companies let people know about their products. I can go to several sites and look to see what's new and available. You can use many ways of finding out about products on the Internet at anytime. On TV, you can only watch either the program or the advertisements at any one time. You can change the channel, but you will be watching something other than what you wanted to watch in the first place.
Advertisers should take note: If someone creates a way to NOT look at ads, and the means of blocking the ads are being adopted by more and more users, then that is a *VERY* strong sign that people do not want to see the ads. If people are blocking the ads, then advertisers should understand that whether they show the ads or not, people are most likely NOT going to buy the product or service being advertised. Companies will save money by not wasting it on advertising products that are not going to be bought, and consumers will go to places where they can voluntarily look for a product or service on their own, without having an ad shoved in their face.
People are most likely going to buy things when they need or want them, and when they do, they'll go looking for them. When you walk up to someone and constantly try to sell them something that they weren't looking for in the first place (think TRADE SHOWS), you'll definitely piss them off to some degree and they probably won't but it. Ever get annoyed by people begging for a handout outside a business's doors? That's exactly what ad companies are doing, except advertising on the internet it the equivalent of following you throughout the store and continually giving you sales pitches the entire time you're there. Whiny kids are bad enough, but a salesman attached to your back like a remora is even worse.
Anyways, maybe less TV shows for people to watch would mean more people going outside and having some good, old-fashioned fun as a source of enjoyment.
Ok..... knowing how tech writers LOVE to say something is the 'World's (INSERT ADJECTIVE HERE)' while leaving out attributes that clearly show otherwise, I have to ask.....
Does the.25mm thickness INCLUDE the driver, or are they just measuring the face surface of the speaker (what would be known as the cardboard/paper/plastic cone in a standard speaker).
I just have to ask for clarification, as I'm sick of reading articles claiming something that really isn't. (Like the Wireless Laptop Charger, which, although technically wasn't connected to the laptop when placed on the induction pad, still needed a cord to be plugged into the wall socket. Not really wireless, now is it?)
No, but it puts *all* places within easy reach to conduct research in selecting more vulnerable targets.
It's much easier for a criminal to research potential targets from the comfort of their home than to have to bother pounding the pavement.
Plus, neighbors tend to notice people that seem to stick out or that they haven't seen before. I can guarantee that someone would call the cops on me if they saw me milling about, in a different neighborhood taking pictures of houses, taking notes, and roaming the grounds looking in windows, over fences, and around walls and such.
When criminals pound the pavement, they stand out, and people will likely report them as suspicious persons. If they do it online, there is nobody to report them for suspicious activity.
Doing surveillance and research online is safer for criminals, since they can't be detected, and they don't expose themselves to the risks of being seen.
"In this way, President Sarkozy has sneaked his controversial legislation through the French parliament -- and shown his contempt for the democratic process."
-No he didn't show contempt for the Democratic Process. He put the measure up for a vote and it was voted on. Showing contempt for the Democratic Process would be issuing a decree, rather than asking for a vote.
You can blame the others, not Sarkozy, as they should have been updating themselves about governmental goings-on more often.
(Mod article -1 for "Politically Slanted Summary")
Yes, you do have the right to photograph from a public place, BUT what Google is doing with the photographs it takes demonstrates a problem with that right. The concept of being able to take pictures from a public place was not conceived with the knowledge that someone, let alone a company, would drive up and down every street with the intention of photographing every house an posting the images on the internet for the world to see.
The residents were absolutely correct in making Google leave. 'Street View' basically provides a virtual shopping mall for criminals looking to scout out new targets.
Crooks can gather *ALOT* of valuable information from such photographs:
1: Location. 2: Neighboring buildings. 3: Surrounding environment. 4: A rough building floorplan. 5: Points of entry. 6: Points of exit. 7: Possible escape routes away from the scene. 8: Economic status of the resident. 9: Vantage points where neighbors might detect them. 10: Pets (Number, type, and locations). 11: Observation points where the criminal can observe residents activity. 12: Hiding spots. 13: Obstacles to entry. 14: Obstacles to escape. 15: What kind of valuables might be present. 16: Likelihood of passers-by who might see them.
Any criminal can use this information to *GREATLY* increase their chances of a successful robbery.
Unfortunately, civil rights nutjobs will defend their right to photograph in public, but will crucify law abiding people if they shoot a criminal while he is trying to rob a house.
Laws like this make life easier for criminals, and harder for the rest of use who choose to defend ourselves from crime.
Big Brother already has a hell of a time keeping the US's *physical* borders secure, with all of the politically-correct bullshit that is allowing drug smugglers, human traffickers, illegal aliens, and other less-desirable what-not to cross the border illegally at will.
If you want an idea on how it will go, take all the political-correctness and bureaucratic hurdles that have prevented effective enforcement of physical borders. Then, substitue *your* computer for the concept of a national border.
Colbert, although I am a fan, should not be abusing such well-intentioned public contests for his own personal gain, and NASA is right in wanting to change the name, but finds itself in a PR predicament in trying to involve the public yet not enabling someone prominent to turn a public contest into a self-serving ego booster (Pun intended).
Ok..... So Colbert won the contest, although he *did* use his TV show and it's massive audience to do it, of which your Average Joe has neither. This is obviously quite unfair to the rest of those that wrote in, but the agency did have the contest, YET reserved the right to change the name.
A good compromise would be to allow Colbert to name the new module, but should allow something reasonable (not like 'Comedy Central', or some other grandstanding term), and other than his, or anybody else's name.
NASA made a good call in this one by disagreeing.
Quote from Calvin And Hobbes: "A good compromise leaves everybody mad." (One of my favorite quotes!)
Slashdot Mirror
Politicians are now getting into taxing people for their behaviors.
We now tax tobacco to help cover the costs that its use places on the health care system.
Now, politicians want to tax video games for the effects they have on social problems.
So, seeing as how we are now in a 'Tax-Happy' mood, using taxes to subsidize things, I propose the following:
Why don't we tax poorer people for the burden they place on the justice system? It's been proven that lower income areas have higher crime rates. So, if it is OK tax tobacco and alcohol for the burdens they place on the health system, then we can continue the process and tax lower income families for the increased costs of social problems and justice system costs.
I am just putting this idea forth as food for thought. It shows that the concept of taxing something for the costs that it places in a particular area is a very ill-conceived idea.
The tobacco taxes should be done away with, and people who have illnesses caused by tobacco usage should be required to pay for their own medical treatments. Nobody shoved that cigarette in their mouths and made them smoke it. And even when doctors told them it was safe, any idiot can understand that people can DIE FROM INHALING SMOKE. If a doctor told you that chugging gasoline was healthful, would you do it? If you are the kind of person who ignores common sense, and believes such outrageous things, then the world is better off without you. Cigarettes do not ALWAYS cause illness. Tobacco use does not ALWAYS cause cancer. Alcohol use does not ALWAYS cause cirrhosis. Alcohol use does not ALWAYS cause alcoholism. The links are strong, but using Substance X does not necessarily mean that Problem Y will occur.
If you choose to use a product that is hazardous, then they alone should be responsible for covering the medical costs related to its usage.
Sin Taxes are just a ploy used by politicians to generate money off of society's indulgences, because they need that money to replace all the dough they misspent in the first place. We wouldn't need the taxes we already have if politicians spent money correctly, rather than spending it on pet projects that they used to get themselves elected.
Social Darwinism isn't really a bad idea. If you do something stupid, and it comes back and bites you in the ass, why should I pay for your treatment?
What's next? A tax on my greenhouse gas emissions after eating a big bowl of Pedro's Atomic Chile Con Carne?!
My guess is that those Swedish tax officials are just angry because strippers just aren't that interested in beancounters.
"The functional replica will run the source code of an original program from 1952 by Christopher Strachey, whose sole purpose was generating love letters; it is historically interesting as one of the first examples of a text-generating program." .....You mean, one of the first examples of a spam-generating program. I see spammers have been doing their History homework.....
Haha! "Joe Copper".....
Nice pun. In my part of California, we've had people stealing live power cables and even pressurized irrigation and water pipes and such..... Even manhole covers, large statues, and industrial HVAC units off of building and gymnasium roofs (there was a case out here where 6 such units were removed off of the roofs of a high school overnight, and in a populated area)!
If they have ANY common sense, and are aware of the problems going on now, they will include stipulations that:
1. Service providers CANNOT oversell their bandwidth on the new networks,
2. Service providers CANNOT throttle customers on the new networks,
3. Agree and understand that the public owns the infrastructure, and NOT THEM,
4. That they can be fined for poor customer service,
5. Service providers CANNOT change contracts or force customers to sign new contracts when they change them that customers have already agreed to,
6. Cannot impose cap limits.
7. Rent the infrastructure from the public at a reasonable, publicly agreed rate,
8. Are not allowed to hold a "municipal monopoly",
9. Infrastructure cannot be purchased from the public, and can only be maintained and rented from the public.
10. Service providers cannot restrict content, inject advertising, prohibit ad-blocking, or record activity.
Although the chances of these being proposed, let alone accepted, are next to nil, there is bound to be SOME service provider that will notice the opportunity to offer services that no other major ISP will agree to, thereby nailing the market because large ISPs will not want the conditions. It's the same principle as satellite radio: People do not like commercials instead of music, and will pay a reasonable monthly fee to avoid having to listen to them. The terms are very hostile to large ISPs, and will allow smaller providers that are not as financially unstable and profit-centered as the large providers. Smaller companies tend to be more focused on service and reputation, while larger companies are focused on profit.
Seeing as how the Obama (Mis)administration has demonstrated its lack of concern for consumers, I highly doubt that it will require anything even *remotely* close to such conditions.
HA! I didn't vote for him.
Bush was pretty bad. Ok, the Chief Party Turncoat and Control Freak when it came to domestic policy.
HOWEVER, after hearing Obama and his seemingly endless, droning, campaign of CHANGE and derision of Bush domestic policy, I have to ask:
WHAT FUCKING CHANGE?!
Where is the change in:
1. Classifying copyright laws as 'National Security"?
2. Supporting, continuing, and extending warrantless wiretaps?
3. Wasting money with bad stimulus packages? (AIG anyone?)
4. Denouncing lobbyists, and then appointing a Defense Industry lobbyist as Defense Secretary.
5. Denouncing terrorism, but wants to negotiate with the Taliban.
The list grows.....
Obama can take his change and shove it up his ass. He's just below Kwame Kilpatrick on the Corruption Scale.
A broken promise is a broken promise. You can put as much lipstick on a pig as you want, but it is still a pig. If Obama is as great a man as people are making him out to be, then he would admit to breaking the campaign promises he ran his campaign on.
It's really *not* that hard to get to underground conduits and vaults where utility and telecommunications lines run. Anybody who can pry open a manhole or defeat a lock can gain access to these lines, as the type of utility (water, power, gas, telecom) is usually cast into the metal cover itself. Any deranged individual with a screwdriver can access these points and cause a major outage. Even someone knocking down a utility pole or above-ground junction box (both most commonly by accident) can cause a major outage.
Telecom and power runs are particularly vulnerable, as they generally share the same pole, vault, or conduit, as it reduces the digging and pipe laying that needs to be done.
When it comes to fiber and phone lines, the risks are pretty small, as cutting or damaging fiber is easy, and there are no high-voltages to worry about. Phone lines are the same, since the voltage is low enough that a wooden or plastic handled tool is all the protection that is needed from shocks.
The downside of technology is that the more advanced it gets, the more vulnerable it is to failing. The only solution would be to armor fiber runs, but that would not stop a determined nutjob from success and would be extremely expensive.
Might be worth it though in areas where this kind of anarchic behavior is present.
As someone who refuses to fall for half-baked 'Green Thinking', and by that I mean ideas that win over our legislatures despite being more flawed than the current methods, I now own:
1. An illegal truck,
2. Illegal fuel cans,
3. Illegal light bulbs, and
4. Illegal toilets.
Whenever some new 'green' idea, it seems to overwhelm Congress and they spring for it, forgetting about the severe flaws in what they think is a wonderful technology.
Let's go down the list again:
1. An illegal truck. Currently, my old diesel pickup is more fuel efficient that a Toyota Prius, considering I get half the mileage, but at 2.31 times the weight. Also, there is the increased lifespan of the vehicle, and the fact that the Prius is not fully recyclable, and contains a very large and hazardous, non-recyclable battery. Yet, the Prius is considered more 'green' than my diesel pickup. Enough so that they have numerous incentives, such as using the carpool lane with no restrictions, and allow manufacturers and dealers to wronfully claim that they are more efficient, while placing heavier restrictions on more efficient vehicles.
2. Illegal Fuel Cans. I own and use the old-school Blitz fuel cans (the kind that resemble and old Jerry can) to store my extra fuel. They are now illegal to sell in California, because they do not meet emissions standards by having a rigid spring loaded nozzle to prevent vapors from escaping. Blitz cans have a large metal cap that screws onto the can, and the flexible screw-on spouts have a smaller metal screw-on cap. The new CA-legal nozzle is very cumbersome to use, especially when you are trying to pull back on the nozzle to open it AND hold and balance a very large and oddly-shaped 5 gallon fuel can. This usually results in fuel spilled which then evaporates to the atmosphere, completely defeating their intended purpose and causing a very hazardous situation. I many cases, the nozzles are too short to fuel up a car or vehicle without spillage. Irritatingly, unlike Blitz cans, they are also very oddly shaped, which makes stacking and storing them a hassle, not to mention the downsides of a meltable plastic container over a steel one. A steel can will rust, but it can easily be replaced before it fails, whereas a plastic one is more likely to be in proximity to heat sources that may cause it to melt and fail, spilling its contents rapidly.
3. Illegal Light Bulbs. I refuse to buy a CFL despite all the hype. Light bulbs break, and in their current widespread use, they break quite often. When a conventional incandescent bulb breaks, you just sweep up the shards and throw them away. When a CFL breaks, you have hazardous mercury thrown into the mix. Now, a simple broken bulb is now a hazardous materials accident. You now have mercury vapor coming into contact with a floor, and condensing on it. Where to children crawl? On the floor, and picking up the mercury. Where do people walk? On the floor, spreading it to various other surfaces and their hands when they touch their shoes or feet. If it were to break on a carpet (like from being accidentally stepped on, or after hitting furniture), that mercury vapor condenses and becomes embedded in the fibers.
4. Illegal Toilets. Low-flow toilets are more prone to clogging than regular toilets. I've seen shows where someone claims that their toilet can successfully flush a dozen or so golf balls down the drain without clogging. However, human feces are NOT golf balls. I know its disgusting to think about it, but in an engineering they are VERY different: Golf balls bounce, feces does not. Golf balls are hard, feces are not. Golf balls do not stick to porcelein, feces does. The differences are ones that you can figure out on your own. With a low-flow toilet, there is less energy available to overcome waste matter, its adhering to the toilet, and push it, and toilet paper, down the drain successfully. This requires more flushes and more clogged drains resulting in creased water use. The only thing low-flow toilet manufacturers have pro
"The value of a network equals the net value added to each user's transactions"
-----So, if I build a $25,000,000 computing center, and 1,000,000 people make searches for porn, then each search was worth $25?
I don't think so.
What determines a network's value is:
1. Quality of network hardware,
2. Quality of network software,
3. Network speed,
4. Network efficency.
However, this is just the value of the network.
The value of each transaction is dependent on the transaction's criticality value to the user, with 'criticality' being:
1. Usefulness of the transaction (to the customer),
2. Quality of the data (informational content),
3. Quality of the data (dropped bits, errors, etc.),
4. Urgency of the transaction (how badly the customer needs the information).
If the customer is in a situation where they need the information *NOW*, then the value of the transaction will increase as the deadline for the use of the information gets closer.
An Analogy:
If you have a research paper due in 2 months, the transactions you make are valuable, but not as valuable as transactions made 6 hours before the due date.
A company can have a cheap operation, but still have roughly the same value as any high-priced operation if they can make critical transactions just as fast. The limiting factor would be expansion capacity. Expansion capacity would limit the number of transactions that could be handled at comparative quality before needing to upgrade. If the need to expand does not justify the need for expenditures on an upgrade, than the values are roughly the same.
Are you kidding? Caffeine is the only thing that enables my cardiovascular system to FUNCTION.
Try 2 1L bottle of Diet Coke on the way to school, and then 3-4 cases after class and between the nest school day. By the time the weekend comes around, you pretty much crash and can sleep all weekend.....
(thunk!) .....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
So the AP wants money for web sites that list or link to it's articles?
NUTS TO THAT!
Just being the asshole that I am, here is my reply:
-----
A.P. Seeks to Rein in Sites Using Its Content
By RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑA
Published: April 6, 2009
Taking aim at the way news is spread across the Internet, The Associated Press said on Monday that Web sites that used the work of news organizations must obtain permission and share revenue with them, and that it would take legal action against those that did not.
A.P. executives said they were concerned about a variety of news forums around the Web, including major search engines like Google and Yahoo and aggregators like the Drudge Report that link to news articles, smaller sites that sometimes reproduce articles whole, and companies that sell packaged news feeds.
They said they did not want to stop the appearance of articles around the Web, but to exercise some control over the practice and to profit from it.
The group's new stance applies to thousands of news organizations whose work is distributed by The A.P., as well as its own material, but the debate about unauthorized use has focused on newspapers, which are in serious financial trouble, and which own The A.P. The policies were adopted by the A.P. board, composed mostly of newspaper industry executives.
The A.P. will "work with portals and other partners who legally license our content" and will "seek legal and legislative remedies against those who don't," the A.P. chairman, William Dean Singleton, said Monday in a speech at the group's annual meeting, in San Diego. "We can no longer stand by and watch others walk off with our work under misguided legal theories."
News aggregators and search companies have long asserted that collecting snippets of articles -- usually headlines and a sentence or two -- is allowed under the legal doctrine of "fair use." News organizations have been reluctant to test that idea in court, and it is still not clear whether The A.P. is willing to test the fair use doctrine.
"This is not about defining fair use," said Sue A. Cross, a senior vice president of the group, who added several times during an interview that news organizations want to work with the aggregators, not against them. "There's a bigger economic issue at stake here that we're trying to tackle."
But the details remain to be worked out, she said, including how to limit use of articles and how to share revenue. When asked if The A.P. would require a licensing agreement before a search engine could show specific material, Ms. Cross said, "that could be an element of it," but added, "it's not that formed."
One goal of The A.P. and its members, she said, is to make sure that the top search engine results for news are "the original source or the most authoritative source," not a site that copied or paraphrased the work.
The A.P. will also pursue sites that reproduce large parts of articles, rather than using brief links, and it is developing a system to track articles online and determine whether they were used legally.
Neither Mr. Singleton nor a statement released by The A.P. mentioned any adversary by name. But many news executives, including some at The A.P., have voiced concern that their work has become a source of revenue for Google and other sites that can sell search terms or ads on pages that turn up articles.
At a time when newspaper revenue is collapsing and some papers are closing, the prospect of a share of revenue from Yahoo or Google is more tempting than ever. But executives at some news organizations have called the ire at the search engines misguided, saying that much of their own Web traffic arrives through links on search pages.
"We believe search engines are of real benefit to newspapers, driving valuable traffic to their Web sites and connecting them with new readers around the world," said Gabriel Stricker, a Google spokesman. "We believe that both Google Web Search and Google News are fully con
Bingo. There is nothing wrong with listing news articles in searches, especially since news sites, along with schools and governments institutions, have some of the downright crappiest search engines ever written.
Listing articles in search results is no different in telling someone where you read a particular article, or what news sites might be best, or actually have, the articles they are looking for. A query in a search engine is the electronic form of asking somebody a question.
AP just put themselves spread eagle. Now all they need to do is ask for a swift kick in the crotch ( read: file a lawsuit).
This is going to backfire BIG TIME.
Piss off search engines badly enough by demanding that they pay you for listing your articles on a search will simply result in search engines NOT displaying sites that have the articles.
Search engines have multiple avenues of generating revenue, and will always have business, since they are generally the 'Starting Point' for internet activity, and are *very* well-known throughout the world. News sites, however, require that you know their url *exactly* if you want to view their site without having to use a search engine.
AP is trying to start a fight that it cannot possibly hope to win, and is on its way from reporting the news, to BEING the news. Google and other search engines have AP by the short hairs, and I don't forsee them playing nice on this one.
"'broadened the options'"
-Translates to: "Caved into demands".
I think its about time MS finally realized that they weren't fooling anybody when they started touting Vista. I guess they finally realized that no matter what they, the manufacturers said, everybody who was a user told them otherwise.
Vista is the cadaver of software: Full of bugs and bloat.
""Except in a very small number of egregious and fraudulent cases, customers will not be responsible for losses (or gains) incurred for trades in excess of their buying power.""
-No fraud was perpetrated. The customer had no influence on what funds were available and how much they got.
Zecco made the error.
Zecco eats the consequences.
Period. Why should people be held liable for someone else's mistakes?
If I were a Zecco customer, I would file suit to make them pick up the tab. If they are going to offer services as an online brokerage, they should have understood the risks, which, like all businesses, include making serious errors.
Think of it like this:
If a scalpel slips in the hands of a surgeon, and the patient bleeds to death, is the surgeon responsible because they were performing the surgery, or is the patient responsible because they bled to death? This issue of responsibility with Zecco is a no-brainer.
By changing the amounts of money in customers' account, Zecco basically 'gave' that extra money to the customers, and the customers spent it. Now, Zecco is trying to 'take back' that money. Regardless of the fact that Zecco made a mistake, they still *made the mistake*. I smell a lawsuit in the making.
FTFA:
"Just imagine, they argue, what television programs would be available if there were no commercials to fund their production. "
-TV show funding comes from the corporations that provide the financial backing from a variety of sources, not just advertising. Plus, the advertising products through ads isn't the only way companies let people know about their products. I can go to several sites and look to see what's new and available. You can use many ways of finding out about products on the Internet at anytime. On TV, you can only watch either the program or the advertisements at any one time. You can change the channel, but you will be watching something other than what you wanted to watch in the first place.
Advertisers should take note: If someone creates a way to NOT look at ads, and the means of blocking the ads are being adopted by more and more users, then that is a *VERY* strong sign that people do not want to see the ads. If people are blocking the ads, then advertisers should understand that whether they show the ads or not, people are most likely NOT going to buy the product or service being advertised. Companies will save money by not wasting it on advertising products that are not going to be bought, and consumers will go to places where they can voluntarily look for a product or service on their own, without having an ad shoved in their face.
People are most likely going to buy things when they need or want them, and when they do, they'll go looking for them. When you walk up to someone and constantly try to sell them something that they weren't looking for in the first place (think TRADE SHOWS), you'll definitely piss them off to some degree and they probably won't but it. Ever get annoyed by people begging for a handout outside a business's doors? That's exactly what ad companies are doing, except advertising on the internet it the equivalent of following you throughout the store and continually giving you sales pitches the entire time you're there. Whiny kids are bad enough, but a salesman attached to your back like a remora is even worse.
Anyways, maybe less TV shows for people to watch would mean more people going outside and having some good, old-fashioned fun as a source of enjoyment.
Ok..... knowing how tech writers LOVE to say something is the 'World's (INSERT ADJECTIVE HERE)' while leaving out attributes that clearly show otherwise, I have to ask.....
Does the .25mm thickness INCLUDE the driver, or are they just measuring the face surface of the speaker (what would be known as the cardboard/paper/plastic cone in a standard speaker).
I just have to ask for clarification, as I'm sick of reading articles claiming something that really isn't. (Like the Wireless Laptop Charger, which, although technically wasn't connected to the laptop when placed on the induction pad, still needed a cord to be plugged into the wall socket. Not really wireless, now is it?)
No, but it puts *all* places within easy reach to conduct research in selecting more vulnerable targets.
It's much easier for a criminal to research potential targets from the comfort of their home than to have to bother pounding the pavement.
Plus, neighbors tend to notice people that seem to stick out or that they haven't seen before. I can guarantee that someone would call the cops on me if they saw me milling about, in a different neighborhood taking pictures of houses, taking notes, and roaming the grounds looking in windows, over fences, and around walls and such.
When criminals pound the pavement, they stand out, and people will likely report them as suspicious persons. If they do it online, there is nobody to report them for suspicious activity.
Doing surveillance and research online is safer for criminals, since they can't be detected, and they don't expose themselves to the risks of being seen.
"In this way, President Sarkozy has sneaked his controversial legislation through the French parliament -- and shown his contempt for the democratic process."
-No he didn't show contempt for the Democratic Process. He put the measure up for a vote and it was voted on. Showing contempt for the Democratic Process would be issuing a decree, rather than asking for a vote.
You can blame the others, not Sarkozy, as they should have been updating themselves about governmental goings-on more often.
(Mod article -1 for "Politically Slanted Summary")
Yes, you do have the right to photograph from a public place, BUT what Google is doing with the photographs it takes demonstrates a problem with that right. The concept of being able to take pictures from a public place was not conceived with the knowledge that someone, let alone a company, would drive up and down every street with the intention of photographing every house an posting the images on the internet for the world to see.
The residents were absolutely correct in making Google leave. 'Street View' basically provides a virtual shopping mall for criminals looking to scout out new targets.
Crooks can gather *ALOT* of valuable information from such photographs:
1: Location.
2: Neighboring buildings.
3: Surrounding environment.
4: A rough building floorplan.
5: Points of entry.
6: Points of exit.
7: Possible escape routes away from the scene.
8: Economic status of the resident.
9: Vantage points where neighbors might detect them.
10: Pets (Number, type, and locations).
11: Observation points where the criminal can observe residents activity.
12: Hiding spots.
13: Obstacles to entry.
14: Obstacles to escape.
15: What kind of valuables might be present.
16: Likelihood of passers-by who might see them.
Any criminal can use this information to *GREATLY* increase their chances of a successful robbery.
Unfortunately, civil rights nutjobs will defend their right to photograph in public, but will crucify law abiding people if they shoot a criminal while he is trying to rob a house.
Laws like this make life easier for criminals, and harder for the rest of use who choose to defend ourselves from crime.
Federalizing cybersecurity?
FUCK THAT!
Big Brother already has a hell of a time keeping the US's *physical* borders secure, with all of the politically-correct bullshit that is allowing drug smugglers, human traffickers, illegal aliens, and other less-desirable what-not to cross the border illegally at will.
If you want an idea on how it will go, take all the political-correctness and bureaucratic hurdles that have prevented effective enforcement of physical borders. Then, substitue *your* computer for the concept of a national border.
Scary thought, huh?
Colbert, although I am a fan, should not be abusing such well-intentioned public contests for his own personal gain, and NASA is right in wanting to change the name, but finds itself in a PR predicament in trying to involve the public yet not enabling someone prominent to turn a public contest into a self-serving ego booster (Pun intended).
Ok..... So Colbert won the contest, although he *did* use his TV show and it's massive audience to do it, of which your Average Joe has neither. This is obviously quite unfair to the rest of those that wrote in, but the agency did have the contest, YET reserved the right to change the name.
A good compromise would be to allow Colbert to name the new module, but should allow something reasonable (not like 'Comedy Central', or some other grandstanding term), and other than his, or anybody else's name.
NASA made a good call in this one by disagreeing.
Quote from Calvin And Hobbes: "A good compromise leaves everybody mad." (One of my favorite quotes!)
However, Leprechaun porn is still O.K.
"Star Trek Sequel Already Planned"
-Is that like when two Trekkies talk about having a baby?