Freedom of speech in the US seems to be continually misunderstood - it means you have the freedom to talk smack about the Government and they won't seek repercussions. No matter what you think about the state of the country, at least it's safer to criticize the Administration in the US than it would be in, say, Iran or North Korea or even China. And that's all because of freedom of speech.
This does NOT apply one bit to citizens having a go at one another
Well, the U.S. Supreme Court disagrees, fairly consistently, with your position that Freedom of Speech does not apply to citizens statements directed at other citizens rather than at the government; so, to the extent that the idea that it does apply to these circumstances is a "misunderstanding", its one which is not merely widespread, but has the practical force of law.
Paperless fax isn't stupid, its a way for a paperless office to interface with offices (and individuals) that remain paperful without, itself, becoming paperful.
I'm a software engineer, so naturally I do everything via computer. The exception is when I'm working out a problem and I need to scratch up some psuedocode or diagrams quickly. There's no way electronics could be an adequate substitute for working through problems on paper. Figuring out a problem on paper is both faster and less frustrating. It's the same reason why chalkboards/whiteboards exist.
I'm pretty sure the reason that chalkboards/whiteboards exist is that, in fact, there are adequate (and in certain roles, superior) substitutes for working something out on paper, even if they aren't electronic.
So you think the App Store and iTunes weren't under development years before their release?
At initial launch, Apple's message to both developers and consumers was that, with the iPhone, everything should be done via the web.
The switch to native apps was a response to how the web-only approach was received.
When were the Libertarians ever not part of the Republican Party.
The big-L Libertarians still aren't, they are part of the Libertarian Party.
Small-l libertarians split among the LP, both major parties, no party, and some other parties.
Its true that libertarian-ish rhetoric has been part of the Republican schtick starting around the time of (and mostly as a reaction to) the New Deal, and more intensely, IIRC, from about 1980 on.
Not so much. While I can't find 2012 figures, per capita money income in the US was lower in 2011 compared to 2001 (adjusted for inflation), though it was about 17% above where it was in 1991.
That chart you show is expressly not adjusted for inflation, which you would see if you hovered over the "?" by the title that explains the data (its also gross national income per capita which isn't the same thing as per capita money income). See this table (XLS): in 2011 dollars, per capita money income in the US was $27,554 in 2011, and $29,030 in 2001, and $23,540 in 1991.
The primary purpose of Google Fiber is to allow them to drill even deeper into your personal life and private information so they can "sell you" to advertisers.
Since its a paid service where the consumer is the service, I think that there is at least some reason to consider that (in addition to pushing the incumbent players in the market in a direction which improves accessibility and usefulness of Google's existing services) its a move to diversify their revenue stream so as not to rely solely on advertising, rather than primarily about improving access to information to be used to sell advertising.
Food is a much more essential good than fiber optic internet service, and yet I never hear anyone calling for the municipalities to nationalize (city-ize?) all the food stores in town.
The essential good angle is about the importance, which is one piece, but the real basis for utility treatment is the impracticality or undesirable consequences of mutliple competing sets of infrastructure, and is common with delivery networks of all types. For food (and lots of other goods) that's why you tend to have either publicly owned or privately-owned-but-publicly-licensed-and-tightly-regulated delivery networks (e.g., roads for food -- generally publicly-owned, but you see the same thing with power grid -- largely privately owned but as regulated utilities -- and many other things.)
To be fair, if you assume 4% of annual inflation, the original Xbox launch price ($300) is equivalent to ~$460 today.
The SNES ($199 in 1991) would be about the same.
The Neo Geo ($649 in 1990) would be ~$1500.
You know, actual inflation numbers -- and calculators which use them to do conversions of prices -- are trivial to locate online, so why use assumptions like this?
Adjusting for the actual inflation, the $299-in-2001 launch price of the Xbox is $388.68 today; the $199-in-1991 of the SNES would be $336.37 today, and the $649-in-1990 of the never-successful Neo Geo console would be $1,143.18 today.
Of course purchasing power has also increased
Not so much. While I can't find 2012 figures, per capita money income in the US was lower in 2011 compared to 2001 (adjusted for inflation), though it was about 17% above where it was in 1991.
So if the brick-and-mortar stores aren't helping, how should home users become aware of Ouya, PC + TV + gamepads, or Android + HDMI + gamepads?
Via the more tech-savvy people in their social networks (the actual web of personal connections, not limited to just the online services that go by the same name.)
Meanwhile, patriot groups self-organized into cyberarmies and spreading their extremist views will flourish.
Love the juxtaposition of "patriot" and "extremist".
Because clearly, not wanting to live in a corporate dystopia is an "extremist" viewpoint.
The groups McAfee is referring to here are politically-aligned "cyberarmies" that specifically support "extremist governments", they are one of several different types of "hacktivist" groups that are referred to as growing threats that are specifically being contrasted with Anonymous, which has the kind of broad anti-corporate-and-government power motivation you describe, and which is described as a threat that has peaked.
So, no, they aren't (in the passage you quote) suggesting that "not wanting to live in a corporate dystopia is an 'extremist' viewpoint."
Please, be assured that chips are not fries. Nobody ever goes into a chip shop and asks for fries.
Chips are fries, and tigers are cats. But, yes, if you specifically want a tiger for your magic show, you aren't going to ask for a "cat" and hope that you get a tiger instead of a housecat.
Doesn't a little concept called a perfectly competitive market solve this issue?
No, because that's an abstract concept used to simplify discussions in theoretical economics, not a real thing that exists anywhere in the real world in any market, so it doesn't actually solve any real problem.
Whatever info you gave when getting the card could probably be assumed to be old anyway. So you would also have to always use cash as, once you use a credit card, it's probably associated with that loyalty card along with the real information that can be assumed to be good.
Really? Because I use a loyalty card with my real phone number (well, I don't actually use the card, just the phone number; I never carry the darn cards), which -- because of a key collision in the stores database, actually gets someone else's card that was registered with the same number -- and sometimes use cash and sometimes use a credit card (which is mine, and has my name). I know that the person who actually registered the card is using it, too (or at least, someone else who is not me) from the information about rewards credits that gets printed on receipts (I never use the rewards credits, but its clear that someone else is earning them, at least.)
(Actually, to make this more interesting, in fact, at the same store, I do this with more than one phone number of mine, all of which have collisions which result in some other card being associated with the sales.)
So, tell me, how is the store going to build an accurate profile of any real customer using the data they are gathering from any of these cards?
Fries are thin and scraggly and unhealthy and taste like deep fried cardboard if bought from certain fast food chains.
Some fries are thin and scraggly, some aren't. Most things from certain fast food chains taste like deep fried cardboard, independent of what kind of food they notionally are.
Chips are fatter than fries and if done properly are a scrumptious blend of crispy outer with soft tasty centre.
All fries, regardless of size, if done properly are a scrumptious blend of crispy outer with soft tasty center; the large ones that are called "chips" in the UK are pretty similar to the ones called "steak fries" in the US.
Groceries aren't less expensive. to strongarm ppl into giving up their data the supermarkets made the loyalty price the normal price and the normal price is now just a total ripoff.
If grocery stores were using the cards for data mining, I would expect that they'd try harder to make sure that they were tying back to the right account; given that I've signed up for several Safeway cards over the years with several different phone numbers (all of which were mine at the time I signed up), and yet each of those when keyed into their POS system brought up someone else's card (and only that card), and that I've met lots of other people with similar experience, I don't think it does a very good job of getting accurate consumer profiles.
I am getting thoroughly sick of this "Everything is going to 'the cloud' " movement. I will never - repeat NEVER - trust all of my documents to a server somewhere far away under corporate control and government watch. Even if nothing I do is 'illegal' and all of my files are simply my own text creations, how do I know the government isn't going to subpoena everything on my drive and use it in conjunction with some unjust law they whipped up last night?
How do you know they aren't going to an issue a warrant for everything on your local drive, seize that, and use it in conjunction with some unjust law they whipped up last night?
I've played with Docs, but never used it for anything serious. The thing is, it's so easy to have the best of both worlds - mature, local software, stored in the cloud. Why bother with a purely cloud based solution?
For the casual user, low overhead. If I use Google Docs, any device I can use the web from I can access all the content created through the Google Docs apps, with no software to install beyond the browser.
For more involved uses, there are advantage to Google Docs if you are doing anything that involves using Apps Script to build workflows and/or web applications that are integrated with your documents (though this is probably more often going to involve spreadsheets than word processor docs.)
I cannot say much for quality of software, but it seems like all services have gone up in price A LOT (gmail storage, google apps). Maybe engineers are no longer calling the shots?
More likely, the pricing strategy from the beginning included an initially low price to account for the perceived risk of new, not-yet-widely-accepted solutions, and as adoption of Google's cloud offerings has expanded, the rationale for that low pricing has eroded.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, the U.S. Supreme Court disagrees, fairly consistently, with your position that Freedom of Speech does not apply to citizens statements directed at other citizens rather than at the government; so, to the extent that the idea that it does apply to these circumstances is a "misunderstanding", its one which is not merely widespread, but has the practical force of law.
Well, no, being untrue is necessary but not sufficient for it to be found to be libel.
Paperless fax isn't stupid, its a way for a paperless office to interface with offices (and individuals) that remain paperful without, itself, becoming paperful.
I'm pretty sure the reason that chalkboards/whiteboards exist is that, in fact, there are adequate (and in certain roles, superior) substitutes for working something out on paper, even if they aren't electronic.
Well, no. Chrome -- and therefore ChromeOS -- supports in-browser native applications via NativeClient.
Why should taxes meant to build and maintain roads used as post roads -- a federal Constitutional role -- be on the state level?
At initial launch, Apple's message to both developers and consumers was that, with the iPhone, everything should be done via the web. The switch to native apps was a response to how the web-only approach was received.
The big-L Libertarians still aren't, they are part of the Libertarian Party. Small-l libertarians split among the LP, both major parties, no party, and some other parties. Its true that libertarian-ish rhetoric has been part of the Republican schtick starting around the time of (and mostly as a reaction to) the New Deal, and more intensely, IIRC, from about 1980 on.
Well, if you misuse "direct" as badly as TFS misuses "descent", without the excuse of phonetic similarity to the intended word, maybe.
That chart you show is expressly not adjusted for inflation, which you would see if you hovered over the "?" by the title that explains the data (its also gross national income per capita which isn't the same thing as per capita money income). See this table (XLS): in 2011 dollars, per capita money income in the US was $27,554 in 2011, and $29,030 in 2001, and $23,540 in 1991.
Since its a paid service where the consumer is the service, I think that there is at least some reason to consider that (in addition to pushing the incumbent players in the market in a direction which improves accessibility and usefulness of Google's existing services) its a move to diversify their revenue stream so as not to rely solely on advertising, rather than primarily about improving access to information to be used to sell advertising.
The essential good angle is about the importance, which is one piece, but the real basis for utility treatment is the impracticality or undesirable consequences of mutliple competing sets of infrastructure, and is common with delivery networks of all types. For food (and lots of other goods) that's why you tend to have either publicly owned or privately-owned-but-publicly-licensed-and-tightly-regulated delivery networks (e.g., roads for food -- generally publicly-owned, but you see the same thing with power grid -- largely privately owned but as regulated utilities -- and many other things.)
Speaking anonymously may be a check against an abusive government, but the ultima ratio doesn't involve talking.
You know, actual inflation numbers -- and calculators which use them to do conversions of prices -- are trivial to locate online, so why use assumptions like this? Adjusting for the actual inflation, the $299-in-2001 launch price of the Xbox is $388.68 today; the $199-in-1991 of the SNES would be $336.37 today, and the $649-in-1990 of the never-successful Neo Geo console would be $1,143.18 today.
Not so much. While I can't find 2012 figures, per capita money income in the US was lower in 2011 compared to 2001 (adjusted for inflation), though it was about 17% above where it was in 1991.
Via the more tech-savvy people in their social networks (the actual web of personal connections, not limited to just the online services that go by the same name.)
The groups McAfee is referring to here are politically-aligned "cyberarmies" that specifically support "extremist governments", they are one of several different types of "hacktivist" groups that are referred to as growing threats that are specifically being contrasted with Anonymous, which has the kind of broad anti-corporate-and-government power motivation you describe, and which is described as a threat that has peaked.
So, no, they aren't (in the passage you quote) suggesting that "not wanting to live in a corporate dystopia is an 'extremist' viewpoint."
Chips are fries, and tigers are cats. But, yes, if you specifically want a tiger for your magic show, you aren't going to ask for a "cat" and hope that you get a tiger instead of a housecat.
No, because that's an abstract concept used to simplify discussions in theoretical economics, not a real thing that exists anywhere in the real world in any market, so it doesn't actually solve any real problem.
Really? Because I use a loyalty card with my real phone number (well, I don't actually use the card, just the phone number; I never carry the darn cards), which -- because of a key collision in the stores database, actually gets someone else's card that was registered with the same number -- and sometimes use cash and sometimes use a credit card (which is mine, and has my name). I know that the person who actually registered the card is using it, too (or at least, someone else who is not me) from the information about rewards credits that gets printed on receipts (I never use the rewards credits, but its clear that someone else is earning them, at least.)
(Actually, to make this more interesting, in fact, at the same store, I do this with more than one phone number of mine, all of which have collisions which result in some other card being associated with the sales.)
So, tell me, how is the store going to build an accurate profile of any real customer using the data they are gathering from any of these cards?
Yes, they are.
Some fries are thin and scraggly, some aren't. Most things from certain fast food chains taste like deep fried cardboard, independent of what kind of food they notionally are.
All fries, regardless of size, if done properly are a scrumptious blend of crispy outer with soft tasty center; the large ones that are called "chips" in the UK are pretty similar to the ones called "steak fries" in the US.
If grocery stores were using the cards for data mining, I would expect that they'd try harder to make sure that they were tying back to the right account; given that I've signed up for several Safeway cards over the years with several different phone numbers (all of which were mine at the time I signed up), and yet each of those when keyed into their POS system brought up someone else's card (and only that card), and that I've met lots of other people with similar experience, I don't think it does a very good job of getting accurate consumer profiles.
How do you know they aren't going to an issue a warrant for everything on your local drive, seize that, and use it in conjunction with some unjust law they whipped up last night?
For the casual user, low overhead. If I use Google Docs, any device I can use the web from I can access all the content created through the Google Docs apps, with no software to install beyond the browser. For more involved uses, there are advantage to Google Docs if you are doing anything that involves using Apps Script to build workflows and/or web applications that are integrated with your documents (though this is probably more often going to involve spreadsheets than word processor docs.)
Yes.
More likely, the pricing strategy from the beginning included an initially low price to account for the perceived risk of new, not-yet-widely-accepted solutions, and as adoption of Google's cloud offerings has expanded, the rationale for that low pricing has eroded.