As much as I'm for the right to bear arms, do you really think the legal guns that our allowed militia will carry will even compare to the illegal (for citizens and militias) guns, bombs, tanks, jets, helicopters, etc. that we pay for and our government uses? Not to mention sheer numbers.
At one point the 2nd ammendment was a government reset button. Not the case anymore.
If the overall amount of online fraud goes up and makes headlines, people shop online less, because while you may not be liable, try telling that to the bank when you want to take out a loan for a house and get denied (read: while you're not liable, the charges still mess up your credit and credit score). Businesses invest more in security to get them back. To make up for this cost, they raise prices. Cost to consumer goes up.
The two reasons listed above are why you should worry about it.
And the scarier part is that even when they WANT to run as regular users (which entails creating a new user since the default user is an adminstrator. This is something most Windows users don't know how to do because they don't know why they need to do it), they'll find that most of their software no longer runs.
Compare to...any other OS: they tell you right off the bat "hey, you probably don't want to run as administrator. Here, let me make you a limited account that you should use to access your computer. It will work just fine for most of your needs, trust me."
Now excuse me while I find my tinfoil hat and try to figure out why exactly MS wants us to all run as admins.
(thought I posted this above)
If you want evidence that we're too young for self-governance, simply ask yourself where all those people capable of doing it those many years ago are now. Either they too caved to other governmental systems, fell by the way-side into the "third world" with all the problems (poverty, civil war, etc.) that go with it, or were wiped out by other governmental systems. In any case, their overall success was 0.
Our species is old enough to handle self-governance in populations below 500 (about the number of faces the human brain can remember, IIRC). For every number after 500 in the population, chance of success lowers as relative anonymity makes one less prudent in their actions.
Another thing to keep in mind is measure of success. To me, successful operation of such a governmental system would mean without killing for petty reasons (hopefully at all), and with a level of comfort comparable to many 1st world countries today. Indigenous cultures constantly warred, and oftentimes even those cultures had a "chief" or some other arbitrary name applied to one person who made decisions for the group. In larger examples, crime went up with numbers. It just wasn't called crime.
Further, those civilizations doubtfully would be able to hold a comparable level of comfort today, because of the population limitation. That is evidenced by those cultures which do remain: marginalized, and 3rd-world in many cases.
So were previous civilizations able to do it? Yes, to the same degree we are now able to do it: under very restrictive rules.
The problem is that ultimately, someone always comes forward to take advantage of a system devoid of authority, and sees it as his/her opportunity to become the authority. Because of this bad apple, and the inability of the people to deal with the bad apple in an effective manner, I still hold that our species, not any particular culture or cultures, is too young for self-governance with the addendums of I. at the current world population/resource ratio, and II. with any measure of acceptable success.
funny, how the backspace (aka "Woops, I made a mistake") key is located just a few mm above the return (aka "I'm satisfied and would like to use that") key on most keyboards. Seems they should be on completely opposite sides of the keyboard.
The way it stands now, we would need to hire a firm to talk to the firm we've already hired. How long until we have to hire another firm to talk to them? Starting to sound a lot like Feudalism....
Self-governance is the only acceptable form of government. Too bad the species is too young to handle it responsibly.
Increased strain on the parts, combined with a possibly poor heatsink design (a la the vaio notebook) could cause the constant CPU usage to result in the system dying long before it should, ie "built in obsolecense." Certainly wouldn't be a first for Sony.
Not saying it's gonna happen, hell it may be built completely flawless for all I know. But, you know, it could be a "conspiracy";)
One reason we're all obsessed with gas prices might be because it's a common thread amongst everyone- almost everyone in this country relies upon oil (with a large portion of those using gasoline)...it's a conversation topic somewhere between "how about that weather?" and "how about them Yankees?"
I remember back in 97 downloading a TI-86 assembly program that a Green Day song(can't remember which, but at that point in time it didn't really matter) which played with played really, REALLY horrid quality.
something tells me the calculator wasn't responsible for the quality.
Addendum: this would also require the Zune reaching a point where it is the portable music player of choice for the majority of your specific demographic.
As an artist trying to get recognized, CC is a great way to spread your work among millions. Now if you ever made it big...the amount of money you might make in the future would be huge.
Find records of artists who were signed after so-and-so recording exec heard the song from a friend of a brother's friend, and you have proven that sharing music can result in a major record deal.
The Zune prevents spreading of CC work, and if your sole purpose of licensing your work under CC was to maximize your audience in hopes of being signed...the losses are much much higher than zero.
Sure, it would take a great lawyer, and a judge with a hard-on for MS (or big business in general)...but it is possible.
Either all that or, you know, they did all that but stretching one episode to cover 24 weeks of 1 hour testing segments could get pretty boring. You know, like they already covered on the "Myths Revisited" episode. The clip show you talk about is still television, and still has to bring in ratings. They're not going to make the clip show, write off that it usually is anyway, a bunch of number crunching. People won't watch that. At least, not the majority of the audience.
I'm not claiming they're the most scientific of all...but they are pretty damn knowledgable when it comes to engineering and engineering is largely trial and error. You don't get to their level in their fields (each taking on very large clients before doing mythbusters) without acknowledging the scientific method. Unfortunately some guy in a beret comparing data sets doesn't make very entertaining television, and so that stuff either gets cut, or never filmed at all. And exploding cement trucks get put in instead.
Still, at best, I would say the Mythbusters are the Jesse James and Tuttles (OCC) of their genre...whatever it is. Sure Jesse James and the Tuttles make beautiful works of their own kind (hot rods and choppers, respectively), but their approaches are completely barbaric. Some of the best choppers take YEARS to build, and the creators never get a show. Why? Because no one wants to watch 6 years of building one bike, no matter how much they might like the show.
oob: Who's doing the raping? Is it the guards, other women prisoners, or other male prisoners?
CH: I know guards rape women and manipulate women into having sex with them, due to fear of not getting the privileges or making it harder for them throughout their course of time in sentencing. And little things, like promising the prisoners candy or cigarettes from the outside world [if they have sex with the guards]. Also, other women who are prisoners, as well as male prisoners [are raping incarcerated women].
And I seem to remember something about a plunger and a women's prison in a NY State Prison...
That anyone with any experience in launching a website on a mass scale knows costs either lots of time or lots of money to elicit people to visit. In a network of networks where anything and everything can be found, it's hard to be seen. It's common sense. If you build it, they don't always come. This mistake is made by Internet start-ups time and time again. If you doubt me, why is SEO such a profitable market (despite the fact that many of the firms are scammers that will actually get you banned from the engines)? How can Google afford to make its sole source of revenue PPC? Why are blog and social network sites the Next Big Thing for online promotion?
Of course, you can test this for yourself.
1. Make a page on facebook. 2. Make a page with identical content on your server. 3. Promote neither in any way whatsoever. 4. Check back in a week, see which one draws more traffic.
I made a facebook account and completely forgot about it by the end of the day (A friend asked me to join, which is the way most people join these sites. I didn't care much for it). Within a week, 3 friends of mine from high school contacted me. 4 people I never knew that go to my school also contacted me. Had I cared enough to be active, I would have "met" many more people on it, immediately seeing pictures, their interests, their major, and when they graduate, without any effort outside of browsing. Can you say the same for your self-hosted page? I doubt it, because your page A) isn't hooked in (yes, being on the Internet is one thing, being SEEN on the Internet is a completely different matter), and B) your page is just that: your page. It doesn't connect you to anyone that hasn't visited it yet. It exists within its own little bubble.
Sure, you'll probably say "I can go out and visit people('s pages) myself." And you'd be 100% correct (well, almost 100%...you would only find other people that know how to create a website and care enough to do it, which may be your target in the first place, limited as it may be). You also would be completely outside the realm of this conversation, because this is a topic on social networking sites...the sole purpose of which is to make profile page creation and the finding of like-minded individuals easier than doing it all yourself. And they're effective at it.
Yeah, sure, the Internet is a big network. Good luck being found without attaching every flashing light you can find to your self, though. It's one thing to say you don't need/want to use social networking sites. It's a completely different thing to say that you can do the same job that they do with the same level of effort (almost none). And if you can, why aren't you cashing in on it? With the preposterous amounts of money we've seen social networking sites like myspace and facebook pulling in, your maintenance-free, cost-free solution is guaranteed to draw the attention (and wallets) of all the big players.
P.S. not to go grammar nazi on you, but it's "Internet," with a capital I. It's a proper noun, and there is only one. Senator Stevens used the non-existent, lowercase "internet" when he pluralized it and called data an internet.
But can you automatically hook it into a network of millions from the getgo?
And what prevents you from controlling the content you post on your facebook page? After logging into Facebook, do your fingers go all "typing gone wild"?
I'm no fan of facebook (yes, I have an account. No, I never use it), but I'll recognize that it makes connecting to a specifically targetted group (up until now, college students) MUCH easier than creating your own site and promoting it on relevant sites to mixed results.
Listening to his entire speech, I find it hard to believe he even knows what the Internet is. Based on his plural use of the word Internet, and his description of how it works, I do think he believes the "Internets" "are" a series of tubes transported through a vacuum chamber (much like the bank). I'm not entirely convinced that he was using an analogy, though I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, and assume he isn't completely senile, yet.
No, simply relating the Internet to a series of tubes isn't enough to warrant ridicule. But when you factor in the entirety of his speech, and realize how little he knows on the subject, it becomes a very sensible target. You begin to question whether he was using an analogy at all.
Furthermore, techs have always used the terminology "pipes" in the sense that they transfer things from one location to another. Stevens was using it in the sense that trucks carry a load through tubes and traffic jams occur, and that the only way to fix these "traffic jams" is to build more tubes. He makes no seperation of bandwidth and latency, and just states that the pipes get jammed. No alternative solutions, such as alternative protocols, better handling of data, etc. Moreso, in today's age of wireless Internet access (and the expansion of such in the future), the analogy of "tubes" and "pipes" we've grown accustomed to doesn't hold up as much. As entire regions connect via a wireless signal, a lot less cable needs to be laid. Yes, access points still need a wired connection (for now, at least), but as time goes on and technology advances, a lot of strain is being taken off the old methods of data transfer. Is everyone expected to take all of this into consideration? No. But the guy in charge of the damn thing should.
Or, everyone is just picking that out because Jon Stewart picked it out.
Slashdot Mirror
As much as I'm for the right to bear arms, do you really think the legal guns that our allowed militia will carry will even compare to the illegal (for citizens and militias) guns, bombs, tanks, jets, helicopters, etc. that we pay for and our government uses? Not to mention sheer numbers.
At one point the 2nd ammendment was a government reset button. Not the case anymore.
I think brother 1 is a super hero...his super power? Super Empathy. He'll probably "hone his skills" to be like Rogue from X-Men.
I just hope they pull some Palom and Porom stunts at some point.
If the overall amount of online fraud goes up and makes headlines, people shop online less, because while you may not be liable, try telling that to the bank when you want to take out a loan for a house and get denied (read: while you're not liable, the charges still mess up your credit and credit score). Businesses invest more in security to get them back. To make up for this cost, they raise prices. Cost to consumer goes up.
The two reasons listed above are why you should worry about it.
And the scarier part is that even when they WANT to run as regular users (which entails creating a new user since the default user is an adminstrator. This is something most Windows users don't know how to do because they don't know why they need to do it), they'll find that most of their software no longer runs.
Compare to...any other OS: they tell you right off the bat "hey, you probably don't want to run as administrator. Here, let me make you a limited account that you should use to access your computer. It will work just fine for most of your needs, trust me."
Now excuse me while I find my tinfoil hat and try to figure out why exactly MS wants us to all run as admins.
I dunno about you, but I don't play games 24/7.
Not to be a grammar nazi, but... Zing!
they'd be much better off denying cancer exists.
(thought I posted this above) If you want evidence that we're too young for self-governance, simply ask yourself where all those people capable of doing it those many years ago are now. Either they too caved to other governmental systems, fell by the way-side into the "third world" with all the problems (poverty, civil war, etc.) that go with it, or were wiped out by other governmental systems. In any case, their overall success was 0.
Ok, how about this?
Our species is old enough to handle self-governance in populations below 500 (about the number of faces the human brain can remember, IIRC). For every number after 500 in the population, chance of success lowers as relative anonymity makes one less prudent in their actions.
Another thing to keep in mind is measure of success. To me, successful operation of such a governmental system would mean without killing for petty reasons (hopefully at all), and with a level of comfort comparable to many 1st world countries today. Indigenous cultures constantly warred, and oftentimes even those cultures had a "chief" or some other arbitrary name applied to one person who made decisions for the group. In larger examples, crime went up with numbers. It just wasn't called crime.
Further, those civilizations doubtfully would be able to hold a comparable level of comfort today, because of the population limitation. That is evidenced by those cultures which do remain: marginalized, and 3rd-world in many cases.
So were previous civilizations able to do it? Yes, to the same degree we are now able to do it: under very restrictive rules.
The problem is that ultimately, someone always comes forward to take advantage of a system devoid of authority, and sees it as his/her opportunity to become the authority. Because of this bad apple, and the inability of the people to deal with the bad apple in an effective manner, I still hold that our species, not any particular culture or cultures, is too young for self-governance with the addendums of I. at the current world population/resource ratio, and II. with any measure of acceptable success.
I was just joking, anyway.
funny, how the backspace (aka "Woops, I made a mistake") key is located just a few mm above the return (aka "I'm satisfied and would like to use that") key on most keyboards. Seems they should be on completely opposite sides of the keyboard.
Bravo!
Let the revolution begin!
The way it stands now, we would need to hire a firm to talk to the firm we've already hired. How long until we have to hire another firm to talk to them? Starting to sound a lot like Feudalism....
Self-governance is the only acceptable form of government. Too bad the species is too young to handle it responsibly.
Increased strain on the parts, combined with a possibly poor heatsink design (a la the vaio notebook) could cause the constant CPU usage to result in the system dying long before it should, ie "built in obsolecense." Certainly wouldn't be a first for Sony.
;)
Not saying it's gonna happen, hell it may be built completely flawless for all I know. But, you know, it could be a "conspiracy"
One reason we're all obsessed with gas prices might be because it's a common thread amongst everyone- almost everyone in this country relies upon oil (with a large portion of those using gasoline)...it's a conversation topic somewhere between "how about that weather?" and "how about them Yankees?"
There's currently a legal limit imposed on how much difference in volume there can be between programming and commercials here in the states.
Though I'm sure it's not paid much attention to by either party.
Addendum: this would also require the Zune reaching a point where it is the portable music player of choice for the majority of your specific demographic.
As an artist trying to get recognized, CC is a great way to spread your work among millions. Now if you ever made it big...the amount of money you might make in the future would be huge.
Find records of artists who were signed after so-and-so recording exec heard the song from a friend of a brother's friend, and you have proven that sharing music can result in a major record deal.
The Zune prevents spreading of CC work, and if your sole purpose of licensing your work under CC was to maximize your audience in hopes of being signed...the losses are much much higher than zero.
Sure, it would take a great lawyer, and a judge with a hard-on for MS (or big business in general)...but it is possible.
Either all that or, you know, they did all that but stretching one episode to cover 24 weeks of 1 hour testing segments could get pretty boring. You know, like they already covered on the "Myths Revisited" episode. The clip show you talk about is still television, and still has to bring in ratings. They're not going to make the clip show, write off that it usually is anyway, a bunch of number crunching. People won't watch that. At least, not the majority of the audience.
I'm not claiming they're the most scientific of all...but they are pretty damn knowledgable when it comes to engineering and engineering is largely trial and error. You don't get to their level in their fields (each taking on very large clients before doing mythbusters) without acknowledging the scientific method. Unfortunately some guy in a beret comparing data sets doesn't make very entertaining television, and so that stuff either gets cut, or never filmed at all. And exploding cement trucks get put in instead.
Still, at best, I would say the Mythbusters are the Jesse James and Tuttles (OCC) of their genre...whatever it is. Sure Jesse James and the Tuttles make beautiful works of their own kind (hot rods and choppers, respectively), but their approaches are completely barbaric. Some of the best choppers take YEARS to build, and the creators never get a show. Why? Because no one wants to watch 6 years of building one bike, no matter how much they might like the show.
The Bank's worth is (at least partly) determined by the government's actions.
It's like a big game of rock paper scissor!
Come to think of it, the Bank's worth is also mostly determined by the Corporation...
Checks and balances? Nahh, smells more like collusion.
That anyone with any experience in launching a website on a mass scale knows costs either lots of time or lots of money to elicit people to visit. In a network of networks where anything and everything can be found, it's hard to be seen. It's common sense. If you build it, they don't always come. This mistake is made by Internet start-ups time and time again. If you doubt me, why is SEO such a profitable market (despite the fact that many of the firms are scammers that will actually get you banned from the engines)? How can Google afford to make its sole source of revenue PPC? Why are blog and social network sites the Next Big Thing for online promotion?
Of course, you can test this for yourself.
1. Make a page on facebook.
2. Make a page with identical content on your server.
3. Promote neither in any way whatsoever.
4. Check back in a week, see which one draws more traffic.
I made a facebook account and completely forgot about it by the end of the day (A friend asked me to join, which is the way most people join these sites. I didn't care much for it). Within a week, 3 friends of mine from high school contacted me. 4 people I never knew that go to my school also contacted me. Had I cared enough to be active, I would have "met" many more people on it, immediately seeing pictures, their interests, their major, and when they graduate, without any effort outside of browsing. Can you say the same for your self-hosted page? I doubt it, because your page A) isn't hooked in (yes, being on the Internet is one thing, being SEEN on the Internet is a completely different matter), and B) your page is just that: your page. It doesn't connect you to anyone that hasn't visited it yet. It exists within its own little bubble.
Sure, you'll probably say "I can go out and visit people('s pages) myself." And you'd be 100% correct (well, almost 100%...you would only find other people that know how to create a website and care enough to do it, which may be your target in the first place, limited as it may be). You also would be completely outside the realm of this conversation, because this is a topic on social networking sites...the sole purpose of which is to make profile page creation and the finding of like-minded individuals easier than doing it all yourself. And they're effective at it.
Yeah, sure, the Internet is a big network. Good luck being found without attaching every flashing light you can find to your self, though. It's one thing to say you don't need/want to use social networking sites. It's a completely different thing to say that you can do the same job that they do with the same level of effort (almost none). And if you can, why aren't you cashing in on it? With the preposterous amounts of money we've seen social networking sites like myspace and facebook pulling in, your maintenance-free, cost-free solution is guaranteed to draw the attention (and wallets) of all the big players.
P.S. not to go grammar nazi on you, but it's "Internet," with a capital I. It's a proper noun, and there is only one. Senator Stevens used the non-existent, lowercase "internet" when he pluralized it and called data an internet.
But can you automatically hook it into a network of millions from the getgo?
And what prevents you from controlling the content you post on your facebook page? After logging into Facebook, do your fingers go all "typing gone wild"?
I'm no fan of facebook (yes, I have an account. No, I never use it), but I'll recognize that it makes connecting to a specifically targetted group (up until now, college students) MUCH easier than creating your own site and promoting it on relevant sites to mixed results.
Listening to his entire speech, I find it hard to believe he even knows what the Internet is. Based on his plural use of the word Internet, and his description of how it works, I do think he believes the "Internets" "are" a series of tubes transported through a vacuum chamber (much like the bank). I'm not entirely convinced that he was using an analogy, though I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, and assume he isn't completely senile, yet.
No, simply relating the Internet to a series of tubes isn't enough to warrant ridicule. But when you factor in the entirety of his speech, and realize how little he knows on the subject, it becomes a very sensible target. You begin to question whether he was using an analogy at all.
Furthermore, techs have always used the terminology "pipes" in the sense that they transfer things from one location to another. Stevens was using it in the sense that trucks carry a load through tubes and traffic jams occur, and that the only way to fix these "traffic jams" is to build more tubes. He makes no seperation of bandwidth and latency, and just states that the pipes get jammed. No alternative solutions, such as alternative protocols, better handling of data, etc. Moreso, in today's age of wireless Internet access (and the expansion of such in the future), the analogy of "tubes" and "pipes" we've grown accustomed to doesn't hold up as much. As entire regions connect via a wireless signal, a lot less cable needs to be laid. Yes, access points still need a wired connection (for now, at least), but as time goes on and technology advances, a lot of strain is being taken off the old methods of data transfer. Is everyone expected to take all of this into consideration? No. But the guy in charge of the damn thing should.
Or, everyone is just picking that out because Jon Stewart picked it out.
except network engineers didn't actually think they were pipes.