I'm not smart enough for some of the XKCD strips...
Hell, I'm not smart enough for Garfield.
I'm not smart enough for some of the XKCD strips...
Hell, I'm not smart enough for Garfield.
I hope you encrypt everything on those drives, just in case your bag is lost or stolen.
I didn't say I carry the bag around. I keep it locked in a massive safe buried underground.
It's not as convenient, but it sure is secure. Except from flooding, but that's a different story. I can't actually get to the data, but it's there. Secure. But not from floods. I'm going to have to think about sealing it in impenetrable waterproof material, but I can't afford that because the password to my online banking is on one of those SD cards, in the bag, in the safe, 20 feet underground.
You see how complicated my life is.
The transparent, libertarian way is to have your money stolen in front of you.
So, the 700,000 bitcoins that disappeared under Mt Gox were stolen "in front of" the people who owned them?
Maybe we need to define "in front of".
Neoliberals? I'm under the impression that Libertarians with the minds of teenagers are the ones so in love with Bitcoin
Neoliberals = libertarians. They mean about the same thing for the purposes of this conversation.
Neoliberals will shrug this off as an anomaly, but the ability of people of privilege to steal is enhanced by unregulated free markets.
It never fails. When there are no rules, it pays to be unruly.
Do you carry your SATA drive around with you wherever you go and attach it to every computer you use?
Yeah, there's a portable SSD in my bag, with eSATA and USB. There's a couple of 64gb SD cards in there too.
It's smaller than my smartphone and a lot more sturdy. It sits in one of those little slots on the side. Never had a problem with it.
I've had enough of trusting companies like Google to always have a particular service available and to keep their snoots out of my stuff.
On the other hand, if a company that doesn't data mine, and encrypts all data and does not acquiesce to NSA requests, then we can do business. But not for free or cheap because of data mining. I don't like F2P. I don't want anything for free. I don't trust anything that's being offered to me for free or for cheap. It just means the true price is hidden and that's creepy.
Oh, "The Left" has it's own peculiarities. But the efforts to turn every one of their own inherent properties into an accusation against their opponents is a hallmark of the Religious Right.
Its a subscription-based MMO. $15 a month. In today's market, that is a recipe for fail.
On the other hand, I only play games that I pay for. I don't want anything for free, and most definitely not a game. Every single F2P game gives me a creepy feeling.
And I figure, since I'm not exceptional in any way, there are probably other people like me, who are happy to pay for a game that provides value. In fact, if the game was good enough, and provided enough value, I'd pay even more than the current price-tag for an AAA game.
I'm not much on MMO's or really, multiplayer anything, but by charging for their work, at least Blizzard has placed Wildstar in the category of games that I will consider playing.
One thing you can always say about the right-wing in America:
It's always about projection.
They have it in their DNA to try to misdirect by blaming others for that which is their most defining property. They think it's some kind of super-secret jujutsu that they can do because some consultant told them to. But it doesn't fool anyone. Look how long they've been trying it.
Smitty makes a big deal about his Christian faith and lives and breathes dishonesty. He thinks that it's OK because he's doing God's work or something. Just look into fhe faces - into the eyes - of the old-line soldiers in the Right to see where this ends up. Go find a photo of Mark Levin and look at the dead, flat eyes. That is not what the grace of God looks like.
Smitty, let go of the corruption before it gets to the point where it will never let go of you.
. You don't need for people not to be able to see to feel private.
No, you need for people to be not seen.
The act of watching, when it is not wanted, is a transgression against the individual. Now, you may say we've moved into a "post-individual" age, where only the collective matters, but I'm pretty sure that's not what people want. There is a basic human dignity that is violated by unwanted surveillance on people who are not suspected of crime. It's why the framers of the US Constitution made a big deal about:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
It was a good idea then, and it's a much better idea now. Because when corporations and governments have the power of ubiquitous surveillance, there is no way NOT for it to be abused. Governments and corporations just don't know any better, because they are not human.
The fact that there are so many people who object to being watched should be enough. No means no. I have a right to be unwatched as much as a woman has a right to travel unmolested. If I don't want to be watched, I have a right not to be watched, when I'm in my own home, or even walking down the street.
You pretty much got it - the core of Microsoft's argument was 100% vindicated by history. It's one of the little quirks of nature:
1. Bundling DOES help the consumer. Apple is the proving point. The users crave a unified bundled approach. Even to the level MS never envisioned, hardware, service and software.
2. An upstart competition could arrive at anytime and take MS's market share, because unlike natural monopolies on resources, the human capital needed to fight MS was readily available to competitors. Google, Apple, Blackberry, all came from nowhere to drink MS's milkshake.
3. The browser is a natural part of the operating system and it's unfair to force MS to accommodate competitors who someday would be more profitable or powerful than MS.
4. MS doesn't have the ability to set prices which is a critical part of the monopoly power. This is so obviously true. MS exerts almost no price pressure on the market these days.
Your politics are backwards. Nationally, the car dealers are associated strongly with the conservatives in the GOP. Many, many, many car dealers are owned by Republicans.
Nate Silver correlated the data nicely back when the major makers were on the verge of bankruptcy.
It's better than 8-to-1 correlation (i.e., a fairly strong correlation).
The problem is that, adjusting for inflation, it should be dramatically less. That's the trend. The major outlier is for raw materials which are more costly to extract and process for use.
In the 1950's a decent Westinghouse consolve TV cost about $1000. Inflation adjusted to today, that's about $9000. You'd be hard pressed to spend $9000 on a TV today unless it was a big theater setup or was quite exotic. That's because technology has replaced the need for many expensive raw materials, improved production (including moving it overseas), and driven out the excess.
Auto manufacturers have a problem, and they are the ones driving cost inflation, trying to convince Americans to spend more and more of their income each year on automobiles. For the last two generations this has been through fictionalization of automobiles - you are buying a payment, not a product. That has started to lessen, but record low interest rates have prevented a major crash in sales, and actually led to some good years against a trend of decline.
There is a large untapped market for a car marker who builds the same model of car, with no changes other than manufacturing refinements, for 7-15 years, direct to consumers. From a manufacturing theory perspective, there are something like 7,000-10,000 drivers in an auto production line. 10 years is about what you could expect to optimize the supply chain for each driver, maybe half that if you are very good at managing supply chain. This type of company is stymied by three things:
a. cheap credit money which makes it cheaper to buy a new car than to maintain and run older cars,
b. regulatory creep which increases requirements continually and
c. consumers willing to spend a large slice of their income on flashy cars and status symbols.
And in the end, car dealerships do deserve to undergo a radical change in their structure. They are inherently bad for customers.
For one - they make money in ways that customers are not aware of. The most insidious being "point spread". You walk in, buy a car, and they make money selling the car (fair), future service either under warranty or direct to the consumer (fair), and more importantly, on the financing. You might qualify for a certain rate, but they get a big chunk of the difference between your best qualifying rate and what they convince you to pay. So you qualify for a 3.5% rate, but they get you sign on the line for 9.9%, and they get roughly 50% of the point spread between 3.5% and 9.9%, which on many financing arrangements, is far more than the profit involved in selling the car to begin with.
Second, they do an only okay job with service. They do not typically do as a good job as independent shops, and for warranty work, face little competitive price pressure.
Finally, they are effective local monopolies and do not always respond to market pressure. Because of brand monopolies, there is not as much competition as they would have you believe. The car market is deeply segmented, and so there are not as many brand choices in a price/demographic band as you might think. On paper there are 15 manufacturers selling through dealerships in a market. But for a single random consumer, there are likely 3 or 4 options that meet the basic criteria of type and price range.
In many small towns or areas, the local car dealer is the wealthiest person in town. There is a lot of profit standing between the car maker and the consumer. And in the end, this excess is needs to be wrung out of the system. Manufacturer's should not be able to prevent car dealers from selling and servicing cars, but long-term, the concept of a franchised car dealership needs to be scaled back. Channel conflict is inevitable.
Ah, but who are the "takers"?
Maybe this will help a little: http://pando.com/2014/02/26/fo...
The steady state of disks is full. -- Ken Thompson