3626 posts • joined Wednesday 30th November 2011 17:08 GMT
Re: Oh dear, what a crying shame.
Of course the politicians will do as they're told. All elected politicians are extremely vulnerable to the 'perfect man' fallacy.
Since we stopped valuing the martial capabilities and achievements of candidates and turned elections into American Idol competitions where we value their background, presentation and stage performance more than their capabilities as leaders. We seek the 'perfect man' who has done no wrong but willfully ignore that something is terribly, terribly wrong with any Human who has never done wrong.
By placing himself on such a high pedestal, he can be easily destroyed by the revelation of past indiscretions or less that saintly activities. His entire power base is built on the idea of perfection, to sully that idea, to tarnish that perfect shine, is to completely undermine the foundations of all he is and all he will ever be.
We've made ourselves vulnerable in all this as well. The people we elect, on the basis of a smile or TV presence, cannot be the voice of the people. They are the voice of those who know their secrets. It's a bad situation all the way around.
Re: Dear 8 Heavyweights
You can't deny the government what they ask for. Their requests are backed by court order and refusing it just sends people to jail and has the government bring in their own staff to get what they want. It's simply not a smart way to deal with the problem, most people don't want to be martyrs and you're not going to win anyway.
Fighting heroic battles sounds great, but that's a last ditch move, when you know you're beaten anyway and any punishment you receive for rebelling is no worse than being destroyed. At least somebody will make a movie about you.
The issue is 100% not related to whatever you think Socialism is. At issue are the boundaries of government mandate. The issue is relevant to any type of government, dictatorship and monarchy, to direct and representational democracies.
If your business is the analysis of data, then fuckin-A those things are a core competence.
If you are a business where costs are tightly managed it might make sense to outsource some of your work. But if you're a government operation with no real budget limit and are supposed to be building absolute best in class operations them outsourcing is stupid, those people should be on staff.
If would be far more effective to build and manage the systems in house and outsource the analysis.
Re: Question ?
My valuable things are either properly secured or easily replaced. Go ahead, steal my car, insurance will buy another.
If you think your things are worth killing to defend then you are worth killing to get them. That's the way that works. With values like that you're running a pretty big risk anyway as you are obviously unable to protect your home or car, you certainly couldn't protect your life or your families life.
The unfortunate part about that equation is people with attitudes like yours rarely have valuable things anyway.
So you're left with two groups of people, one desperate thief and one incompetent property owner, with skewed ideas of value fighting to the death over some crappy car and $400 worth of Phil Collins CD's. It's pretty sad your life isn't worth more than that.
Re: This should be the standard punishment...
What should the punishment be for reactionary commentary that calls for breaking the law as punishment for breaking the law?
I'm not sure you're thinking your grand social justice tactics through.
Re: Better Idea
It agree, electronic trading isn't going away. For better or worse, we're stuck with it. If nothing else the science involved HFT has a lot of stack on benefit for computing in general.
I just think it's more than a bit disingenuous that the same groups who manipulate people's ability to produce goods in a competitive way are so dependent of fractions of a second. They whine that things aren't moving fast enough, but they've retarded the speed of natural resource harvesting and production so much that it has a negative impact on consumer pricing.
I have no sympathy for people who create performance roadblocks for others but complain about having to deal with roadblocks themselves.
Re: Question ?
Getting robbed and/or having your things stolen does suck. It's a terrible invasion of privacy and the loss of the stuff sucks too, but wishing a horrible death on the thieves is a bit much.
In actuality, if you value your possessions more than Human lives then it makes perfect sense people would want to steal your treasures. Who wouldn't want such incredibly valuable things for themselves and why were you leaving such priceless treasures unguarded in the first place? Surely you weren't counting on society to guard them for you, were you?
I strongly suspect your valuation system may be a touch tweaked. Either you left incredibly valuable treasures in a vulnerable position, in which case you undervalued them, or you greatly overvalued the things that were taken. Either way I strongly recommend reassessing your valuation criteria. Something is off.
Re: Further proof that these things are childish toys.
'Adults' are comfortable enough to laugh at the absuritities of the world. It's the children who haven't yet grown up and are in over their heads just managing through life who take everything seriously. I will laugh at the silly bullshit and it will have zero impact on my very serious business or my bank account.
It's a fairly significant fundamental failing to be unable to seperate the silly from the serious. If you can't handle that, then you certainly can't cope when things really do turn serious.
Re: Only 60 grams?
No dude. Just no. You can't make golf balls to donuts comparisons like that and expect anyone to take your comments seriously. The two events aren't comparable at all.
I'm not sure what you think is going on over there, but big industrial accidents take many years to clean up. The Japanese want it cleaned up a fuck of a lot more than you do. Having you running around like a scared puppy isn't helping anyone. Please stop.
I absolutely hate the term revenue product. It's fucking stupid. It takes the reason for a business to exist and gives it secondary status. I've heard that term at least a dozen times this year and it's always from somebody that isn't making any money.
I'll be glad when this second bubble is done and regular business can resume.
Re: education issue.
Warning symbols are really weird things anyway, I collect photos of them. Some are hilarious. Some only make sense if you understand the greater context and some are so far out there as to have the completely opposite effect they were intended to have, they seem to point to something good.
The proposed warnings for the Yucca Mountain waste repository are probably the weirdest I've ever seen. It's got pirates and aliens and all sorts of mixed messages going on and that's in context. What people will make of them in 1000+ years is anyone's guess.
Re: stuck with him eh?
You're out of your depth. It isn't a question of assessing and exploiting value, it's a question of having the infrastructure in place where you can actually take advantage of what that person has to offer. What you are talking about is skilled staff, not top echelon experts.
Knowledge transfer is the problem. When you can actually justify having top of field staff you're dealing with a tiny knowledge base, it's not the sort of thing that can be compartmentalized. They have no value if you don't have an best in class infrastructure already in place for them to utilize but that same infrastructure is unique for each competitor at that level. You're way beyond legal IP protections and far into the world of industrial secrets and the information can't be compartmentalized away, the focus is simply too narrow.
If you move into that super elite level of output and staff you have to figure in the costs of keeping those secrets long after they are a growth factor. They represent stabilized revenue, but the costs of maintaining that revenue don't decrease significantly over time as they do with more standard output.
So yes, value is added, but it's icing on a very expensive cake. If you don't already have the cake the icing alone is kind of anticlimactic.
Re: Better Idea
I really don't see why not. All the commodities they're trading around have artificial limits placed on them. Seems only fair that the traders who lobby for and benefit from those artificial limitations have some imposed on them. They rally around the need for 'stabilized pricing' but don't have a problem destabilizing the entire system trying to take advantage of the roadblocks they erected.
Yep, fuck 'em.
Re: Reinvented cuckoo clock
There's less than zero money to be made in spare parts for a unit that sells for $10. It would actually be cheaper to give them a complete replacement unit than deal with scalable spares.
If you're dependent on parts for profit it means you have to stock not just parts for production but parts for spares as well, it's a second business. While not quite doubling, you're adding at least a 30% cost to your overhead as well as the costs of logistics and warehouse personnel. The spares inventory has a far higher value because it can't be used in production but you've already paid for it so its very existence costs money. On top of that the costs of shipping the part would exceed the price of the complete unit.
You can do OK on parts and subassemblies for expensive and complex systems, like cars, that have high volumes of production so inventory doesn't get as stale. But with cheap products, like this lamp, the costs of spare parts are higher than the complete unit. It simply doesn't make any sense to do spares on an item like this.
Re: education issue.
Desperation leads men down many dangerous paths. If they weren't desperate before they stole the truck, they sure as hell were after they stole it. You can't go back at that point and their recently acquired treasure was the only hope they had of escaping the wrath of law enforcement.
They had to inspect it once they got the chance. After all, wouldn't you label your treasure with false warnings to scare off stupid criminals...
Re: On no not again
Octopus isn't Kosher.
That's exactly what I was thinking! None of this sneaking around and looking extremely foolish as you're backpedaling from being caught with your dick in a chicken.
This also saves so much money. No need to waste funds on being covert when you just toss it out there unapologetically and tell everybody to suck it.
Not that I like any of the surveillance crap, but if you're going to do something at least be big enough to take credit for it.
You're way, way off on the pricing differential for industry leading expertise. When you start hiring from a global pool of 10-12 people the cost differential is more like 10x+ over standard high caliber staff, plus perks and you're usually on the hook for funding their unrelated research projects too.
There are uses for the superstars no doubt, but the reason there's only a dozen or so per field is there's not a big demand for them. They are oddly shaped pegs that only fit in on top of a jumble of other, established, things.
Our lead materials engineer is the titanium guy. He was the only guy on the planet that had the skills we needed to establish ourselves as offering a truly unique service. I met him at a conference and we hit it off because we were both researching on the same path. It took over a year to convince him to come to the States and in addition to his seven figure salary we fully funded his research and he shares in licensing royalties.
We're also stuck with him. I can't let him go because he knows too much about our internal operations so he's just another cost. But we meet the mature business and limited market criteria I outlined above. Without years of work and investment beforehand he would have added nothing to the business. We are highly dependent on a few unique competitive advantages built on top of a stable business. There are 30-technical experts here who anyone would like to have on staff, but they all had to be working for years to get to the point where we needed an industry leading expert.
Re: Long Term Profitability Of Facebook's Business Model
You're right, they may have a short term expiration date. But that doesn't matter in business as much as what you've got at the moment.
Plans and strategies are all fine and dandy but even the largest businesses are still managed day-to-day. If you've got that money today then you've got tomorrow to try and make some more. And that's the way it goes until circumstances prevent you from having the money today. There is never a certain future in business, ever, no matter who you are or how big you are.
Real deal industry superstar experts are very few in number in any industry. They are also extremely mobile and don't need government assistance to go where they want. Those sorts of people rarely speculate on finding a job, their new employer makes the red tape go away. There's already a perfectly functioning system for people of that caliber.
About 98% of the time people of that caliber aren't what you need though. You need lots of 'B' students who know their jobs well enough and want to work and places that will employee them. The superstar experts are generally about as useful as tits on a boar in business. In highly technical fields they're almost more of a hindrance as they aren't capable of 'good enough' and every time they open their mouths it's going to be expensive. They're good to have if you have a very mature business with a limited market where any advantage is a big deal. But if you're depending on one technical expert to drive a business you don't have much of a scalable business anyway.
They are worthless for starting something, which is what the the UK appears to be trying to do. Starting at the end never works. Forcing business never really works anyway. If it doesn't grow organically it'll always be depending on taxpayer subsidies to survive as they depend on that established revenue.
Re: An interesting platform
In darkness, a light burning at 1/10th of a watt is the brightest light of all.
You've also got to remember that the bulk of the target users for this lamp actually do brutally exhausting things during the daylight hours so they don't go home like us at night and faff around with all the stuff that keeps us awake. They need a minimal amount of light to accomplish important, short duration tasks during the night. If they can get that light without setting the house on fire or losing a half days wages for oil then so much the better.
Re: Conferences (not just trade ones)
I'm aware he goes. It's just another closed door meeting like all the others that still make the world go 'round. Those sorts of meetings are required if you're going to resell Drupal for millions and millions of dollars. Which is all their technology is (not Drupal, but a content management framework). The only difference is that Palantir has privileged access to the governments tag index.
Their technology isn't anything remotely special, just their relationship to the government. It's a near certainty that the company will be acquired by Lockheed once everybody has made their money out of it. There's kind of a carousel of DoD projects that are built up to sell to the big defense contractors.
The ultimate buyer is identified long before the actual acquisition and it's Lockheeds turn next. Which I'm sure is why the Palantir guys are at aerospace and machine shows, just learning the market. It's pretty shitty that it all works that way, as the taxpayer doesn't get to take advantage of competition or innovation. But its been working that way since the end of WWII and I'm not sure there's anything to be done about it.
No, I do not approve of being spied upon by my government. I see no value in their 'protective services'. At the same time I believe that if you're going to do something do it as well as possible. That is even more important if you have to spend the publics money to do it. Spending public money to inflate the value of a private company simply isn't effective.
Re: Someone totally missed what "money" is
Do you mean numismatist?
Numismatics is a fun game to play, if you like losing money. Even your mint, which has a board specifically to deal with the practice, advises against it. It's fun to have a little bit of gold and silver around but I also don't have to recognize anything but the face value of the coin.
Its value in metal is completely meaningless unless you find somebody who wants to play too. Again, why bother if not for the novelty? It actually has less value than regular money...
Re: business model wrong? No.
Sales offsets almost never work out on the ground. If you're dealing with a low margin item, as most offset programs are, the costs of controlling the costs and managing distribution almost always exceed the income.
You're almost always better off reducing unit cost and distributing them in a traditional manner where savings scale and piggyback deals can be had.
Re: Stairs payback
If you're that concerned about lost energy just throw yourself down the stairs. You too can take advantage of gravity.
Re: Reinvented cuckoo clock
Springs are expensive in production environments.
Not just the springs themselves, but you've got to have at least two attachment points which means molded parts or drilled holes and they are probably the most difficult parts to deal with on a production line.
Throughput can decrease 5x per unit easily if the spring is very small or has any sort of force. A one pound coil spring is an absolute bear to deal with. The only workarounds are custom spring setting devices but that means at least one person loading the device or ordering prebuilt custom sub-assemblies. So at a minimum you've doubled the labor required as well as taken on tooling costs and line speed is still slow or your parts cost has just skyrocketed.
If springs can be avoided in production it is usually best to do so. Especially in cost sensitive products.
Have you ever watched a fly crawling around on a horses face? As long as the fly doesn't get in the horses eye or nostril the horse isn't even aware of the flys existence.
Until Curiosity drives into a Martians eye or nostril and blasts it with a laser we will have no real idea of their capabilities. It is premature to declare victory if we have not verified that we aren't the fly in this equation.
Re: entrenched industry...
Limited resource economies can not mix with capitalism or variable populations. You can have one or the other, but not both.
For the sake of argument we'll just leave the population factor out. Capitalism 'works' because a valued resource is taken from one person and given to another. Someone must lose for another to gain.
It is inevitable that those who gain will continue to gain at a progressively faster rate due to their increased trade capacity. In a limited resource economy there must come a point at which all of the limited resources will be spoken for and no further trading can take place as there is no more to gain. At that point you have three options:
- Devalue the resource to stimulate trade by forcing people to scramble to regain lost value.
- Add value to another resource to stimulate trade by forcing people to gain as yet unallocated resources.
- Eliminate value based trade and each receives as is needed.
The last option didn't work too well and the first is what we are doing today with 'the dollar' except the resource really isn't limited and more people can participate in trade. Instead of a few dozen 'kings' who have all the resources we have a system where everyone can participate. Nothing wrong with that, the alternative isn't pretty. I'll get to that.
The second option is what Bitcoin is trying to be. It may gain some traction but it has no value beyond what a very small group of people ascribe to it. It still has to be converted into a dollar to have value.
The end of limited resource economies was forecast in 17th century Italy as people weren't dying fast enough to keep currency moving through the system at a useful rate or quantity. Depending on mass scale epidemics and warfare to free up resources is pretty fucked up and unreliable as well. The problem bounced around until the Great Depression at which point everybody was so fucked that a more workable system could be put in place. Even those who had the huge quantities of the limited resource knew it had to change or their holdings would be deemed worthless.
Going back now is completely pointless as the sheer scale of humanity requires a trade unit without a quantity cap. Certainly you aren't suggesting we kill off 2/3 of humanity; are you? I suppose we could just let them starve and that way we could blame nature, but that seems like overkill.
Re: Someone totally missed what "money" is
In the machine shop safe there is a little over 18oz of 24k gold which will be used in a project. If I take that gold to the store I would be lucky to trade it for a 12 pack and a sandwich. It has absolutely zero trade value in general society. Zero.
Now, if I take $20,000 into the store I can trade it for whatever I like at a predefined exchange rate. The number isn't negotiable. The thing I want is valued at (x) dollars, I trade you (x) dollars you give me thing.
If you take the gold in there the value is determined by the seller of the thing you want and accepting your gold actually costs him cash because the predefined cash value of the thing being traded for must be met in cash. He might be willing to take value the gold at $17 for beer and a sandwich but you've just lost all your gold. If you had a useful unit of trade you could have kept the majority of your gold, but you didn't have a useful unit of trade and now you have no gold either.
Of course legal recognition is bullshit. It is however what allows me to trade my cash for whatever I like with pretty much anybody. Not so with Bitcoin, you've got to convert it to something of recognized value first.
Dealing with the recognized value of a trade unit is what's been screwing thieves out of big profit for millennia. You may have a whole basket of diamonds but they are worth precisely zero if that's the value I ascribe to them. You can take your diamonds to the bank and store them safely but their value is still exactly zero until you convert them into cash or find someone to trade with but you will still be basing the value of the trade on a dollar (or pound or whatever).
Same with Bitcoin, it has zero value outside its little club and even then it's value is dictated by the purchasing power of the trade unit you convert it to. What's the point? It all comes back to a base trade unit anyway. Why not just deal with that base unit?
Re: Not Evil
That's cool. The Taliban makes the same claims, but their website isn't as snappy as Palantir's.
There's absolutely no reason for this company to be funded by the taxpayer. This sort of thing should be a core competency and if you aren't doing it in house then you've got no business doing it.
Bunch of creepy bastards they are anyway. There's always one or two lurking around at conferences and trade shows that seem a bit outside their field of expertise. They're probably lizard people.
Re: They can pay like anyone else
I realize there aren't really other options, but it's pretty risky to lose a customer with the resources to create their own option.
In this case China could actually provide the impetus for desktop Linux to actually be a thing instead of a sideshow. I can't see them wanting to do that, it's a lot cheaper to pay MS, but I could see them going that route if MS didn't want to play ball.
So I can trade these six strapping African lads for 45,000 board feet of lumber? How about this young Thai lady, she's barely been used. There have to be limits on the acceptable vehicles of trade or Humanity is guaranteed to do really fucked up things.
So if we accept some reasonable limits you can trade whatever you like if you can find someone willing to recognize the value of what you're offering. You can trade oddly shaped pebbles if you want and ascribe any value you see fit. If there are a bunch of pebble traders you all might come to an agreement on a standardized value of the pebbles. You and your buddies are free to trade pebbles all you want.
But I don't want your pebbles, I don't care what their equivalent cash value is. I want cash, so it's on you to convert them to cash, not me. You want my thing, I want your cash, not your pebbles, your pebbles have no value to me.
By using a unit of trade that's not recognized by the person you're trading with you've effectively reversed one of the few near universal constants: You've put the seller in control of the transaction. Normally the buyer is actually in control of a transaction as your unit of trade can be applied to other things the buyer wants so the buyer actually has the need, you as a customer fulfill that need. But if your unit of trade isn't widely accepted then it's equivalent value is greatly reduced.
It is perfectly acceptable for me to ascribe a much lower value to your trade unit as it isn't fully functional. So an item that cost $500 in cash would cost you 10 Bitcoins. Since there is no widely recognized value of your trade unit I can value it however I like and you can either deal with it, convert it to cash, or try to find somebody who recognizes the value of your trade unit and is willing to deal with the hassle.
No legal recognition means your trade unit has the value I set, not you. If you bring cash that value is set by a third party so there's no room for gouging, it's an even playing field. So why not just deal in cash? Why set yourself up to pay extra for something?
The biggest issue in copyright and patent cases are the insane amounts the 'injured' party claim as just compensation.
I realize it's potentially a double edged sword, but some reasonable limit needs to be applied to these hearings. The fact they'll still seek $1B+ in damages is more than enough reason to keep this, and similar, trials going. A business would be catastrophically stupid not to pursue that kind of money, it's worth pouring crazy resources into for many, many, many years on just the chance you might win.
Numbers tend to lose their weight when considered against runaway success stories like Apple or Google where billion dollar figures are tossed around all the time. But the fact of the matter is 99.99999% of products are never going to generate $1B+ in revenue. It takes thousands of people working in unison for years to cross that $1B threshold and that's only if you get lucky. A fucked up court case like is basically a 50/50 chance at success, you'd be crazy not to chase after that.
Re: I have some problems with this article
Patents don't stop bullets or armies. Ownership of land is always established through bloodshed, after which the winner can distribute and recognize patents or other forms access to the land and its resources.
While the article is a bit too Econ 101, none of it matters a jot until the shooting is over. If you're busy dicking around with patents you damn well better have the means to enforce what you're claiming ownership and distribution privelages of.
Re: I think the more obvious answer is...
It was never a valid assumption that something from Canada would be immune to US government surveillance. The US and Canada are the two halves of the largest trade relationship on the planet. Both governments get what they ask for from the other and rarely is a request denied. Nothing is ever completely denied, certain things may be scaled back for political purposes, but they always meet in the middle.
That being said the Canadians are significantly less likely to spy on everybody in hopes of catching a bad guy, they've got better risk management in Canada. Plus they don't go around pissing on everyone so there's less need for paranoia. But the Canadians always play ball with the US.
Re: returns maximum value to shareholders
It's people gaming a system for short term gain over actual investment. The stock market was never intended to support the way trading is done today. The system was designed as a way to gauge a company's performance. A well ran company was reflected in the value of its shares. Now the stock market steers the company and the business is no longer an investment. It's pretty stupid.
What it boils down to is few people are capable of running a business so they retreat to spreadsheets and attempt to justify their existence that way. Sad.
Re: Fascism for the win!
In all fairness, the guy got such a harsh sentence because he got caught. Nothing he was doing related to this matter was worthwhile or even moderately intelligent. He used a known broken tool to attack extremely wealthy and powerful people in a very public way intended to embarrass those people. He displayed no cunning or cleverness and even if he had been 'successful' his actions were pointless.
The lesson here is that if you're going to choose powerful people as enemies then you damn well better have your ducks in a row and have a real plan. Once you've grabbed the tigers tail the game has changed, and just letting go doesn't stop the tiger. It will hunt you down and fuck you up. Pick battles you can win and where you can make a difference. This guy was an idiot. Nobody likes idiots.
Comparing the Koch brothers to famous fascists is also fairly idiotic. Yes they are shitty people but we built and support the environment they thrive in. What did we think would happen? The nice guys are going to end up with the money? We as a society reward them for being dicks. And as bad as they are, I know for a fact they aren't gassing and burning millions of people or raising a generation of insane racists.
Re: Equal Time
George Soros is just like any other super wealthy person except he likes to brag about his interference. He's a massive ass, sure, but he also gets bored easily and stops messing with things if he's not getting the results he wants.
The Koch brothers on the other hand are insatiable and they're willing to use unlimited resources in retribution for failure to acquiesce to their demands. They actually believe that a win is a win even if the prize is worth 100x less than what it cost to gain it. They follow the Genghis Khan strategy of completely destroying the first few enemies in such a way that everybody else simply surrenders because they don't want to be skinned alive while the women, children and dogs are raped then eaten.
I'm all for aggressive business and winner take all gambits, as long as those involved recognize it as the big game it is and know when to say enough is enough. Causing destruction as a sign of power or for revenge has no place in society. Especially when you've already won. Ungracious winners are simply the worst.
Some fights simply can't be won and shouldn't be fought, it's just poor resource use. The fact the Koch brothers are big fat assholes does not mean their unlimited resources and capacity for retribution are any less potent. Fighting the good fight grants you no extra powers nor does it ease the suffering you experience from sticking your dick in fire.
I'm all for seeing nasty people get what's coming to them but you've also got to choose your battles. Some can't be won and by fighting them you're only losing the ability to affect change somewhere it will be felt. Besides, the only way to stop the Koch brothers is to cut off their heads and launch them into deep space inside a nine-demon bag after you burn the bodies with flames from from a fire fueled by 60 virgins. Anything less simply angers them.
No terrorist angle? How about kiddie-porn? Drugs? Guns? Explosives? How about Human trafficking? None of that either?
I don't mean to be getting into their business, but I'm a bit confused as to how knockoff Beats headphones are a risk to national security when all those other things are apparently going on everywhere. Something's got to give here. Either we really are at risk from those deadly things or we've eliminated them all and the lack of valid warranties is the new risk.
If all those dangerous things have not been eliminated then get the fuck back to work you useless civil servants. Let Dr. Dre deal with bootleg products, you guys are supposed to be keeping us safe from freedom hating people who want us all dead, why in the hell are counterfeit consumer goods even on your radar?
Yay, weasel words!
You know, if I was responsible for fallout management at the NSA, I would just stop talking. I'd stop everybody in the agency from talking. Every single time they say something it just makes them look even more incompetent and it creates all kinds of new avenues with which to pressure the agency.
For example, what the fuck is a 'co-traveller'? When did the NSA get the power to determine the legality of anything? They're making the situation far worse for themselves with their insane justifications for their actions. They should just shut up. Using weasel words and outright lying hasn't worked, maybe just shutting up will help.
I, in absolutely no way, approve of the NSA's activities, but at the same time it really pisses me off when the people hired with tax dollars are so utterly useless. It's simply embarrassing. You certainly don't need press agents if all you're doing is putting random words into something resembling sentences then just repeating them. If they're going to do this, please dear lord, do it properly. This drunken monkey public relations disaster really needs to stop.
Right? Aiming at the Koch brothers is just a dumb idea. You will be caught and you will be punished. It's like walking up to a professional rugby player and kicking them in the sack. Their pain is minimal, your pain will last a very long time.
Besides, what was the purpose of this attack? I'm fairly certain the Koch brothers are well aware of people's opinions of them. Did Anonymous think they would suddenly realize the error of their ways? No good can come from angering people like this.
So I was in a retail store the other day and something was amiss with the register. The cashier called for her manager who came over to diagnose the problem. With me standing right there the manager said 'Push the Mgr Override button. Enter my employee ID (she spoke it aloud) then enter my password (again aloud) 1234567 and delete the transaction'.
This was at a gigantic retail store with huge amounts of cash in each till and here's the manager not only blabbing her override information to another employee, but also to customers and the password is 1234567.
Since I have no intention of getting done up for stealing from a retail store this information is useless to me. But it may not be useless to the employee or to their friends. Plus it's just epically stupid. Billions a year in revenue and even basic security isn't in place. I really don't have much confidence it's in place elsewhere either.
Re: Steam ahead with it guys...
Not that I'm a fan of everything MS does, but the ability to dictate is an effect of competitive markets. Everyone cheers 'free and competitive markets' without looking at the inevitable outcome.
Sooner or later each industry will have participants that far outpace others in that industry and they will manipulate the market to better suit itself and make things harder for other participants. It would be crazy not to as it is your right to manipulate the market if you're on top of it.
It's also a good sign that things are working as designed. Capitalism can't actually support an unlimited field of winning participants, some have to lose or the system doesn't work. Roadblocks have to be constructed so innovation can flourish in getting around them. Entire industries have sprung up trying to work around MS. Firefox wouldn't exist if it weren't for MS keeping IE to itself.
I don't especially like the fact that the winner gets to dictate the future rules, but I'm also not sure what to do about it. Deciding who wins and how much they can win is the path to madness but letting everything run wild is no better of a solution. Finding that middle ground is what we're all struggling with right now.
They're not telling me anything here. Are they building something I need to defend against or what? I've read the books and I've seen the movies. I'm on to this Google and their plans.
But seriously, this sounds like more like some rich guys giving their buddy a sweet job. I honestly wonder what advantage Google sees in all this. When you get into industrial robots that's an insanely crowded and extremely well understood field. I'm genuinely curious as to what Google thinks they're on to.
On the upside, this will be good for the robot industry as a whole. I know quite a few people in the robot business and they're either turning out really boring assembly line robots or they're so far out there nobody can figure our what to do with the robots. The common element between them is that there isn't much money in the robots themselves, everyone is always scrambling to keep the doors open. With a high profile company like Google involved it will hopefully raise awareness for the entire industry.