Slashdot Mirror

I call the labeling of the plants to be absolute complete bullshit. Yes, I said it. I'm not a botanist but I grew up on a farm and I know many of these plants very well and I can't tell any distinguishing characteristics apart from the drawings. This is what a garlic plant looks like. Not like this. I mean, come on!

http://vegetablesofinterest.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2007/08/28/rare_ripe_garlic_shoots.jpg

http://ballardfarmersmarket.wordpress.com/2009/05/17/green-garlic/

http://inpraiseofsardines.typepad.com/blogs/2006/02/spring_is_just_.html

I call the labeling of the plants to be absolute complete bullshit. Yes, I said it. I'm not a botanist but I grew up on a farm and I know many of these plants very well and I can't tell any distinguishing characteristics apart from the drawings. This is what a garlic plant looks like. Not like this. I mean, come on!

http://vegetablesofinterest.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2007/08/28/rare_ripe_garlic_shoots.jpg

http://ballardfarmersmarket.wordpress.com/2009/05/17/green-garlic/

http://inpraiseofsardines.typepad.com/blogs/2006/02/spring_is_just_.html

I am highlighting the simplisticness of your question. Your argument is even more arbitrary than my numbers. You suppose that the purchasing power of the poor must rise but this is not the case.

No, you are spposing purchasing power must rise for the poor if the iPod is made in the US and not in China. They are made in China because it is cheaper to make them there. By making them here, they will neither cost less nor raise the wages of US workers.

The wealthiest of the US, to whom these profits are returning need not, and in fact do not, translate that wealth into dollars to help shore up the US economy.

The wealthy got that way by investing and if they have more money they will invest more which does help the economy. Are you really that dense so you don't understand that? Or are you trolling?

They don't pay much tax, either.

Are you really saying the wealthy don't pay taxes either? The Top 1% Pay More Income Tax Than Bottom 90%. Through 1999 the top 5% pay 50% of all taxes. And that comes from the Congressional Budget Office. For an argument of who pays more How much tax do the Jones' pay? has the arguments for both why the rich pay more and why they don't.

All this is relevant because the notion that returned profits from offshoring increases the wealth of the country, is heavily undermined if that wealth gets put into the hands of a functionally transnational section of society (i.e. people who invest and purchase internationally, rather than strictly domestically).

Do you see what I did there? I understood your reply and made a logical explanation of the problems with it, rather than just make comments about you pulling things from your arse. :)

And what you left out is that international investments go both ways, foreigners invest in the US and US citizens invest internationally. American Depositary Receipts or ADRs allow me, you, and any other American to buy stocks in foreign corporations. That is if the corporation is not listed on US exchanges, but many are. Those Japanese car manufacturers opening factories in the US, they are listed on US exchanges. For those who don't have enough to buy individual stocks, foreign or domestic, there are mutual funds. They allow money from many different people to be pooled and invested. Another way individuals can pool money is with investment clubs. Using them a person can put just say $10, less than the cost of 2 packs of cigarettes, a week into a pool. Add in the money saved by not buying a 6-pack of beer a day and growing some food in a garden and it adds up. There are a number of others ways people can save and invest money as well. Even a McDonald's employee can save and invest money, though they'd be better enrolling in college taking classes part tyme.

The low income can be investors, but it is logically flawed to say that this is a universal case. More frequently, people are living from month to month (sometimes week to week) trying to feed themselves and their families, pay for health care, keep a roof over their heads, etc.

They are also poor because they spent money to buy an iPod and had a family. I myself am one of the poor. Just an hour or two ago I got back from a food pantry where I picked up free food. My medical expenses are paid for with Medicare and Medical Assistance. I get them because I am disabled. So I don't go around spending money on lots of things I don't need. Nor did I get married or have children when I could not afford them

That graph on that link is ridiculous. Reminds me of the graph here which was proven to be faked:
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/11/breaking-nzs-niwa-accused-of-cru-style-temperature-faking.html

Oh, and plover, a big thanks for the "Davee is teh gaye" comment ... it'll be on Google in a couple of hours, and random search keywords on some spammer's blog in a matter of days ;-)

That's actually why I misspelled everything including your name, so it wouldn't be associated with you. But the more it gets posted and reposted, the more Google will believe it to be true. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

In an earlier slashdot discussion someone talked about the problem that his name was identical to the name of a convicted p e d o p h i l e*, and that potential employers who would google for his name would always turn up the criminal first.

*spaces included so you don't turn up as a google hit if someone types that word and your name.

The "long tail of search" TFA is referring to is explained in this Wired article and on its author's blog.

To their shame. They took a lot of heat for it.

"Do no evil"? Oh, please.

Quickly on the '@sshole' thing: I completely agree. I don't have any taboos about cursing, and I hate the idea that seeing the 'u' in 'f*ck' in a magazine is somehow be harmful; I just didn't know if there was a text filter on posts. To be clear: yes, people are assholes.

As for the rest, I appreciate your response. I don't completely agree, but it was a coherent, intelligent comment that made me consider my point a bit before responding, and I would much rather spend my time on that than on some flippant response to the "die in a fire" guy.

So I think it's worth trying to be clearer about my point. I'll readily admit that my own writing isn't perfect, but at minimum I do try to re-read what I write before posting to make sure that it's as clear and correct as possible, because I think that what we say and how we say it matters. I'm not so OCD that I'll ignore someone over a minor grammar error, and here on /. there are plenty of non-native speakers and engineers with imperfect English skills that I've enjoyed reading. When I browse here, I look for posts that are insightful, logical, and well-written; if something has at least 2 of those 3 qualities, I'll generally read it. Insight and logic carry more relative weight most of the time, but writing is still important to me: I think it's a shame that we've spent 100,000 years developing the ability to convey our thoughts to one another, only take language for granted out of sheer laziness. Saying "your" instead of "you're" is a minor error that doesn't prevent a post from adding value, but I think those lapses are cumulative. What worries me isn't the person (myself included) who makes the occasional error, it's the person down the road who never initially learns which is correct. Melodramatic maybe, but I think it's plausible that in time we'll be left with only 1 of those 2 words and our ability to clearly express ourselves will be reduced, however slightly. Language is rife with examples of words that once had a distinct, nuanced meaning that's now lost. Not perfectly related, but one of my favorite examples. Anyways, I agree that the point of language is to make text comprehensible. What it sounds like is that you and I each have some unspoken metric to determine whether something is well written 'enough' to be easily understood and worth reading; fair enough. I suspect that in your time you've come across at least one mangling-of-the-language bad enough for you not to continue, so are we different in anything but degree? I use grammar as (part of) a content filter for a reason: in my experience there's a clear (if not perfect) correlation between how well someone can write and how well they can reason, and at some point on that sliding scale a person's point is lost if they can't express it understandably. That's a shame. I can't really get angry at the person whose voice is lost out of ignorance, but I do get irritated at his predecessor who contributed to that gradual degradation out of nothing more than laziness.

I suppose my broader point is that all 3 metrics of logic, insight, and clarity seem to be getting harder and harder to meet, or at least harder to find in an increasing sea of poorly-considered and unclear irrelevance. The volume of chaff increases, and we seem inclined to use these trillions of dollars of communication technology the same way a dog would, barking just to hear himself howl.

You say to remain silent, which reminds me of the adage "don't feed the trolls". Maybe that saying is right, and ignoring trolls is the only realistic path to take. But I disagree with you on staying silent, because again, I think it matters, and I won't just sit back and accept that the current state of discourse is inevitable. I'm here to find out what other people think; personally I really enjoy finding those off-topic gems where someone is clearly passionate about something and puts some thought into their respon

As if Google doesn't have enough user data already.

You really think they don't want more user data? You don't seem to understand how important good data is when trying to predict what a user wants. More data usually beats better algorithms.

Wow this took me literally 5 seconds on google:

http://southofheaven.typepad.com/south_of_heaven/2009/07/most-scientists.html

Like this? http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html red states DO spend all the money blue states make.

One of the countries biggest economies (California and New York) and consequently represent a good chunk of the nations gdp receive less money than many red states.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html
Care to share any contrary data?

There are bike lanes everywhere. I would think that with some combination of bike lanes and side streets, you'd end up getting home faster on a bicycle even if it added a few miles to the distance.

...you're holding up Glenn Beck as a reference on "common sense"? Really? Just because someone calls a duck a dog does not make it a dog. Glenn Beck has as much connection to common sense as your thoughts have a connection to controlling the motion of the planets.

"Give someone enough rope to hang themselves....

Awful analysis - not even self consistent. Actually, not even your analysis - just a regurgitation of something in Slate, or ... wherever you nubbed it from."

Try reading the aritcle and looking at data and other posts he references with SORUCES you troll.

Ctrl-F "sources"

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2008/10/misunderstandin.html

It's obvious you didn't read the damn article and have some kneejerk need to defend your ideology (extremely pro private sector obviously) if you had you would have noticed he linked to blogs which linked to references and souces of the data.

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2008/10/misunderstandin.html

Ctrl-F "sources"

Try answering the questions in that blogpost before you spout off your bullshit saying it was the government.

I remember a CASE tool called The Last One that was briefly hyped as making programming obsolete.

RTFA, you didn't even check out the slate article nor the numerous links provided by it.

The whole point was that this has nothing to do with government and everything to do with business committing fraud.

(from slate article)

"There's much more. As Barry Ritholtz notes in this fine rant, the CRA didn't force mortgage companies to offer loans for no money down, or to throw underwriting standards out the window, or to encourage mortgage brokers to aggressively seek out new markets. Nor did the CRA force the credit-rating agencies to slap high-grade ratings on packages of subprime debt"

Rant he was talking about:

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2008/10/misunderstandin.html

Try RTFA you are clearly misinformed.

"There's much more. As Barry Ritholtz notes in this fine rant, the CRA didn't force mortgage companies to offer loans for no money down, or to throw underwriting standards out the window, or to encourage mortgage brokers to aggressively seek out new markets. Nor did the CRA force the credit-rating agencies to slap high-grade ratings on packages of subprime debt"

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2008/10/misunderstandin.html

That's how it always is with the Blue states. The biggest anti-government Red states always get the most money back from the federal government, Red states can't function without federal spending.

Oh and do I need to mention Alaska's "Communist Wealth Reallocation Scheme"?

"Class is not fixed."

Class is relatively fixed, do not confuse some dynamic movement in income as social mobility, most people behave like atoms in gas. See here:

http://prayatna.typepad.com/satya/2005/07/are_the_rich_ge.html

Actually, I'm pretty sure the reason it drew ire was because in their quest to be contrarian and unintuitive they manage to get everything completely wrong, including such gems as claiming that "The problem with solar cells is that they're black, because they are designed to absorb light from the sun. But only about 12% gets turned into electricity and the rest is reradiated as heat - which contributes to global warming." Of course, not only are most solar cells blue, not only do they generally cover surfaces that have no better an albedo than they do, not only would the waste heat from even a large decrease in albedo be no bigger than the waste heat produced by coal plants, but of course the effect of waste heat is completely insignificant compared to the heat trapping effects of the CO2 released by the other power generation methods that solar would supplant, as the most basic sanity check would have shown.

The also manage to consistently cite climate scientists as saying things diametrically opposed to their actual positions, which is the sort of thing that really pisses people off, and all to push a highly flawed geoengineering "solution" which would require climate models much more precise than we have to not go disastrously wrong, would not stop ocean acidification, would not even stop massive climate change, since the earth is not a uniform system and energy would still be shifted around, and would require a feat of engineering and political cooperation beyond anything humanity has ever accomplished that would have to continue to disperse sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere every year for however many centuries humanity intends to survive on this planet, making it considerably more expensive and difficult than the comparatively easy task of just reducing the fucking emissions.

We don't need to worry, since this guy has already figured out a better design http://patentlaw.typepad.com/patent/2006/02/pto_requests_mo.html

Sure, it's technically correct, but do you want language to degenerate into this? God help us all.
PS: If I corrected you, what would that make you?

That's how I'd approach an electronic voting system. All that said, though, I'm not sure "throwing technology at it" is the right thing. Paper ballots with optical scanning and random auditing under multiparty review is likely a better route to fast results and reasonable certainty. The number of paper ballots examined in the audit can go up as the election gets closer to a tie.

Then again, look at the Franken vs. Coleman debacle. How would this have turned out differently (if at all) if the voting systems in the precincts had electronic voting in a system similar to the above? Would we still have write-ins for Lizard People?

Providing cloud services != "using it" though. I doubt that Amazon and Google have been "using" cloud services - in the sense of resources that are shared with external customers - for "over a decade". Try just over 3 years.

See, what I'm getting at is the vaguery surrounding what "cloud computing" actually is. Who's providing it, who's using it, and who's just scamming money from jumping on the bandwagon and consulting their way to an early retirement by layering a new lexicon on top of Software As A Service.

But it is the iPhone. Not the jesusPhone.

At least not until you install the jesusPhone theme...

From the parent's link http://mainframe.typepad.com/blog/2009/10/press-reports-us-justice-dept-opens-ibm-antitrust-probe.html.

The CCIA is an industry lobbying organization funded by IBM competitors including Microsoft. According to Computerworld (citing the Financial Times), in 2004 the CCIA dropped its antitrust complaint against Microsoft in exchange for Microsoft paying $19.75 million to the organization. Half that amount went to Black personally, according to the report. CCIA member Nokia pulled out of the organization, with Nokia's spokesperson saying at the time, "The settlement content and process were inappropriate."

Uh-oh. Looks like Microsoft's using their SCO strategy again:
1. Pay little company with few employees and no real innovation to sue competitors.
2. Little company sues a big Microsoft competitor.
3. ??? (they either win or lose and go bankrupt)
4. Profit.*

*: If the company wins, Microsoft seriously hurts their competitor. If they lose, Microsoft costs the competitor a lot of time and money in court, but pays nothing more than their "donation" to the little company, even if that company goes bankrupt as a result.

The case was dismissed by a Federal Judge:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/08/technology/companies/08antitrust.html?_r=1

CCIA is shill for Microsoft. Thats' why this is happening.

http://mainframe.typepad.com/blog/2009/10/press-reports-us-justice-dept-opens-ibm-antitrust-probe.html

Terrorism is desperation. The ONLY way to stop determined terrorism is to hear the claims of the terrorists and negotiate. If someone blows the fuck out of himself and a bunch of other people, it might be a good idea to hear what they're mad about. Do it covertly if you want, so that it doesn't seem you negotiate with them, but do it.

Okay, so here are some demands. And here are some more. And more. And more.

Let's negotiate?

Many people (lefties especially... which is quite sad to me as I'm one myself) love to reduce this down to Israel, but the problem is far more broad, and that was very clearly demonstrated by Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. For another glimpse at the same problem, go read the talk page for the article on Muhammad on Wikipedia (there's 13 pages devoted solely to the issue of paintings there now).

The only thing we have to negotiate over is our way of life, and the primacy of such concepts as freedom of speech and expression over vague notions of "respecting religion". Personally, I consider these things to be non-negotiable.

What is MORE likely that happened, is fallout from this:

http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdaily/2009/01/taco-bell-loses-chihuahua-caseagain.html

Not complete without a visual.

http://stylemens.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/05/30/stone_h_2.jpg

Do you have any suggested reading for me?

A good place to start for some not-too-numbers-heavy basic ideas would be John K Galbraith, The Affluent Society (or it might have been Almost Everybody's Guide to Economics -- they're dated, but they're focused on basic ideas of how economies work). John Galbraith (and to a lesser extent his son James) was a great writer of popular economics tracts, with reasonably middle-of-the-road politics (not one of the so-called "freshwater economists" that are typical of the hard-right, free-market-fundamentalist position that underlies a lot of our current government).

Having started there, you can look at some of Paul Krugman's work for again-popular treatments of more interesting problems; "The Return of Depression Economics" is a great book.

You also wouldn't go too wrong by lurking on some of the well-reputed economists' blogs; you'll pick up a fair amount by osmosis. Krugman's NY Times blog is good; Greg Mankiw's blog, and especially Brad DeLong. Like I said, you'll want a couple popular books under your belt, but from there since a lot of interesting economists these days are hip to the Internet and blog a lot, you can pick up a huge amount by watching them actually at work.

When you have a bit of background, you can also pick up an awful lot just by reading American history, too. Economists LOOOOVE to talk about the Great Depression; it was basically the equivalent of Einstein and Newton rolled into one for the field.

One more thing: you'll probably realize that there's a very major rift in the economics profession right now, divided between the so-called "freshwater economists" and "saltwater economists." With a little bit of reading you'll probably be able to identify which camp any given opinion falls into pretty quickly.

Anyway, hope this is helpful, it's vastly vague and incomplete, but at this point I don't even remember half of what I've flipped through at one point or another. Learning comes from everywhere :D

A work of evil worthy of the old gods it is.

They are among us and they are on the internet.

Let me tell you a story.

Stacy Griffith, 15, liked frequenting chat rooms online. One day, she met a funny, goofy boy who was deep and intelligent. They talked all the time and eventually, they decided they were going to meet up at a mall in Stacy's home town.

Only when they met, Stacy realized he was no boy.

It was motherfucking Cthulhu. Holy fucking shit.

5,000 Americal girls lose their sanity to Cthulhu each year. Stop online predatation from Great Old Ones before it can start. Educate your children about Cthulhu today.

(Seen on Wil Wheaton's blog.)

I think the author's gripe is with transfer pricing, which is seen by some as a way to abuse the tax system. Wikipedia probably explains it better than I can but it is a fairly ordinary course for a business to engage in transfer pricing (shifting of intangibles including IP within its subsidiaries to minimize tax) and there are a lot of complex rules and regulations involved (albeit, mostly on international level). But some view it a way to abuse the tax system and there has been a lot of controversies involved:

1. Google - http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2007/11/is-google-a-tax.html
2. Amazon - http://www.reuters.com/article/industryNews/idUSTRE5640CR20090705 (here Amazon was hit with about 100M in fines by the Japanese authority).
3. U2 - http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/u2-respond-to-critics-of-their-deal-with-the-taxman/

Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_pricing

My view is that it is not (but then again, my view is no corporate tax and high VAT), but I think it is a legitimate criticism.

Monopoly was not cut from whole cloth, you know. It may be a dull game, but it was popular for more than twenty years before it was popular.

And it is written by somebody who is really good at this...

http://edgeperspectives.typepad.com/about.html

This guy "influenced" the author.

Look at his CV. I doubt this man has done anything BUT do some Strategyery (as GWB would say).

I do find it very odd, to say the least!, that PETA has so many animals put down.

And it's even odder, if true, that PETA employees would pick up animals and just kill and dump them, without even taking them back to PETA's shelter. And if the NRA's claims are not true, then why hasn't PETA sued them for libel and slander? (PETA would gladly sue NRA; they are enemies.)

Check out the PDF with records; PETA used to place more animals than it does these days. In 1998, 258 animals were adopted or transferred and 635 were killed; and they noted that 58 of the killed animals were badly burned birds from some sort of accident. In 2007, 93 animals were adopted or transferred and 2369 were killed . Even PETA can do better than PETA does these days.

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/downloads/PetaKillsAnimals.pdf

Also, a source from the NRA? Yeah, as if thats going to be a bias free source! When I think of the NRA, I sure think of Animal Rights

The NRA wants hunting to continue to be legal. Hunting kills an animal quickly with a bullet; this seems a less cruel fate than being torn by wolf teeth, or starving to death in the winter. It's more cruel than leaving the animal alone, of course, but as a person who eats meat and doesn't want to stop, I don't feel it is my place to condemn hunting.

How many deer starve in the winter? "...MOST of the fawns die EVERY winter."

The NRA also wants people to continue to be able to own dogs (including hunting dogs). PETA considers this slavery, no joke, and PETA would love to abolish all forms of pet ownership.

If American people dont take animals from American animal shelters, then what is meant to happen to them?

First, American people do take animals from shelters. For example, my wife and I have a pet cat that we got from a shelter. (She was really nervous for weeks when we first got her; she has settled down and is peaceful and happy in our home.)

There are so many animals that many do get put down. There are also "no-kill" shelters that will hold animals for as long as it takes, until they find someone who will take the animal. The shelter from which we got our cat is a no-kill shelter; they won't even kill the cats with feline AIDS, they try to keep them going. On the one hand, I think they are a little crazy (if they killed the cats with feline AIDS, they would have more room to take on doomed cats from other shelters that do not have a no-kill policy). On the other hand, I have to respect them for having rock-solid principles; when they say they are "no-kill", they really mean it.

There are also individuals who "foster" animals in their homes. Rather than permanently adopting the animals, they hold some animals for a while, to try to help the no-kill shelters save as many animals as possible.

PETA could transfer some animals to no-kill shelters or foster homes, if they can't find anyone to adopt the animals. But I have to agree that with PETA's huge budget, they ought to be able to kill fewer animals and place more in homes.

Here it is: [link]

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. --Benjamin Franklin

It is rather idiotic to relate using a computer to using operating a vehicle. A two ton piece of steel flying down the highway at 120k/h is vastly more of a public safety threat than any shmo using a laptop. Not only does this proposition fail to consider the nightmare of registering private individuals, but it does not take into consideration the corporate nightmare it would cause. Who would need the license, the individual operating the computer, or the owner of the computer? Would this mean that internet cafes (and the small anonymity they provide) be doomed because everyone would be forced to provide some sort of identifier token? What about libraries? This sort of identification requirement would force libraries and their entire mission of providing freely accessible information in jeopardy.

This looks like either a poorly thought out plan to help regulate stupidity or a power grab. As evidenced by warning labels on coffee cups, plastic bags and every other mass-produced item, trying to protect people from their own stupidity is nearly impossible. On the other hand, this would be a huge boon for those that wish to dissolve freedom and anonymity on the internet. Granted the average person leaves flashing neon signs with most of their personal data flashing in 1km high letters when they browse, there are still a large number of people that take online anonymity seriously and use it to their advantage for all sorts of reasons the most important being political dissidents.

A simpler solution would be to set up a Great-Firewall much like China's. Even though the GFW has proven to be less than great, it provides basically the same mechanism for keeping people out of the reach of "dangerous ideas".

Let's focus on educating people as to their rights and responsible behavior rather than trying to remove their liberties. We should also probably focus some of that energy on making the intertubes more robust and less prone to point failures and exploits; making the network more robust and idiot proof would benefit the entire world and help make dangerous and promiscuous users a danger to them selves rather than the entire world.

I don't really see much improvement over the previous years models at all.

Most of them are the same, it's true. But:

Sure in very recent history there have been improvements in fuel economy (hybrids, etc) but prior to that there hadn't been much difference in cars for 20 years.

And airbags. And side impact airbags. And minivans. And minivans with automatic doors.

I'm not saying a new car is a reason to get excited, but let me put it this way:

First of all, if you didn't have a car, would you refuse to buy one?

Second, if you had a good car from 20 years ago, would you refuse to buy one today, even if your old car ran just fine? (Some would, some wouldn't. But cars from 10, 20, 30 years ago represent about the change in looks you'd expect in a first person shooter over 5-10 years.)

And finally, even if it's just a slightly different body style and paint job, wouldn't you rather have, say, this car, or maybe this one, than the one you've got? Even if you answered "no", you probably see my point -- the reason you answered "no", I'll bet, has more to do with not liking those particular cars than with not being able to think of any car better than the one you've got.

Not lowest. Second highest. http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2009/08/us-corporate-tax-rate.html

Well, I appreciate your watching over me.

Unfortunately, the link you gave doesn't actually go anywhere. It says text needs to be added; I don't know if you were trying to solicit my help to fill it out? In any event, here's a link that works:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_v._Acuff-Rose_Music,_Inc.

It's interesting that you would cite this, but probably not relevant since the circumstances are different.

But to help even more, what the supreme court gave as guidelines for fair use for fair use:

    (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
    (2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
    (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
    (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

(taken from Wikipedia, so maybe it's made up)

Anyway, if this is correct, not only is the original picture a parody of the Time cover passing your test (using Time to parody Time), but it is also political speech, and since there really is no attempt to commercialize the image, I think the odds are stacked against this being a copyright violation. You never know. Our courts seemed to be ruled by Captain Morgan these days, so you never know what you'll get when you start to litigate things.

The best explanation is probably that Flickr doesn't want to defend against any sort of lawsuit regardless of the merits.

Here's a few mainstream political images that *gasp* uses mickey mouse!
    http://arttalksback.typepad.com/.a/6a0111685b3d8d970c0112796d38be28a4-320wi

Damn. Disney should sue!

So yeah, the idea of "deception" is a human construct, as is the idea of "evil." And one could argue (as a previous poster did) that successive generations developing behaviors which are in their own self interest (so they get more food) but may (as a byproduct) be deleterious to others (since they get less food) is not a surprise. But extrapolate this to humans, and you get the kinds of behaviors that we call "deceptive" and, since we have ideas about the virtue of altruism, we call such behaviors "evil." This is experiment is definitely interesting in terms of group dynamics and behavior, and also because the novelty of the robots' solution to their problem is interesting-- two very different lines of thought. This kind of "deception" is one obvious and common solution to the problem of limited supply and competitive demand.

Deception is most interesting, I think, when you pair it with understanding of the "other" --that one is not merely making a strategy to get more food, but that in the process one is taking that food from others. So when humans and our closest relatives practice deceptive behaviors (which are surely-- and here demonstrably-- evolutionarily beneficial) it's complicated by our... moral sense? Altruistic tendencies? That's fascinating! When robots start to develop guilt complexes for their deceptive behaviors and guiltily hand over their food to others when caught in the act, I'll be impressed.

We are not using the term "deception" here in it's standard (moral) sense, which would indicate knowledge that another individual is being "fooled."

This piece by Amy Wohl is the only writing on this subject that comes remotely close to explaining what is going on.

In short, i4i's patent only covers some specific use of XML that is only widely used in the medical field. Microsoft is violating that particular patent.

i4i is apparently not claiming that they own a patent against all of XML or anything.

That's stupid. Cable television got popular because it provided more content than you could get for free, and because (at least initially) it didn't have advertising that the OTA channels did.

The problem is that Murdoch thinks that someone owns the news. That is seriously different than the television situation. You CANNOT copyright facts. It would be perfectly legal for someone to read the WSJ, rewrite the stories, and give them away for free with small ads nearby. And I suspect that is exactly what will happen if paywalls are erected.

Microtransactions DO NOT WORK. They never will work... the cost to do the transaction will always be higher than the value transferred. I am not going to put payment details into every random site I want to look at. Nor is anyone else. Some very specialist sites can do that, but for everyone as a whole? It'll never happen.

Things will remain free because that's what the marginal cost drives them to. Hell, look at your comment... should I have paid a microtransaction fee to look at it? Should you get reimbursed for writing it? How about my response here... should I charge you for being able to read it?

The mistake everyone is making is thinking that journalism from newspapers is somehow special. It isn't. In fact, bloggers and many other people who are actually close to the action do a better job of reporting what is actually going on, instead of it being skewed through the lens of a reporter that may or may not give a shit about the subject matter being reported.

My point is that the world is changing. Newspapers are no longer the gateway to information. And if they insist on trying to do things like charging micropayments, all they will do is accelerate their demise. Unless they do something like the RIAA/MPAA and essentially buy off some senators and judges and so on. I know that's what the AP is trying to do.

You beat me to it, but I've got one better:

1957 Chrysler New Yorker. These, my friend, are tailfins.

http://alamedarides.com/chrysler-newyorker1957/57Chrysler-NewYorkerB.jpg

http://jalopnik.com/assets/resources/2007/07/57_NY_Rear.jpg

http://telstarlogistics.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/01/28/newyorker017x.jpg

Yellow Smarties have same health qualities as red Smarties..

Put down the Smarties, pick up the M&Ms and eat the blue ones: http://timesonline.typepad.com/science/2009/07/why-migraines-could-leave-you-blue-in-the-face.html

Seriously, I went through terrible schooling, and I know how dangerous mining and in particular coal mining is.

The worst part about your "terrible schooling"? You ain't smart enough to know just how terrible it was.

2007 US Coal Mining Fatality Rate: .029 / 200,000 hours
2007 US Construction Fatality Rate: .356 / 200,000 hours

btw the statement quoted above is a lie. You are a liar, antirelic. Including the catastrophes in the accounting is precisely what nuclear proponents don't do (didn't you get the memo?) because of the obvious. Luckily for you and them, as it turns out, human life doesn't really have much value if its not yours.

You're a liar, Mr. AC, or just an ignorant retard, because you apparently have no clue how many people die mining coal. Not so many per year in a country like the U.S. (compared to how many in modern times for nuclear), but still thousands per year in China, which is how things were not that long ago even in the 1st World. Have more people died mining coal than have died as a result of nuclear power, even counting those killed intentionally by atomic bombs? Yes.

But yes, those human lives don't have much value since you had no clue they existed.

If you only count accidents, then the total deaths from nuclear power is less than a single year of coal mining in China, or just a few years of mining in the U.S. in the period when the nuclear disasters occurred. In the year Three Mile Island occured, the second worst accident ever, more people died mining in the U.S. than died from the incident. Yes that includes long-term health effects, which coal mining isn't very good for either if you didn't know.

It's not the greatest comparison ever, since ultimately what matters is modern safety standards in the country in question (the U.S. in this case). It is a true comparison though. And you'd still be very hard-pressed and hard-tarded to suggest that nuclear power is more dangerous than coal power today.