Google should not have been doing with China anyway, for ethical reasons.
Despite their old "Do No Evil" slogan (man, you sure don't hear that much anymore), when people protested their planned cooperation with Chinese government censorship, and said they should not go to China at all, Google's argument was (literally): "If we don't do it, someone else will."
It seems to me that has been Google's ethics, in a nutshell.
"Hope it's not windows 8 on the desktop / laptops."
What military in its right mind would opt to choose closed-source, proprietary, and more to the point UNPROVEN software for their day-to-day operations?
I have had some issues with the military before but I never thought they were actually stupid. This comes pretty close to changing my mind.
I second this, as long as the dumber breed is kept separate from the main population.
More bacon!
Actually, though, this experiment does not prove much of anything. The particular gene they were selecting for might be associated with another gene for small guts, for example. And poorer nutrition would almost certainly imply smaller broods.
We know that many genes are not independent, for example. In order to prove that this trait (bigger brains) by itself was actually the CAUSE of smaller guts and smaller broods, an awful lot of process of elimination has to take place, and I don't see that they did that.
Also, the fact that smarter primates might have smaller broods is pretty much irrelevant to their findings. The same is true of smarter humans when compared to most of their peers. So what? Are the researchers trying to claim that the situations are comparable? Generalizing from mice or rats to humans is a pretty huge leap. But THIS... this is just laughable.
"Some of this is certainly covered by existing US law and regulations..."
I don't see it as being all that much of a gray area. Sure, there are risks, and the customer (passenger) must assume some risks due to, say, unknown or unknowable circumstances.
But liability? For things such as negligence for example? It doesn't need "protection". We already have perfectly good laws that cover it and no commercial venture should be immune. Let them cover the actual costs of doing business, or go out of business.
"Just don't try to pin the blame on someone else if something goes wrong. Virgin isn't creating the risk. The people wanting to do the activity are. Virgin is simply providing them a means to conduct the activity."
Absolute BS. Virgin *IS* clearly creating the risk, as the risk would not -- could not -- exist if they weren't pursuing their goals, which will I remind you is a unique commercial venture.
Why should ski areas (lift manufacturers, etc.) be absolved of liability in the case of, say, negligence? Why should any commercial enterprise be "protected" from the people who use its service?
It's just money shuffling, from the have-nots to the haves.
Don't misunderstand me! I am all for Virgin Galactic and such enterprises. But call a spade a spade and let businesses who create risks be liable for the risks. Sure... going into space is a risky venture. That is a given today. But nobody should be immune from a liability suit if they accidentally drop a paperclip into a console full of electrical connections. (I know of someone who was a victim of exactly that kind of negligence, only it was a more-standard airplane.)
Let the money reflect the reality of doing business, rather than allowing government to "protect" those businesses from their own customers. If they can't stay afloat while absorbing the real costs of their venture, they deserve to go under. That's called "free-market capitalism".
"Meaning "one who takes another's work without permission" first recorded 1701; sense of "unlicensed radio broadcaster" is from 1913."
Etymology is NOT the same as a legal definition. "Piracy" has been in use in the legal world to mean SELLING works without permission since approximately that same 1913. It appears in that context in court decisions, and yes, in the actual law.
"The US did not invent copyright, and they cannot change the historic facts as to why it was created. The reasoning on your Constitution is just marketing bullshit."
My argument was that in the United States, copyright was demonstrably implemented for a purpose different from what you claimed. The "reasoning on [our] Constitution" is far from bullshit, however it is true that Congress, over the 200+ years since, has made something of a mockery of it. Still, those are two different things.
"It's too bad that the information in your old office will long outlive the other information lost in the Digital Dark Age."
Probably not, when it comes to business records. Paper records will be relegated to a cardboard file box in the storeroom within 3 years, never to be touched again for another 10, at which time it will either be sent to long-term storage, or the landfill. And the stuff in long-term storage will also eventually end up in the landfill. So its effective (or at least useful) lifetime is still, 99% of the time, only about 3 years.
On the other hand, most small companies can put an entire year's worth of records on a single DVD, and make multiple backups. The DVD is supposed to be good for 10 years, and at least one of the backups (if kept in a cool dark place) will surely still be good by then. And it only takes a few minutes to call up any old records on DVD, while it can take hours or even days to find old records among the paper files.
It costs less in time, labor, and storage fees to keep it electronically. Text and PDF files have not gone out of style in the last 10 years, I don't think they will in the next 10 either. If they do, somebody will make a handy converter.
So theoretically at least, electronic records are at least as durable, and far less costly. The only way there will be a "Digital Dark Age" is if computers worldwide suddenly stop working... a scenario I would judge to be far less likely than getting struck by lightning.
"companies that sell a service you would use if you decide to not use a product CHALLENGE YOU TO NOT USE THAT PRODUCT."
Perhaps. But it is still a worthwhile goal. My work has been almost completely dead-tree-less since 2006... but I also haven't sent a fax for over 5 years, maybe 6.
"The fact of the matter is, at least 80% of mobile phone users don't even know what "openness" means, and if you can explain it to them, almost none of them will care."
I disagree. I have spoken to many people who decry the "walled garden" model of mobile OSes.
"... and you still can't get people to buy Linux-based computers based on the openness argument."
*I* use Linux based on the openness argument, so I am a living counterexample to your argument.
I think it's about time we got a truly open Linux distro for phones. I know Samsung is working on their Tizen OS but I rather like this one.
It bothers a lot of people, even here in the U.S., and causes a lot of inefficiency.
If you have a set of tools in the U.S., chances are you have both U.S. and metric wrenches, sockets, measuring tape, etc. It causes a lot of duplication of effort.
Further, the U.S. system (not "imperial" as some people call it... the Imperial measurement system uses similar units but they are not equal to the U.S. units) is difficult to calculate. You constantly have to figure things like "Okay, 1.8 inch = 0.125 inch" and so on. Not fun.
"The term "theft" is the one that is not "legally" always associated with copying."
The term "piracy" (still a specific legal term in the U.S. and other places as well) refers only to a subset of "copying". In particular, the term "piracy" refers to people who copy authorized works (usually in quantity), FOR PROFIT. It is the latter part that many people tend to leave out, which causes confusion.
Neither uploading or downloading on peer-to-peer networks constitutes "piracy". In fact, since pirates are (by definition) profit-motivated, sharing on peer networks is directly contrary to their goals. Actual pirates avoid peer networks like the plague.
Even your own reference mentions it:
"The term "piracy" has been used to refer to the unauthorized copying, distribution and selling of works in copyright."
The key word there is "and". In order for it to be piracy, as opposed to simple copyright infringement, one has to be copying, distributing, AND selling.
There is no universal law that says copyright was granted in the U.S. for the same reason as it was previously created in England. They are separate laws, created under different conditions, by different people.
You can believe it is bullshit if you like, but your opinion does not make it so.
Copyright in the United States was intended to serve the public (it even says so in the Constitution) by encouraging new works by granting creators an exclusive right to their works for a limited time. That limited time was originally 15 (or 17?) years, same as patents.
I argue that it should be the same now. Certainly no more than 20 years.
"... the "WE are supposed to be the leaders" thing does not work in the reality."
It has worked, therefore it can work. The fact that our Federal government has become overweening and abusive of its authority over the past century (give or take) does not mean that it has to be that way.
I give Apple full credit for being first with a usable tablet... after Palm, that is, which effectively had a usable tablet with only a 5.5" screen, 12 years ago. It was not color, but so what? It had a touch screen and was very usable.
Of course Palm through away all their well-established advantages when they started making phones. Truly sad, that.
Slashdot Mirror
"Imagine, the arrogance of it!"
Yes, tradition and arrogance are two different things. You would not call French wine or German beer "arrogant".
Wait a minute... I retract the part about the wine.
"Why do people use decimals on a non-metric system? sigh..."
What a bizarre question.
The answer is: because mathematically, decimals work the same in non-metric systems as they do in the metric system.
Google should not have been doing with China anyway, for ethical reasons.
Despite their old "Do No Evil" slogan (man, you sure don't hear that much anymore), when people protested their planned cooperation with Chinese government censorship, and said they should not go to China at all, Google's argument was (literally): "If we don't do it, someone else will."
It seems to me that has been Google's ethics, in a nutshell.
I feel compelled to play Spelling Nazi here. It's Godwin, not Goodwin.
... or at least the catch would be obvious here in the U.S.!
Mobile data costs so much more than phone minutes these days, people probably won't save anything.
"Hope it's not windows 8 on the desktop / laptops."
What military in its right mind would opt to choose closed-source, proprietary, and more to the point UNPROVEN software for their day-to-day operations?
I have had some issues with the military before but I never thought they were actually stupid. This comes pretty close to changing my mind.
I second this, as long as the dumber breed is kept separate from the main population.
More bacon!
Actually, though, this experiment does not prove much of anything. The particular gene they were selecting for might be associated with another gene for small guts, for example. And poorer nutrition would almost certainly imply smaller broods.
We know that many genes are not independent, for example. In order to prove that this trait (bigger brains) by itself was actually the CAUSE of smaller guts and smaller broods, an awful lot of process of elimination has to take place, and I don't see that they did that.
Also, the fact that smarter primates might have smaller broods is pretty much irrelevant to their findings. The same is true of smarter humans when compared to most of their peers. So what? Are the researchers trying to claim that the situations are comparable? Generalizing from mice or rats to humans is a pretty huge leap. But THIS... this is just laughable.
"Some of this is certainly covered by existing US law and regulations..."
I don't see it as being all that much of a gray area. Sure, there are risks, and the customer (passenger) must assume some risks due to, say, unknown or unknowable circumstances.
But liability? For things such as negligence for example? It doesn't need "protection". We already have perfectly good laws that cover it and no commercial venture should be immune. Let them cover the actual costs of doing business, or go out of business.
"Just don't try to pin the blame on someone else if something goes wrong. Virgin isn't creating the risk. The people wanting to do the activity are. Virgin is simply providing them a means to conduct the activity."
Absolute BS. Virgin *IS* clearly creating the risk, as the risk would not -- could not -- exist if they weren't pursuing their goals, which will I remind you is a unique commercial venture.
Why should ski areas (lift manufacturers, etc.) be absolved of liability in the case of, say, negligence? Why should any commercial enterprise be "protected" from the people who use its service?
It's just money shuffling, from the have-nots to the haves.
Don't misunderstand me! I am all for Virgin Galactic and such enterprises. But call a spade a spade and let businesses who create risks be liable for the risks. Sure... going into space is a risky venture. That is a given today. But nobody should be immune from a liability suit if they accidentally drop a paperclip into a console full of electrical connections. (I know of someone who was a victim of exactly that kind of negligence, only it was a more-standard airplane.)
Let the money reflect the reality of doing business, rather than allowing government to "protect" those businesses from their own customers. If they can't stay afloat while absorbing the real costs of their venture, they deserve to go under. That's called "free-market capitalism".
"Meaning "one who takes another's work without permission" first recorded 1701; sense of "unlicensed radio broadcaster" is from 1913."
Etymology is NOT the same as a legal definition. "Piracy" has been in use in the legal world to mean SELLING works without permission since approximately that same 1913. It appears in that context in court decisions, and yes, in the actual law.
"I think it's quite safe to assume that the site ran ads, so yes, piracy would be appropriate term."
NO, it is not. Piracy refers to a SPECIFIC activity, and running ads is not it.
"[Citation needed]"
This is Slashdot, not f*cking Wikipedia. Jesus. Get a legal dictionary, and look it up.
"The US did not invent copyright, and they cannot change the historic facts as to why it was created. The reasoning on your Constitution is just marketing bullshit."
My argument was that in the United States, copyright was demonstrably implemented for a purpose different from what you claimed. The "reasoning on [our] Constitution" is far from bullshit, however it is true that Congress, over the 200+ years since, has made something of a mockery of it. Still, those are two different things.
"It's too bad that the information in your old office will long outlive the other information lost in the Digital Dark Age."
Probably not, when it comes to business records. Paper records will be relegated to a cardboard file box in the storeroom within 3 years, never to be touched again for another 10, at which time it will either be sent to long-term storage, or the landfill. And the stuff in long-term storage will also eventually end up in the landfill. So its effective (or at least useful) lifetime is still, 99% of the time, only about 3 years.
On the other hand, most small companies can put an entire year's worth of records on a single DVD, and make multiple backups. The DVD is supposed to be good for 10 years, and at least one of the backups (if kept in a cool dark place) will surely still be good by then. And it only takes a few minutes to call up any old records on DVD, while it can take hours or even days to find old records among the paper files.
It costs less in time, labor, and storage fees to keep it electronically. Text and PDF files have not gone out of style in the last 10 years, I don't think they will in the next 10 either. If they do, somebody will make a handy converter.
So theoretically at least, electronic records are at least as durable, and far less costly. The only way there will be a "Digital Dark Age" is if computers worldwide suddenly stop working... a scenario I would judge to be far less likely than getting struck by lightning.
"companies that sell a service you would use if you decide to not use a product CHALLENGE YOU TO NOT USE THAT PRODUCT."
Perhaps. But it is still a worthwhile goal. My work has been almost completely dead-tree-less since 2006... but I also haven't sent a fax for over 5 years, maybe 6.
"The fact of the matter is, at least 80% of mobile phone users don't even know what "openness" means, and if you can explain it to them, almost none of them will care."
I disagree. I have spoken to many people who decry the "walled garden" model of mobile OSes.
"... and you still can't get people to buy Linux-based computers based on the openness argument."
*I* use Linux based on the openness argument, so I am a living counterexample to your argument.
I think it's about time we got a truly open Linux distro for phones. I know Samsung is working on their Tizen OS but I rather like this one.
It bothers a lot of people, even here in the U.S., and causes a lot of inefficiency.
If you have a set of tools in the U.S., chances are you have both U.S. and metric wrenches, sockets, measuring tape, etc. It causes a lot of duplication of effort.
Further, the U.S. system (not "imperial" as some people call it... the Imperial measurement system uses similar units but they are not equal to the U.S. units) is difficult to calculate. You constantly have to figure things like "Okay, 1.8 inch = 0.125 inch" and so on. Not fun.
"The term "theft" is the one that is not "legally" always associated with copying."
The term "piracy" (still a specific legal term in the U.S. and other places as well) refers only to a subset of "copying". In particular, the term "piracy" refers to people who copy authorized works (usually in quantity), FOR PROFIT. It is the latter part that many people tend to leave out, which causes confusion.
Neither uploading or downloading on peer-to-peer networks constitutes "piracy". In fact, since pirates are (by definition) profit-motivated, sharing on peer networks is directly contrary to their goals. Actual pirates avoid peer networks like the plague.
Even your own reference mentions it:
"The term "piracy" has been used to refer to the unauthorized copying, distribution and selling of works in copyright."
The key word there is "and". In order for it to be piracy, as opposed to simple copyright infringement, one has to be copying, distributing, AND selling.
There is no universal law that says copyright was granted in the U.S. for the same reason as it was previously created in England. They are separate laws, created under different conditions, by different people.
You can believe it is bullshit if you like, but your opinion does not make it so.
"Everybody does except for the USA."
Yes, and I think this is the real point. The U.S. cannot stand almost completely alone in its units of measurement forever.
"Pirated software is chock-full of malware."
The software on Installous wasn't "pirated". It was copied. There is a real, significant, and LEGAL difference.
Frankly I am getting goddamned tired of seeing people do the RIAA's job for them by labeling copied software as "pirated" when it's not.
If you don't know the difference, LOOK IT UP.
That was UK, and long, long ago.
Copyright in the United States was intended to serve the public (it even says so in the Constitution) by encouraging new works by granting creators an exclusive right to their works for a limited time. That limited time was originally 15 (or 17?) years, same as patents.
I argue that it should be the same now. Certainly no more than 20 years.
"... the "WE are supposed to be the leaders" thing does not work in the reality."
It has worked, therefore it can work. The fact that our Federal government has become overweening and abusive of its authority over the past century (give or take) does not mean that it has to be that way.
Oops... I should correct that. Later I had a Palm Tungsten with a very nice color screen. I played a lot of Bejeweled on it.
s/through/threw
I can spell. Really I can.
I give Apple full credit for being first with a usable tablet... after Palm, that is, which effectively had a usable tablet with only a 5.5" screen, 12 years ago. It was not color, but so what? It had a touch screen and was very usable.
Of course Palm through away all their well-established advantages when they started making phones. Truly sad, that.