IANAL, but clauses in a contract that which create a duty and/or burden on the customer which is generally unknown and/or has nothing to do with the normal performance of the contract are null and void.* It doesn't matter if they are hard to find, they could be printed in 48pt bold text right on the frontpage and it wouldn't matter.
I assume that sending your private info over to the man every time you shot a picture falls under that broad category.
*In the jurisdiction I live in. The Free Market Utopia a.k.a. USA most likely has different laws.
I see what you did there. Interestingly, the author mentions that bigger url shorteners such as bit.ly offer more trust than your mom-and-pop url shortener. Kinda disproves his point entirely. Also, e.g. on Twitter, if you mouse over a shortened URL it displays the target as a tooltip. (But which Twitter user is patient enough to wait?)
The bloke who complained about YouCut on his blog states there that quantum computers won't solve NP-hard problems in polynomial time. And I've read elsewhere that some crypto-systems are resistant to quantum computer challenges.
The real question is: Do you want ignorant fucks who think intellectualism is a swearword, who are only looking after their own bottom line, and who will lie through their teeth and eat their promises as soon as they get elected run your country?
Apparently you do and unfortunately so do we./bashing politicians since christmas 1998
You might be liable to plagiarism or some contract violation if you've signed an NDA, but you're not a thief. Thieving implies taking something physical that is potentially subject to scarcity. That's the whole point.
If physical objects such as food where not subject to scarcity, humans would never have evolved the concept of thieving. We share by default. Our self-interest may override that impulse and the whole reason why some people think information is anything like property is because their self-interest is completely out of whack. (Read: They lazy, greedy bastards.)
Don't try to inject common sense into the debate! Their heads will explode and they'll blame you for it! I wouldn't want to be on the wrong side of the US military.
How come? Is it because pesticides make it possible to use less labor?
Given that 50% of the food produced for western markets lands in the trash and does not reach the consumer, I'd say there are better ways to bring down costs than using pesticides with all their negative side effects.
BTW, I'm not talking about spoiled food, but perfectly fine foodstuff that's close to its mostly arbitrary best-before-use date or which doesn't meet some visual criteria that consumers have become conditioned to expect. We're all paying a markup for that.
Also, in those parts of the world where food cannot be afforded it is usually because the local markets are flooded which cheaply produced and imported western food that has driven the local farmers out of work because they cannot compete. So cheap food is a double-edged sword.
This is especially so, given that research shows that old farming techniques and organic practices are equally or more effective, and cause no permanent damage to people or the environment. Virtually none of the artificial stuff spread on the farmlands of the world are *necessary*, even if one's sole criteria is increased yield.
A study by the University of Michigan showed that organic methods are sufficient to feed the current global population and more without an increase in the landbase used for agriculture.
What's dangerous is trying to put a price to everything and then failing to act because some activities may be unprofitable. People like to blame the "free market", but it's insufficient political will that is the problem.
If social services become human rights when a society is prosperous enough to provide them, do they then cease to be human rights when that society goes into decline?
Didn't you argue above that rights are the natural state and one can only be prevented from excercising them? How does your scenario not apply to the right to life and/or the pursuit of happiness? I would imagine that these rights are similarly constricted in a poor society, are they not?
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
IHMO, this includes pro-active medicine (check-ups and such) and not only trips to the ER. Not only is it practical because it helps keeping costs down in the long run, but if every person has a right to be healthy then it follows that procedures designed to prevent him or her from becoming sick should be affordable to him.
Thing is, although I hate ads in general I might actually be willing to opt into a few ad channels. For example, if I had disposable income to spend I might opt into a channel for photography products. Of course, if cash is tight I would opt out again because seeing all these products I can't buy tends to be demoralizing.
I subscribe to a few shopping-related blogs in my feed reader. These are basically ad channels. But the difference to broadcast or web advertisement is that I've chosen the channels because I think they are relevant to me and I can quit the subscription whenever I feel like it.
Slashdot Mirror
Life isn't a 24 season, you know. And I really hate it when idiots use utalitarism to justify atrocities. (That includes many utalitarists.)
Nice nickname, by the way.
In this order?
IANAL, but clauses in a contract that which create a duty and/or burden on the customer which is generally unknown and/or has nothing to do with the normal performance of the contract are null and void.* It doesn't matter if they are hard to find, they could be printed in 48pt bold text right on the frontpage and it wouldn't matter.
I assume that sending your private info over to the man every time you shot a picture falls under that broad category.
*In the jurisdiction I live in. The Free Market Utopia a.k.a. USA most likely has different laws.
Don't you mean warsitting? Or maybe warstarbucking?
curl http://bit.ly/eaHU1C
I see what you did there. Interestingly, the author mentions that bigger url shorteners such as bit.ly offer more trust than your mom-and-pop url shortener. Kinda disproves his point entirely. Also, e.g. on Twitter, if you mouse over a shortened URL it displays the target as a tooltip. (But which Twitter user is patient enough to wait?)
Emacs.
It's not commercial, but it's arguably *very* popular.
The bloke who complained about YouCut on his blog states there that quantum computers won't solve NP-hard problems in polynomial time. And I've read elsewhere that some crypto-systems are resistant to quantum computer challenges.
Who should I believe?
The real question is: Do you want ignorant fucks who think intellectualism is a swearword, who are only looking after their own bottom line, and who will lie through their teeth and eat their promises as soon as they get elected run your country?
Apparently you do and unfortunately so do we. /bashing politicians since christmas 1998
Thankfully that idea is floating around. Apparently, the co-editor of mashable is interested: http://twitter.com/#!/benparr/status/15569949812592640
Or maybe crowd-fund it via kickstarter.
I don't get it.
Can't they run context-sensitive ads like on GMail? Or don't delicious users go to the web site? I know I do when I want to look something up.
You can export your bookmarks here: https://secure.delicious.com/settings/bookmarks/export
It's a standard Netscape bookmark file, so I expect other services to be able to import from it. But I haven't researched it yet.
[ I like ]
Why? :-(
One tweet containing my daily photo shoot 'assignment' ...
LNK PLZ, K TNX BYE! ;-)
Um, yeah.
You might be liable to plagiarism or some contract violation if you've signed an NDA, but you're not a thief. Thieving implies taking something physical that is potentially subject to scarcity. That's the whole point.
If physical objects such as food where not subject to scarcity, humans would never have evolved the concept of thieving. We share by default. Our self-interest may override that impulse and the whole reason why some people think information is anything like property is because their self-interest is completely out of whack. (Read: They lazy, greedy bastards.)
You're a victim to the fallacy that information is like property.
In truth they're nothing alike and as such analogies that compare the two are useless.
Now, if you've tried a car analogy, you might have a shot... /ducks
Don't try to inject common sense into the debate! Their heads will explode and they'll blame you for it! I wouldn't want to be on the wrong side of the US military.
Your tax-dollars hard at work. Yay!
Lalalalalala. Can't hear you!!!11eleven!!
Where's your link to a study proving your point?
How come? Is it because pesticides make it possible to use less labor?
Given that 50% of the food produced for western markets lands in the trash and does not reach the consumer, I'd say there are better ways to bring down costs than using pesticides with all their negative side effects.
BTW, I'm not talking about spoiled food, but perfectly fine foodstuff that's close to its mostly arbitrary best-before-use date or which doesn't meet some visual criteria that consumers have become conditioned to expect. We're all paying a markup for that.
Also, in those parts of the world where food cannot be afforded it is usually because the local markets are flooded which cheaply produced and imported western food that has driven the local farmers out of work because they cannot compete. So cheap food is a double-edged sword.
Before someone shoots down your argument, wondering what research you are refering to, I thought I'd provide a link to underscore your point: http://www.seedquest.com/News/releases/2007/july/19783.htm
A study by the University of Michigan showed that organic methods are sufficient to feed the current global population and more without an increase in the landbase used for agriculture.
What's dangerous is trying to put a price to everything and then failing to act because some activities may be unprofitable. People like to blame the "free market", but it's insufficient political will that is the problem.
If social services become human rights when a society is prosperous enough to provide them, do they then cease to be human rights when that society goes into decline?
Didn't you argue above that rights are the natural state and one can only be prevented from excercising them? How does your scenario not apply to the right to life and/or the pursuit of happiness? I would imagine that these rights are similarly constricted in a poor society, are they not?
Modern health care is not a right, it's someone's goods and services.
Your own government disagreed when it passed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights more than 60 years ago:
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
IHMO, this includes pro-active medicine (check-ups and such) and not only trips to the ER. Not only is it practical because it helps keeping costs down in the long run, but if every person has a right to be healthy then it follows that procedures designed to prevent him or her from becoming sick should be affordable to him.
Slashdot has a checkbox that turns off ads. I'm unsure what the text beneath it means -- either it's sarcasm or the offer is dependent on karma.
Full ACK.
Thing is, although I hate ads in general I might actually be willing to opt into a few ad channels. For example, if I had disposable income to spend I might opt into a channel for photography products. Of course, if cash is tight I would opt out again because seeing all these products I can't buy tends to be demoralizing.
I subscribe to a few shopping-related blogs in my feed reader. These are basically ad channels. But the difference to broadcast or web advertisement is that I've chosen the channels because I think they are relevant to me and I can quit the subscription whenever I feel like it.