As opposed to the Democrats who say "Corporations Bad. Now, what did you want Mr. Big Business Man? Oh don't worry about the plebes, we'll just tell them how evil you are and how this regulation that prevents anyone from competing with you will keep you in line."
Look at the facts, big corporations give more money to Democrats than to Republicans by a wide margin. Of the top 20 per capita income counties in the U.S., 19 vote overwhelmingly Democrat (the 20th is close to evenly split). The Rich love the Democrats.
Yeah, but the difference between the Tea Partiers and the "Progressive" (or whatever they are calling themselves at the moment) protest groups is, the Tea Partiers talk about violence and then hold peaceful demonstrations, the Democrat protest groups talk about violence and then have riots at their demonstrations.
Yet for all of this, we have the talking heads warning about the dangers of violence promoted by the talk of the Tea Partiers, but never about the violence that actually happens, promoted by the talk of the other side.
It isn't regulation causing monopolies in the telecom industry
That's because the regulation has already done that. Once the regulation created the monopoly, they did away with it. Cable monopolies exist because they were regulated into existence. FIOS service exists as a monopoly because of the already existing telephone service monopoly (which was created by government regulation).
People keep referring to "natural monopolies" as if they come into being all on their own. Both the cable and the telephone monopolies exist because of government regulation, not because of market forces. Whether or not market forces would result in monopolies in these areas, we don't know because the market has never been allowed to decide.
It's not just that the Democrats get the lion's share of their funding from Big Corporations, they get the lion's share of the political donations from Big Corporations. And if you look at most of the legislation that the Democrats create that is "in the interest of the people", you will find that the industry groups that it purports to regulate are big supporters of the legislation. If you look at the health care bill that they just passed (supposedly necessary because of evil Big Pharma and evil Big Insurance), among its biggest supporters was Big Pharma and the big health insurance companies/organizations.
Because from the legal definition of "distribute", if the University owns the computer that the software is on, they haven't distributed it. So, the employee has no legal basis for demanding the source code.
Units of pirated software installed != Units of lost sales.
Better questions:
How many of those using or at least possessing a pirated copy of a given piece of software would actually pay for it if it were not available in pirate form?
How would that ratio change if the software were priced differently?
If prices were lower, would piracy decrease?
How would profits change in response to the above?
Answers? *shrug*
Additional important question:
How many copies of the software were sold because someone was exposed to it through a pirated copy?
More importantly, if the value of the copyrighted material isn't high enough to justify the expense of making sure it is not on Youtube, what's the problem? Or to put it another way, if Viacom's product isn't worth enough to justify ensuring that content infringing on it isn't on Youtube, maybe Viacom should consider creating higher value content.
Is it not considered "distributing the binary" when I as an employee run some customized software on my company-provided machine?
Should I as a human have the right to the source code at that time that the binary is distributed to me?
Or does corporate personhood take precedence?
No it is not considered "distributing the binary", as long as it is only installed on the company owned machine. If I write some code and install it on my computer, it is not distributing the code if I let you use it on my computer. It only becomes distributing when I allow you to install it on your computer. It is not about "corporate personhood" (except in so far as that applies to ownership issues), it is about who owns the computer the code runs on.
This gets more complicated when one organization rents computers from another, I do not have an understanding of the different permutations that come into play in that sort of circumstance.
I do not know the answer to your question, but it depends on how the UC system is structured. The answer to the question depends on the answer to this, if UC Berkley files a patent, is the patent held by UC Berkley or by UC? If the answer is the former, then if UC Berkley modifies GPL code, they would need to distribute the source code along with the software if they give it to another UC school. If the answer is the latter, then they would not.
And where are you going to find that? I know of no unbiased news source. Actually, unbiased journalism is not possible. All humans have biases. Those biases will effect the way that they report events. Those who claim to be unbiased are the worst for distorted reporting, because they don't even recognize how their own biases effect the way that they see events. It wasn't Fox News that said the Bush National Guard story was false but accurate.
That is because of the way left wing and right wing have been defined in recent years. Hitler has been defined as "right wing" and Stalin as "left wing" even though the only real difference between them was that Hitler had some really weird ideas about race and wanted to conquer the world in the name of the "German people" (as defined by Hitler) while Stalin wanted to conquer the world in the name of "the proletariat" (as defined by Stalin). Other than that and that Germany was already an industrial state when Hitler took over, there really isn't any difference between the policies they implemented internally (Ok and Hitler focused his mass murders a little more tightly on Jews).
the Tea Party folks... you know, those good ol', down home, middle American folk who just want to, you know, live in peace and stuff (when they aren't throwing rocks through windows and cutting propane tank lines),
Citation needed. The only case of "Tea Party folks" throwing rocks through windows I've seen reported was the offices of a Democratic Congressman...offices which were located on the thirtieth floor of the building they were in. As for cutting the propane lines, the only sure connection to the Tea Party folks is that some of them mistakenly posted the address as the home address of a Congressman who voted for the healthcare bill. Posting the names and addresses of those who oppose them is a common tactic of Democratic Party affiliated organizations. While I agree that it is reprehensible that these individuals did so, it is a bit much for them to be condemned by Democrats who support such tactics when used by those on thier side if the issues.
He really exposed himself with "Taliban-type attack." He probably meant Al-Qaida, but they're all brown, so what's it matter?
Considering that the latest information links the Times Square bomber with the Taliban, and that the Taliban has been doing car bomb attacks against forces in Afghanistan, I think that you are the one being exposed as not informed.
Additionally, he was giving examples of things not generally reported (or even sometimes mis-reported) by the alphabet news. It is clear if you get past your own biases that he was using those examples because his interests lead him to be more informed than average on those types of stories, not because he believed that there aren't other types of stories (which might not support his political opinions) that the alphabet news doesn't report (or misreports) as well. His point appears to be that most media report with a political bias and if you don't sample from those which have opposing political biases you will be misinformed.
But your response is typical, "I disagree with your politics, so you must have nothing worthwhile to say."
My family is choosing an iPad over a Netbook for our oldest child's first personal computing device. We looked at a number of Netbooks but the iPad is the better fit. We're also looking at an iPad for my wife as an alternative to a second laptop. iPads are and will continue impacting Netbook sales, as well as those of low-end notebooks and laptops. The question is how much.
The only reason to be considering a netbook for a child's first personal computing device is cost. If you are buying an Ipad, that means that your budget could support a real computer. There are full function laptops available for the price of an Ipad. So, you didn't buy your oldest child a "personal computing device", you bought them a personal computing toy. This is not a comment on all purchases of Ipads, just yours.
Except that they aren't. What is dropping is the rate of growth in sales. Well what do you expect? Lots of people went out and bought one when they first came out. Now they have one. They don't need another one yet (netbooks have not been around for the standard life cycle of a computer).
And not controlling CO2 emissions is not an option IMO.
Well, that is your problem, because I'm not convinced that controlling CO2 emissions is all that important. Many of the organizations that are pushing government intervention to stop AGE were saying that government intervention was needed to stop this, that or the other "OMG the world is going to end if we don't act now" problem before they got on the AGW bandwagon. And that is why most AGW skeptics are skeptics, the people who are pushing AGW have been saying "OMG, the world's going to end if we don't do X" my whole life. So now when they "OMG, AGW, if we don't do X, the world's going to end," I just don't believe them (by the way, that X in the quote is more or less the same with each "crisis").
Because I am pretty sure any climate scientist would easily double their salary by joining the coal-industry lobby.
And you would be wrong. Look at the numbers, as various climate scientists have increased their advocacy of AGW, their grants have skyrocketed. If you look at the amount of money given to AGW skeptics by various fossil fuel companies, it is dwarfed by the money given to AGW promoters by fossil fuel companies.
And do we trust the models, more than, say, coal-industry spokesmen?
No, I don't trust the models more than a coal industry spokesperson because the people who are preparing the models have at least as much of an agenda as the coal-industry spokesperson.
That's a good counter argument, however, the EPA only regulates ground level ozone. My understanding is that ground level ozone never rises to the stratospheric layer of the atmosphere and ozone from the stratospheric layer of the atmosphere never drops to ground level. This would make ground level ozone have no positive impact on the livability of the earth, unlike the CO2 that they are proposing to regulate.
Sorry, there have been scientists who have lobbied for government control. There were scientists who said that if we didn't do something by some year 5-10 years in the future (a date that is now past) it would be too late to stop the "tipping point".
No, it is more a matter of. It is cheaper (and less destructive of freedom)to address the problems that come for your island nation as they occur than to try and keep it from happening.
Ultimately the problem is that all of the AGW suggested solutions involve giving more power to bureaucrats and reducing the freedom of individuals to make their own decisions about how they want to live their lives.
Slashdot Mirror
As opposed to the Democrats who say "Corporations Bad. Now, what did you want Mr. Big Business Man? Oh don't worry about the plebes, we'll just tell them how evil you are and how this regulation that prevents anyone from competing with you will keep you in line."
Look at the facts, big corporations give more money to Democrats than to Republicans by a wide margin. Of the top 20 per capita income counties in the U.S., 19 vote overwhelmingly Democrat (the 20th is close to evenly split). The Rich love the Democrats.
You do know that oil companies are the major source of funding for "unconventional fuel technologies", don't you?
Yeah, but the difference between the Tea Partiers and the "Progressive" (or whatever they are calling themselves at the moment) protest groups is, the Tea Partiers talk about violence and then hold peaceful demonstrations, the Democrat protest groups talk about violence and then have riots at their demonstrations.
Yet for all of this, we have the talking heads warning about the dangers of violence promoted by the talk of the Tea Partiers, but never about the violence that actually happens, promoted by the talk of the other side.
It isn't regulation causing monopolies in the telecom industry
That's because the regulation has already done that. Once the regulation created the monopoly, they did away with it. Cable monopolies exist because they were regulated into existence. FIOS service exists as a monopoly because of the already existing telephone service monopoly (which was created by government regulation).
People keep referring to "natural monopolies" as if they come into being all on their own. Both the cable and the telephone monopolies exist because of government regulation, not because of market forces. Whether or not market forces would result in monopolies in these areas, we don't know because the market has never been allowed to decide.
It's not just that the Democrats get the lion's share of their funding from Big Corporations, they get the lion's share of the political donations from Big Corporations. And if you look at most of the legislation that the Democrats create that is "in the interest of the people", you will find that the industry groups that it purports to regulate are big supporters of the legislation. If you look at the health care bill that they just passed (supposedly necessary because of evil Big Pharma and evil Big Insurance), among its biggest supporters was Big Pharma and the big health insurance companies/organizations.
Because from the legal definition of "distribute", if the University owns the computer that the software is on, they haven't distributed it. So, the employee has no legal basis for demanding the source code.
Postulate:
Units of pirated software installed != Units of lost sales.
Better questions:
How many of those using or at least possessing a pirated copy of a given piece of software would actually pay for it if it were not available in pirate form?
How would that ratio change if the software were priced differently?
If prices were lower, would piracy decrease?
How would profits change in response to the above?
Answers? *shrug*
Additional important question:
How many copies of the software were sold because someone was exposed to it through a pirated copy?
And how much of that was actually her? Or how much of it was her job as Solicitor General?
Considering that she was nominated by the President on whose behalf she made that argument, it seems likely that she agrees with that position.
More importantly, if the value of the copyrighted material isn't high enough to justify the expense of making sure it is not on Youtube, what's the problem? Or to put it another way, if Viacom's product isn't worth enough to justify ensuring that content infringing on it isn't on Youtube, maybe Viacom should consider creating higher value content.
Is it not considered "distributing the binary" when I as an employee run some customized software on my company-provided machine?
Should I as a human have the right to the source code at that time that the binary is distributed to me?
Or does corporate personhood take precedence?
No it is not considered "distributing the binary", as long as it is only installed on the company owned machine. If I write some code and install it on my computer, it is not distributing the code if I let you use it on my computer. It only becomes distributing when I allow you to install it on your computer. It is not about "corporate personhood" (except in so far as that applies to ownership issues), it is about who owns the computer the code runs on.
This gets more complicated when one organization rents computers from another, I do not have an understanding of the different permutations that come into play in that sort of circumstance.
I do not know the answer to your question, but it depends on how the UC system is structured. The answer to the question depends on the answer to this, if UC Berkley files a patent, is the patent held by UC Berkley or by UC? If the answer is the former, then if UC Berkley modifies GPL code, they would need to distribute the source code along with the software if they give it to another UC school. If the answer is the latter, then they would not.
You want your journalism to be unbiased.
And where are you going to find that? I know of no unbiased news source. Actually, unbiased journalism is not possible. All humans have biases. Those biases will effect the way that they report events. Those who claim to be unbiased are the worst for distorted reporting, because they don't even recognize how their own biases effect the way that they see events. It wasn't Fox News that said the Bush National Guard story was false but accurate.
That is because of the way left wing and right wing have been defined in recent years. Hitler has been defined as "right wing" and Stalin as "left wing" even though the only real difference between them was that Hitler had some really weird ideas about race and wanted to conquer the world in the name of the "German people" (as defined by Hitler) while Stalin wanted to conquer the world in the name of "the proletariat" (as defined by Stalin). Other than that and that Germany was already an industrial state when Hitler took over, there really isn't any difference between the policies they implemented internally (Ok and Hitler focused his mass murders a little more tightly on Jews).
the Tea Party folks... you know, those good ol', down home, middle American folk who just want to, you know, live in peace and stuff (when they aren't throwing rocks through windows and cutting propane tank lines),
Citation needed. The only case of "Tea Party folks" throwing rocks through windows I've seen reported was the offices of a Democratic Congressman...offices which were located on the thirtieth floor of the building they were in. As for cutting the propane lines, the only sure connection to the Tea Party folks is that some of them mistakenly posted the address as the home address of a Congressman who voted for the healthcare bill. Posting the names and addresses of those who oppose them is a common tactic of Democratic Party affiliated organizations. While I agree that it is reprehensible that these individuals did so, it is a bit much for them to be condemned by Democrats who support such tactics when used by those on thier side if the issues.
He really exposed himself with "Taliban-type attack." He probably meant Al-Qaida, but they're all brown, so what's it matter?
Considering that the latest information links the Times Square bomber with the Taliban, and that the Taliban has been doing car bomb attacks against forces in Afghanistan, I think that you are the one being exposed as not informed.
Additionally, he was giving examples of things not generally reported (or even sometimes mis-reported) by the alphabet news. It is clear if you get past your own biases that he was using those examples because his interests lead him to be more informed than average on those types of stories, not because he believed that there aren't other types of stories (which might not support his political opinions) that the alphabet news doesn't report (or misreports) as well. His point appears to be that most media report with a political bias and if you don't sample from those which have opposing political biases you will be misinformed.
But your response is typical, "I disagree with your politics, so you must have nothing worthwhile to say."
The iPad was never designed or positioned as a netbook replacement.
Except by Steve Jobs in the announcements concerning its release.
My family is choosing an iPad over a Netbook for our oldest child's first personal computing device. We looked at a number of Netbooks but the iPad is the better fit. We're also looking at an iPad for my wife as an alternative to a second laptop. iPads are and will continue impacting Netbook sales, as well as those of low-end notebooks and laptops. The question is how much.
The only reason to be considering a netbook for a child's first personal computing device is cost. If you are buying an Ipad, that means that your budget could support a real computer. There are full function laptops available for the price of an Ipad. So, you didn't buy your oldest child a "personal computing device", you bought them a personal computing toy. This is not a comment on all purchases of Ipads, just yours.
So....netbook sales are dropping?
Except that they aren't. What is dropping is the rate of growth in sales. Well what do you expect? Lots of people went out and bought one when they first came out. Now they have one. They don't need another one yet (netbooks have not been around for the standard life cycle of a computer).
And not controlling CO2 emissions is not an option IMO.
Well, that is your problem, because I'm not convinced that controlling CO2 emissions is all that important. Many of the organizations that are pushing government intervention to stop AGE were saying that government intervention was needed to stop this, that or the other "OMG the world is going to end if we don't act now" problem before they got on the AGW bandwagon. And that is why most AGW skeptics are skeptics, the people who are pushing AGW have been saying "OMG, the world's going to end if we don't do X" my whole life. So now when they "OMG, AGW, if we don't do X, the world's going to end," I just don't believe them (by the way, that X in the quote is more or less the same with each "crisis").
Because I am pretty sure any climate scientist would easily double their salary by joining the coal-industry lobby.
And you would be wrong. Look at the numbers, as various climate scientists have increased their advocacy of AGW, their grants have skyrocketed. If you look at the amount of money given to AGW skeptics by various fossil fuel companies, it is dwarfed by the money given to AGW promoters by fossil fuel companies.
And do we trust the models, more than, say, coal-industry spokesmen?
No, I don't trust the models more than a coal industry spokesperson because the people who are preparing the models have at least as much of an agenda as the coal-industry spokesperson.
And what would you propose replacing them with right now?
That's a good counter argument, however, the EPA only regulates ground level ozone. My understanding is that ground level ozone never rises to the stratospheric layer of the atmosphere and ozone from the stratospheric layer of the atmosphere never drops to ground level. This would make ground level ozone have no positive impact on the livability of the earth, unlike the CO2 that they are proposing to regulate.
Sorry, there have been scientists who have lobbied for government control. There were scientists who said that if we didn't do something by some year 5-10 years in the future (a date that is now past) it would be too late to stop the "tipping point".
No, it is more a matter of. It is cheaper (and less destructive of freedom)to address the problems that come for your island nation as they occur than to try and keep it from happening.
Ultimately the problem is that all of the AGW suggested solutions involve giving more power to bureaucrats and reducing the freedom of individuals to make their own decisions about how they want to live their lives.