Given that Obama got a nobel prize for doing NOTHING I don't see why not.
Not starting a nuclear war with Iran is technically doing nothing, but I still think it's a very, very good idea.
George W. Bush didn't start a nuclear war with Iran and he didn't get a Nobel Peace Prize.
Also, keep in mind that Obama has a few more years in which he could start a nuclear war with Iran.
An think about it, what self respecting intelligence agency wouldnt want a back door in windows. Their job is to collect intelligence, and windows is almost everywhere and handles lots of information.
It might sound paranoid to say windows is bugged by the NSA, but it totally ignorance to suggest they wouldnt want to bug it.
You are overlooking the fact that intelligence agencies are, also, usually tasked with preventing (as much as possible) foreign countries from collecting intelligence about the U.S. government. If Windows has a back door that the NSA can use, how would they prevent foreign intelligence agencies from using it? It is a well understood fact that any security vulnerability that is introduced will be discovered by those with nefarious goals (the NSA would not view their own goals as nefarious, but they would consider the goals of many foreign intelligence agents to be nefarious).
If the launch base is unknown and mobile, it is going to be pretty damn hard to hit it with this system. What about submarine launched missiles?
I think the best systems are for area protection, placed near the target instead.
Actually the best systems are for area protection based near the (potential) launch point. Hence the negotiations to put anti missile systems in Eastern Europe to stop missiles from Iran (and Russia) that are launched targeting Europe and/or the US (these plans have since been unilaterally scrapped by the Obama Administration because they interfered with Russia's plans to re-exert dominance over Eastern Europe).
You are wrong about the purpose/origin of copyright law. Copyright law was written to protect against someone else profiting from "stealing" your creative work. It was not designed to keep me from copying your stuff for my own use. Until the advent of computers it to some degree it had that effect. The cost of producing copies was high enough that, for most people, it was more cost efficient (counting both time and money) to buy a copy from the copyright holder (although with the advent of home recording devices that began to change).
As the cost of copying dropped with modern technology, many companies that based their business on distributing copyrighted material wanted to use the reduced cost of producing copies to increase their profit, intending to use copyright law to prevent people from using the now affordable methods to produce copies for their own personal use from obtaining copies.
I tried to use Photoshop for some things for personal use several times and always found it too confusing to be worth it for the project I had in mind. A couple of years ago, I finally was in a position where I needed to use Photoshop for work. Shortly after that, I tried GIMP at home for a personal project and found it no more confusing to figure out than Photoshop. I have not mastered either one (I don't have need to use either enough to fully master the software), but I find GIMP to be only slightly more difficult to figure out how to do things than Photoshop. Most of that difference is because there are more references online to doing things in Photoshop.
Second in a truly FREE country you should be able to do whatever you want *outside of work*, and not be fired for it.
Except in this case he didn't do it outside of work. He used his work computer to make the post, that's how the newspaper knew where he worked. Additionally, he posted it again after the comment was deleted. If the person in question had only posted it once, the newspaper would have deleted it and moved on (that's what they did, it was only when he posted it a second time that they pursued the issue).
The authorities have used power use to identify pot growers in the past. Generally, someone growing pot indoors on a scale large enough to make a living at it uses a lot more power than an ordinary person in a similar residence.
If I had a crooked friend at the power company, he could tell me when someone in a house I want to rob usually goes to work and also when they do so on a given day.
...or a crooked friend at targets place of work tells you when they get in or the low tech method of who's home by simply driving by and see if a car is parked in driveway... wait... that's possible now w/out a smart grid..... oooh nooo's! I NEED TO GET HOooome NOW!
Except in your example, the crook needs to know who lives at a particular address and where they work. In the original example all they need to know is the address.
As to where the numbers I am using come from, check Wikipedia. I have seen similar numbers from other sources, but I was unable to locate that site on this occassion. Additionally, they are consistent with my experience.
No, I never said they get "4 months vacation". If i had it to do over, I would go back and get my teaching certificate along with my bachelors degree. But I don't have it to do over and the cost of getting another 4 year degree is more than I could ever make back. A few years ago I looked into getting my teaching certificate and that is what I was told it would take.
Well, that's a lovely stretch of logic. Because I disagree with "teachers are overpaid", I must want to increase taxes?
Excuse me, at no point have I said that teachers are overpaid. I have merely taken issue with the statement that teachers are underpaid. I believe that teachers are well paid, as they should be.
As to your point that individual teachers average a little more than $50,000 a year which is the median household wage, that is comparing apples to oranges. The median individual wage in the US is a little more than $32,000 a year. The median wage for individuals who have graduated college is a little over $45,000 a year.
Did you miss the part where the average salary with a bachelors degree is $45000?
Average starting salary?
No, average salary for someone with a bachelors degree is $45,400, not the average starting salary, the average salary.The average salary for a teacher is a little over $51,000.
I know several teachers. They all love teaching. The good teachers I know would continue to teach if it paid half as much. Actually, most of the teachers I know work in private schools where they earn less than public school teachers. Of course, they also don't have to put up with as much shit as the public school teachers.
Getting teachers who are in it for the money will not improve our schools.
Finally, I ran across a reference that says that some states require masters degree for teachers. However, I reviewed the teacher certification requirements for Texas, California, New York, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Virginia. None of these states require a masters degree to be a teacher. The average salary (not starting) for someone with a masters degree in the US is $52,390. When you consider that many of the teachers factored into the average teachers salary have bachelors degrees, that makes a teachers salary look pretty good..
I'm sorry, but teachers are not underpaid.
Not to mention that I've yet to meet any teacher worth his/her salt that only works 40 a week.
And there is the problem, a teacher that is worth his/her salt is paid exactly the same as one who isn't. Additionally, a teacher that isn't worth his/her salt has the same job security as a teacher that is. I believe that many of the things that make you think teachers are underpaid are the sorts of things that should be fixed, not the pay scale.
If you think that teacher's are underpaid, I would assume you would like to pay them more. You want to increase the tax burden on people who currently earn less than teachers, in order to pay teachers even more.
Teachers have *minimum* 4 year degrees, the median household doesn't. You can only pro-rate a teachers salary like that by counting days, not hours - and teachers are paid hourly.
Did you miss the part where the average salary with a bachelors degree is $45000? And why can't you pro-rate the salary? On average teachers make over $51,000 a year. That means when you add up the money they get paid for their hourly wage the average teacher makes a little over $51,000 a year. If they worked the additional hours the two to three months they have off at the hourly wage they are paid, they would make approximately $68,000 a year. Teacher's are well paid, as they should be.
The problem with education in the U.S. has nothing to do with teachers' salaries.
All that being said, the copyright on the lesson plans developed by a teacher should belong to the teacher. If someone wants to pay that teacher for that lesson plan, that money belongs to that teacher, not the school.
It took the US roughly 150 years to do it, it took south korea roughly 30 years to do it and the other countries still in he process will get there even faster if current trends continue.
However, over the course of its history the overwhelming majority of the population growth in the US was the result of immigration. The overwhelming majority of population growth in South Korea (and most other nations) is due to births to its citizens.
Teachers make on average about $51,000 a year for working nine months out of 12 and you think they are underpaid?
The median household income is about $50,000. The average teacher's salary pro-rated to a 12 month income is $68,000. The average salary for someone with a Bachelor's degree is $45,000. Teachers are not underpaid.
There are many flaws with the education system in the US, but teacher's salaries are not one of them. I would gladly exchange my current job for a teaching job if it wasn't for the hoops that one must jump through to get a teacher's certificate (the one's I object to are one's that do little or nothing to indicate that the individual who goes through them can teach).
No, the original poster said "Well, in Germany, you do not have that right." If you don't have that right in Germany, it is not a right. I did not take any position on whether someone has the right to know that a person committed murder.
If the original poster doesn't think it is a right, that's something we can debate. However, if he says, "You may have that right where you are, but you don't have that right in Germany," then we aren't talking about the same thing and no debate is possible.
Something that is subjective depends on whether you think it is so or not. For example, beauty is subjective, if you think that something is beautiful, then for you it is beautiful.
Rights are not subjective, just because you think that something is a right, does not mean that it is a right.
No, they aren't. Things that are subjective aren't rights.
Rights are things that it is wrong for the government to interfere with its citizens doing. If Action A is a right, it is just as wrong for Government A to interfere with it as it is for Government B.
Now, there is much disagreement as to what is and is not a right, but just because one person(or government) says that such and such is not a right does not make it so, anymore than one person (or government) saying that such and such is a right makes it so.
You still do not understand what a right is. You appear to believe that rights are granted by the government (constitution). Your society is built upon this idea.
I was responding to someone who said that in Germany you do not have a particular right. Either something is a right and everyone is entitled to it everywhere, or it is something granted by the government and only applies where the government allows it. If it is not a right in Germany, it is not a right anywhere. However, just because Germany has laws against something doesn't mean that it is not a right.
Well, in Germany, you do not have that right. End of the story.
You clearly do not understand what a right is. Thomas Jefferson was under no illusion that the government was unable to interfere with "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", which he mentioned as inalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence. Just because German society wants the law written this way, does not mean that the law is not a violation of people's rights.
Yet it's pretty much in the same ballpark as the laws against discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation...
Say you're looking to hire someone and one applicant served a sentence for murder. He might cause trouble, or might not. You can look at statistics about recidivists to find the odds.
You don't need to look at statistics about recidivists, this applicant has exhibited negative behavior in the past.
Suppose one applicant is of race X. He might cause trouble, or might not. You can look at crime statistics by race to find the odds.
Same thing.
Crime statistics tell you nothing about the behavior of this individual. If you look at crime statistics by neighborhood and then by race, much (possibly all, I haven't done a detailed study) of the discrepancy between race disappears.
In my experience the "ignorance of the law is no excuse" standpoint holds up whether or not you have a good excuse for your ignorance. The police once copied down my address incorrectly on a ticket (they ignored my correct address on the copy of the ticket I mailed in) causing a summons to court, a notice of default judgement against me, a notice that my ticket was unpaid and a notice that my license had been suspended to be sent to the wrong address. I was later charged with driving with a suspended license after an accident a few months later. I discovered what had happened after some digging at the bureau of public records. I explained what had happened to the judge and he told me the ignorance of the law is ones own fault period. The fact that the state had tried to contact me was sufficient on their part. It is always your responsibility to become informed of the law regardless of any difficulties you have.
The problem in your example is a stupid judge, you were not in violation because you were ignorant of the law. You were in violation because the government failed to inform you of actions it had taken. The only question is whether or not you took the appropriate action to correct the inaccurate address on the ticket.
The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods to consumers.
The ability to turn those plugs on and off would not affect their ability ("could offer") to offer more goods to consumers, it might affect their willingness ("would offer") to offer more goods to consumers. However, I think the reason they used the words they did is because they don't necessarily want to offer more goods to the consumer, they just want more control over the consumer.
The MAFIAA has this idea that since they can't control what you do with the product once they let you have it (and thus possibly allow someone to gain access to it without paying them), they should do without the money they would make by selling it to you in the first place.
Further, as they tighten their control over the products they sell, they can't understand why they are selling less and less of that product.
I don't understand US law but if intel have done something worthy of an antitrust suit isn't it down to the DOJ to go after them?
Or was this some sort of civil antitrust suit?
The answers to your questions are in order: Yes and Yes.
If the DOJ thinks that Intel has done something worthy of an antitrust suit they can go after them (and the DOJ has been investigating Intel, so they still may). However, a non government entity can also bring an antitrust suit (although they have to demonstrate that they are in some way directly impacted by this behavior).
Slashdot Mirror
Not starting a nuclear war with Iran is technically doing nothing, but I still think it's a very, very good idea.
George W. Bush didn't start a nuclear war with Iran and he didn't get a Nobel Peace Prize.
Also, keep in mind that Obama has a few more years in which he could start a nuclear war with Iran.
If Windows has a back door that the NSA can use, how would they prevent foreign intelligence agencies from using it?
You have heard of that concept called “password”, have you? ^^
You have heard of that concept called password cracking haven't you?
.
An think about it, what self respecting intelligence agency wouldnt want a back door in windows. Their job is to collect intelligence, and windows is almost everywhere and handles lots of information.
It might sound paranoid to say windows is bugged by the NSA, but it totally ignorance to suggest they wouldnt want to bug it.
You are overlooking the fact that intelligence agencies are, also, usually tasked with preventing (as much as possible) foreign countries from collecting intelligence about the U.S. government. If Windows has a back door that the NSA can use, how would they prevent foreign intelligence agencies from using it? It is a well understood fact that any security vulnerability that is introduced will be discovered by those with nefarious goals (the NSA would not view their own goals as nefarious, but they would consider the goals of many foreign intelligence agents to be nefarious).
If the launch base is unknown and mobile, it is going to be pretty damn hard to hit it with this system. What about submarine launched missiles?
I think the best systems are for area protection, placed near the target instead.
Actually the best systems are for area protection based near the (potential) launch point. Hence the negotiations to put anti missile systems in Eastern Europe to stop missiles from Iran (and Russia) that are launched targeting Europe and/or the US (these plans have since been unilaterally scrapped by the Obama Administration because they interfered with Russia's plans to re-exert dominance over Eastern Europe).
You are wrong about the purpose/origin of copyright law. Copyright law was written to protect against someone else profiting from "stealing" your creative work. It was not designed to keep me from copying your stuff for my own use. Until the advent of computers it to some degree it had that effect. The cost of producing copies was high enough that, for most people, it was more cost efficient (counting both time and money) to buy a copy from the copyright holder (although with the advent of home recording devices that began to change).
As the cost of copying dropped with modern technology, many companies that based their business on distributing copyrighted material wanted to use the reduced cost of producing copies to increase their profit, intending to use copyright law to prevent people from using the now affordable methods to produce copies for their own personal use from obtaining copies.
I tried to use Photoshop for some things for personal use several times and always found it too confusing to be worth it for the project I had in mind. A couple of years ago, I finally was in a position where I needed to use Photoshop for work. Shortly after that, I tried GIMP at home for a personal project and found it no more confusing to figure out than Photoshop. I have not mastered either one (I don't have need to use either enough to fully master the software), but I find GIMP to be only slightly more difficult to figure out how to do things than Photoshop. Most of that difference is because there are more references online to doing things in Photoshop.
Second in a truly FREE country you should be able to do whatever you want *outside of work*, and not be fired for it.
Except in this case he didn't do it outside of work. He used his work computer to make the post, that's how the newspaper knew where he worked. Additionally, he posted it again after the comment was deleted. If the person in question had only posted it once, the newspaper would have deleted it and moved on (that's what they did, it was only when he posted it a second time that they pursued the issue).
The authorities have used power use to identify pot growers in the past. Generally, someone growing pot indoors on a scale large enough to make a living at it uses a lot more power than an ordinary person in a similar residence.
If I had a crooked friend at the power company, he could tell me when someone in a house I want to rob usually goes to work and also when they do so on a given day.
...or a crooked friend at targets place of work tells you when they get in or the low tech method of who's home by simply driving by and see if a car is parked in driveway... wait... that's possible now w/out a smart grid..... oooh nooo's! I NEED TO GET HOooome NOW!
Except in your example, the crook needs to know who lives at a particular address and where they work. In the original example all they need to know is the address.
As to where the numbers I am using come from, check Wikipedia. I have seen similar numbers from other sources, but I was unable to locate that site on this occassion. Additionally, they are consistent with my experience.
No, I never said they get "4 months vacation". If i had it to do over, I would go back and get my teaching certificate along with my bachelors degree. But I don't have it to do over and the cost of getting another 4 year degree is more than I could ever make back. A few years ago I looked into getting my teaching certificate and that is what I was told it would take.
Well, that's a lovely stretch of logic. Because I disagree with "teachers are overpaid", I must want to increase taxes?
Excuse me, at no point have I said that teachers are overpaid. I have merely taken issue with the statement that teachers are underpaid. I believe that teachers are well paid, as they should be.
As to your point that individual teachers average a little more than $50,000 a year which is the median household wage, that is comparing apples to oranges. The median individual wage in the US is a little more than $32,000 a year. The median wage for individuals who have graduated college is a little over $45,000 a year.
Did you miss the part where the average salary with a bachelors degree is $45000?
Average starting salary?
No, average salary for someone with a bachelors degree is $45,400, not the average starting salary, the average salary.The average salary for a teacher is a little over $51,000.
I know several teachers. They all love teaching. The good teachers I know would continue to teach if it paid half as much. Actually, most of the teachers I know work in private schools where they earn less than public school teachers. Of course, they also don't have to put up with as much shit as the public school teachers.
Getting teachers who are in it for the money will not improve our schools.
Finally, I ran across a reference that says that some states require masters degree for teachers. However, I reviewed the teacher certification requirements for Texas, California, New York, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Virginia. None of these states require a masters degree to be a teacher. The average salary (not starting) for someone with a masters degree in the US is $52,390. When you consider that many of the teachers factored into the average teachers salary have bachelors degrees, that makes a teachers salary look pretty good..
I'm sorry, but teachers are not underpaid.
Not to mention that I've yet to meet any teacher worth his/her salt that only works 40 a week.
And there is the problem, a teacher that is worth his/her salt is paid exactly the same as one who isn't. Additionally, a teacher that isn't worth his/her salt has the same job security as a teacher that is. I believe that many of the things that make you think teachers are underpaid are the sorts of things that should be fixed, not the pay scale.
If you think that teacher's are underpaid, I would assume you would like to pay them more. You want to increase the tax burden on people who currently earn less than teachers, in order to pay teachers even more.
Teachers have *minimum* 4 year degrees, the median household doesn't. You can only pro-rate a teachers salary like that by counting days, not hours - and teachers are paid hourly.
Did you miss the part where the average salary with a bachelors degree is $45000? And why can't you pro-rate the salary? On average teachers make over $51,000 a year. That means when you add up the money they get paid for their hourly wage the average teacher makes a little over $51,000 a year. If they worked the additional hours the two to three months they have off at the hourly wage they are paid, they would make approximately $68,000 a year. Teacher's are well paid, as they should be.
The problem with education in the U.S. has nothing to do with teachers' salaries.
All that being said, the copyright on the lesson plans developed by a teacher should belong to the teacher. If someone wants to pay that teacher for that lesson plan, that money belongs to that teacher, not the school.
It took the US roughly 150 years to do it, it took south korea roughly 30 years to do it and the other countries still in he process will get there even faster if current trends continue.
However, over the course of its history the overwhelming majority of the population growth in the US was the result of immigration. The overwhelming majority of population growth in South Korea (and most other nations) is due to births to its citizens.
Teachers make on average about $51,000 a year for working nine months out of 12 and you think they are underpaid?
The median household income is about $50,000. The average teacher's salary pro-rated to a 12 month income is $68,000. The average salary for someone with a Bachelor's degree is $45,000. Teachers are not underpaid.
There are many flaws with the education system in the US, but teacher's salaries are not one of them. I would gladly exchange my current job for a teaching job if it wasn't for the hoops that one must jump through to get a teacher's certificate (the one's I object to are one's that do little or nothing to indicate that the individual who goes through them can teach).
No, the original poster said "Well, in Germany, you do not have that right." If you don't have that right in Germany, it is not a right. I did not take any position on whether someone has the right to know that a person committed murder.
If the original poster doesn't think it is a right, that's something we can debate. However, if he says, "You may have that right where you are, but you don't have that right in Germany," then we aren't talking about the same thing and no debate is possible.
Something that is subjective depends on whether you think it is so or not. For example, beauty is subjective, if you think that something is beautiful, then for you it is beautiful.
Rights are not subjective, just because you think that something is a right, does not mean that it is a right.
No, they aren't. Things that are subjective aren't rights.
Rights are things that it is wrong for the government to interfere with its citizens doing. If Action A is a right, it is just as wrong for Government A to interfere with it as it is for Government B.
Now, there is much disagreement as to what is and is not a right, but just because one person(or government) says that such and such is not a right does not make it so, anymore than one person (or government) saying that such and such is a right makes it so.
You still do not understand what a right is. You appear to believe that rights are granted by the government (constitution). Your society is built upon this idea.
I was responding to someone who said that in Germany you do not have a particular right. Either something is a right and everyone is entitled to it everywhere, or it is something granted by the government and only applies where the government allows it. If it is not a right in Germany, it is not a right anywhere. However, just because Germany has laws against something doesn't mean that it is not a right.
Well, in Germany, you do not have that right. End of the story.
You clearly do not understand what a right is. Thomas Jefferson was under no illusion that the government was unable to interfere with "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", which he mentioned as inalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence. Just because German society wants the law written this way, does not mean that the law is not a violation of people's rights.
Yet it's pretty much in the same ballpark as the laws against discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation...
Say you're looking to hire someone and one applicant served a sentence for murder. He might cause trouble, or might not. You can look at statistics about recidivists to find the odds.
You don't need to look at statistics about recidivists, this applicant has exhibited negative behavior in the past.
Suppose one applicant is of race X. He might cause trouble, or might not. You can look at crime statistics by race to find the odds.
Same thing.
Crime statistics tell you nothing about the behavior of this individual. If you look at crime statistics by neighborhood and then by race, much (possibly all, I haven't done a detailed study) of the discrepancy between race disappears.
In my experience the "ignorance of the law is no excuse" standpoint holds up whether or not you have a good excuse for your ignorance. The police once copied down my address incorrectly on a ticket (they ignored my correct address on the copy of the ticket I mailed in) causing a summons to court, a notice of default judgement against me, a notice that my ticket was unpaid and a notice that my license had been suspended to be sent to the wrong address. I was later charged with driving with a suspended license after an accident a few months later. I discovered what had happened after some digging at the bureau of public records. I explained what had happened to the judge and he told me the ignorance of the law is ones own fault period. The fact that the state had tried to contact me was sufficient on their part. It is always your responsibility to become informed of the law regardless of any difficulties you have.
The problem in your example is a stupid judge, you were not in violation because you were ignorant of the law. You were in violation because the government failed to inform you of actions it had taken. The only question is whether or not you took the appropriate action to correct the inaccurate address on the ticket.
The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods to consumers.
The ability to turn those plugs on and off would not affect their ability ("could offer") to offer more goods to consumers, it might affect their willingness ("would offer") to offer more goods to consumers. However, I think the reason they used the words they did is because they don't necessarily want to offer more goods to the consumer, they just want more control over the consumer.
The MAFIAA has this idea that since they can't control what you do with the product once they let you have it (and thus possibly allow someone to gain access to it without paying them), they should do without the money they would make by selling it to you in the first place.
Further, as they tighten their control over the products they sell, they can't understand why they are selling less and less of that product.
I don't understand US law but if intel have done something worthy of an antitrust suit isn't it down to the DOJ to go after them?
Or was this some sort of civil antitrust suit?
The answers to your questions are in order: Yes and Yes.
If the DOJ thinks that Intel has done something worthy of an antitrust suit they can go after them (and the DOJ has been investigating Intel, so they still may). However, a non government entity can also bring an antitrust suit (although they have to demonstrate that they are in some way directly impacted by this behavior).