Present a better idea and it doesn't get a fair hearing. Get brain-dead unappealable policy decisions because the system is geared to the lowest common denominator. Being TOLD what the best UI is.
You end up serving the fucking data, rather than the data serving you.
Mass inter-communication will reshape politics in the years to come. When every person can become their own tv channel, exposed to the entire world, the ability to organize and change our world will radically change.
We don't want mass media companies to choke off our access. People should have a right to be able to post their material online, independent of vendors such as Google. This should be both an economic and a social right.
It is way less about spotting BS in a contract, than it is about two other things: (a) anticipating eventual outcomes. Sometimes you need to hire multiple experts just to anticipate all the crap that can go wrong, so that you can provide for it in the contract; and (b) getting the client to a point where the client will walk away if it doesn't get what it wants. Sometimes clients get seduced by particular vendors and it is very hard to explain in non-legalese how the contract could end up leaving them high and dry.
I'd consider that your "malaise" problem might be greater in a war zone. Your freedom of movement is constrained; you're limited to corporate-cartoon-kitsch America; and you're surrounded by an alien culture that (for safety reasons) you are unable to freely immerse yourself within.
If you were a dude that liked to save money and read books in your spare time, then it might be a good thing. But if you've got malaise now, just imagine what you'd get in Afghanistan.
I probably should have said "First Amendment Journalist" protection instead of just "First Amendment Protection." I don't want to imply that the wacky blogger should have gotten off--I just meant to say that the wacky blogger should have been treated as a wacky journalist.
First: Anybody who cares can examine the Cascadia bankruptcy in the WD Washington and can read the Judge's order denying Obsidian fees because of an obvious conflict of interest. They advised the bankruptcy debtor in trying to sell property, while at the same time trying purchase an interest in that property for themselves. Kinda obvious??? I for one welcome any scrutiny Obsidian gets.
Second: That judge would probably have granted First Amendment protection to a Revolutionary Era broadsheet editor-even if he shared the same ethical scruples as the poor fool lady in Oregon--notwithstanding the fact that the Oregon blogger has far more readers. Both the liberals and the original intent freakazoids are going to hate this decision.
When this goes up on appeal every blogger in the USA can and should file an amicus curiae brief with the Court of Appeals. This is about Liberty!
There is a place for realism in movies. There is a place for surrealism in movies. There is a place for fantasy in movies. That's why movies are so cool.
Okay the program tells me that the document has been photoshopped heavily.
That's great, but how can I convince somebody that the document really has been photoshopped heavily? In other words, does the program have an "explain to humans mode?"
Without the explanation, the program is just a black box.
Insiders are prevented from selling their stock during the lock-up period, which is usually six months after an IPO. It is May 2nd for Groupon, so insiders are going down with it.
The real insiders have already milked the cash infusions that the initial investors have pumped into the company. They're good to go.
The initial investors (the ones who put up the VC) are perhaps the ones who are nervous right now.
The Corporate threat was to move to a state with a lower tax rate. That is not extortion. It is giving a state a chance to match an offer made by another state. People do it all the time when they buy things and companies advertise that they will match advertised prices. If all other states had a higher tax rate Sears would not be talking about moving.
That is very different than saying they will release confidential information.
But why do we permit our corporations to get our states to bid against each other? Why do we permit our corporations to get other countries to bid against the United States?
The only reason for allowing corporations in the first place is "the public benefit." Is it in the public benefit to allow corporations to pit us against ourselves?
As material printers and CNC devices become ubiquitous, people will want to be able to access designs and plans of things that they can make. Libraries are an ideal source of these designs and plans.
This is something the average end-user can understand.
You inadvertently said it. It is all about getting attention. It is not about making information available; it is all about getting attention for Assange. His own people left because it wasn't about leaking--it all became about Assange. It's not like Asssange is some indispensable man. It doesn't take a "media presence" to leak information.
You can still have Wikileaks without Assange (unless he's trademarked the name--you'll have to call it something else).
Slashdot Mirror
Present a better idea and it doesn't get a fair hearing. Get brain-dead unappealable policy decisions because the system is geared to the lowest common denominator. Being TOLD what the best UI is.
You end up serving the fucking data, rather than the data serving you.
You make a good point, but there is a good chance that Righthaven's creditors also include the media outlets that financed and employed Righthaven.
Some studies have shown that religious beliefs correlate with increased life expectancy.
Mass inter-communication will reshape politics in the years to come. When every person can become their own tv channel, exposed to the entire world, the ability to organize and change our world will radically change.
We don't want mass media companies to choke off our access. People should have a right to be able to post their material online, independent of vendors such as Google. This should be both an economic and a social right.
It is way less about spotting BS in a contract, than it is about two other things:
(a) anticipating eventual outcomes. Sometimes you need to hire multiple experts just to anticipate all the crap that can go wrong, so that you can provide for it in the contract; and
(b) getting the client to a point where the client will walk away if it doesn't get what it wants. Sometimes clients get seduced by particular vendors and it is very hard to explain in non-legalese how the contract could end up leaving them high and dry.
I'd consider that your "malaise" problem might be greater in a war zone. Your freedom of movement is constrained; you're limited to corporate-cartoon-kitsch America; and you're surrounded by an alien culture that (for safety reasons) you are unable to freely immerse yourself within.
If you were a dude that liked to save money and read books in your spare time, then it might be a good thing. But if you've got malaise now, just imagine what you'd get in Afghanistan.
I probably should have said "First Amendment Journalist" protection instead of just "First Amendment Protection." I don't want to imply that the wacky blogger should have gotten off--I just meant to say that the wacky blogger should have been treated as a wacky journalist.
First: Anybody who cares can examine the Cascadia bankruptcy in the WD Washington and can read the Judge's order denying Obsidian fees because of an obvious conflict of interest. They advised the bankruptcy debtor in trying to sell property, while at the same time trying purchase an interest in that property for themselves. Kinda obvious??? I for one welcome any scrutiny Obsidian gets.
Second: That judge would probably have granted First Amendment protection to a Revolutionary Era broadsheet editor-even if he shared the same ethical scruples as the poor fool lady in Oregon--notwithstanding the fact that the Oregon blogger has far more readers. Both the liberals and the original intent freakazoids are going to hate this decision.
When this goes up on appeal every blogger in the USA can and should file an amicus curiae brief with the Court of Appeals. This is about Liberty!
To the barricades! ;)
There is a place for realism in movies. There is a place for surrealism in movies. There is a place for fantasy in movies. That's why movies are so cool.
Would you mind if I broke into your house? Not to take anything, mind you, but just to check your security?
Okay the program tells me that the document has been photoshopped heavily.
That's great, but how can I convince somebody that the document really has been photoshopped heavily? In other words, does the program have an "explain to humans mode?"
Without the explanation, the program is just a black box.
I have no problem with it being paid for by taxes because private industry never stepped up to the plate to begin with.
If the gov't was taking jobs from the private sector, then it would be a more difficult question.
The real insiders have already milked the cash infusions that the initial investors have pumped into the company. They're good to go.
The initial investors (the ones who put up the VC) are perhaps the ones who are nervous right now.
The dot com boom taught us that there are entrepreneurs who start companies with the sole goal of cashing out at the IPO.
Alll the Groupon investors had ample notice of what they were buying into.
People must be listening to their brokers . . . too bad.
Nonparties are never bound by court orders.
If a scientist can make this stuff in a lab now, in ten years an eager and intelligent sociopath can make this stuff in his basement.
We're not getting off this planet. We'll kill each other first.
The Corporate threat was to move to a state with a lower tax rate. That is not extortion. It is giving a state a chance to match an offer made by another state. People do it all the time when they buy things and companies advertise that they will match advertised prices. If all other states had a higher tax rate Sears would not be talking about moving.
That is very different than saying they will release confidential information.
But why do we permit our corporations to get our states to bid against each other? Why do we permit our corporations to get other countries to bid against the United States?
The only reason for allowing corporations in the first place is "the public benefit." Is it in the public benefit to allow corporations to pit us against ourselves?
As material printers and CNC devices become ubiquitous, people will want to be able to access designs and plans of things that they can make. Libraries are an ideal source of these designs and plans.
This is something the average end-user can understand.
Nobody is more vulnerable than a cab driver. It is ultrahazardous work. I
Look for Chinese labor movements. The Poles were able to do it in the face of oppression. Maybe the Chinese can also.
And to think some working men think unions are a bad thing.
Enough Already!
The Google search engine repeatedly gives me extraneous results. It has to be by design.
When an honest, or more honest, search engine is available, I'll use it.
Any suggestions?
I want to see the lawyer lose his ticket.
You inadvertently said it. It is all about getting attention. It is not about making information available; it is all about getting attention for Assange. His own people left because it wasn't about leaking--it all became about Assange. It's not like Asssange is some indispensable man. It doesn't take a "media presence" to leak information.
You can still have Wikileaks without Assange (unless he's trademarked the name--you'll have to call it something else).
They pick on the vulnerable for lulz. That's about it.