Very good point. I'll bet that they learned from reading their data that linking to journals and essays generates fewer hits than linking to blogs and press releases. More its means more ad revenue means more return to shareholders, which is what corporations are all about.
Corporate organization pushes a drive to go bigger and bigger--and more and more toward the lowest common denominator. Disney, McDonalds . . .
Anyway, thanks for your post. Maybe I should start spending my time with something a little more engaging!
No point in agitating Iran. The US might be able to trigger something, but it couldn't control it. There is no way that the US can CREATE a friendly client-state in IRAN. Only people who get paid to think of ways to create client states think that. The revolution, if it comes, will take its own course.
It is very important to remember that the theocratic Iranian government has a huge base of support. Students and the intelligentsia have to shift that before they can do anything.
Iran's got a big problem. It needs technology to oppress its people, but the locals who furnish the technology are the people that the government wants to oppress. Unfortunately, the government has oil money and oil money will finance the purchase of oppression-aiding technology from the "free" countries of the world.
When the oil runs out, the theocracy will die because it can't afford the oppression. The sadness is that all that oil money could be used to build infrastructure for the people for the future. But it won't. 'Tis a pity.
Government intervention does create opportunity for corrupt practices. But without government we have nothing to protect us from the jungle described by Upton Sinclair. We need government that's big enough to protect us from big business. I don't like it, but that's the way it is. Either one can screw us over, so it's up to us to keep things in the best working balance that we can.
The feds often have super-powers when it comes to plea bargaining.
They can make the threat: Plead to three years or face twenty.
When that power is in the wrong hands it can force innocent or very mitigated people to plead guilty.
More importantly--much more importantly--they can use this leverage to FORCE a person to agree to their sentence recommendation. This means that they don't get to plead for mercy from the judge.
This power when used in the right hands, is excellent for hammering bad guys. When used in the wrong hands (for ambition or to avoid embarrassment), it can be downright evil.
We place a lot of trust in our federal prosecutors.
"No they wouldn't. No one who can experience human emotions such as joy is permitted to be a lawyer."
Are you completely CRAZY? If lawyers couldn't experience human emotions like anger, greed, envy, jealousy, and the JOY of having lots of money, they wouldn't even be lawyers anymore. How elxe could they motivate themselves to deal with the garbage of other people's social relations?
Blackmail is a crime because if blackmail were not a crime people would be more likely to engage in self-help to rid themselves of the blackmailer. Such self-help could manifest itself in socially destructive ways.
Blackmail is just a variant of extortion, anyway. Surely nobody would doubt that protection rackets are rightfully criminal. Threatening to hurt somebody financially if money is not paid is only a matter of degree less awful than threatening to kick somebody's ass in exchange for money.
Blackmail also is a good way to extort people into doing very undesirable things (like espionage, embezzlement, corrupt political behavior, for example).
Extortion is one more example why free speech must be limited. Words can hurt!
Only a screwed-up unworkable society could ever have unrestrained free speech. One of the best measures of a free society is the care taken to draw equitable lines between unpermitted speech and free speech.
I think we can give up on the idea that developers will ever document their code adequately unless they're compelled by financial circumstance. That won't happen in open source.
I suggest that developers eagerly seek out and ENGAGE documentation writers. It will be a pain teaching an ignorant idiot exactly how your code works, but (a) once the developer does it, his teaching and interpersonal skills will dramatically improve; (b) he will be forced to critically go over his own code as part of the explanation process (improving the code); and (c) his code will be more accessible to other users and other developers.
Complete documentation of code (including manuals) is probably the single greatest service that can be provided for an existing project because (a) it makes it much easier for new developers to step right up and help; (b) helps narrow the breach between users and developers; and (c) helps users use the project.
The difficulty is engaging with a developer who has already thought everything out and persuading that developer to critically go over all that work all over again. If you can do that, you can collaborate to write awesome documentation, but it's really hard work.
Developers should try to engage documentation writers from the beginning of that project. Although it will be a pain to have to explain your work and insight to somebody else, the rewards would be awesome.
He'd be safer with a lawyer. If the Court finds no conflict and that the DRM law controls his situation, wouldn't he be subject to sanction? I don't know the law of his country, but I think it prudent to be concerned.
"People aren't whining about prescription drug prices because of the difference between the price and the cost to make. They are whining because drug companies are making exorbitant amount of money, most of which is ending up in the pocket's of CEO's. Unless the CEO has like 2 billion mouths to feed and has a mortgage on an entire Caribbean island, I'm pretty sure these whiny people are justified."
You should add that the only reason that the drug companies are making this money is because they have their own entitlement--patent law--which is bought and paid for by the taxpayers who suffer for it.
"Maybe too boring for you but the Yankees have proven time and again that such a model does work in professional sports."
a) Just because something works now, doesn't mean that it won't fail in the future. b) Just because something works for one team, doesn't mean that it is good for the game as a whole.
There are limitations that must be applied to freedom of speech in a civilized society and the limitation of abusive spam speech is one.
This ought to establish that free speech is not an absolute right--it is a right that must be limited in some circumstances. The scope and manner of those limitations on free speech are a good indicator of the basic freedom and health of that society imposing them.
I hate abusive spammers and I favor the limitation of their freedom to speak to me with abusive spam that I do not want to receive!
Free speech can never be absolute. "Fighting words" is a perfectly good example of a valid free speech limitation that much of Western society accepts. In Germany, Nazi advocacy is limited. In some European countries, religious hate speech is limited. When martial law is imposed (after a riot or a terrorist attack, for example), free speech is drastically limited.
ABSOLUTE free speech is something that most reasonable people do not support. There MUST be some limitations ("fighting words," for example), and different limitations must apply to different cultures (think Nazi advocacy in postwar Germany or religious hate speech in countries on the verge of religious civil war). The important--vital--question is where those limitations must be placed.
Once you accept the proposition that some limitations of free speech are necessary, then you need to consider all the relevant factors in determining the fairest way to accomplish free speech. If you ignore cultural context, your free speech regulation is liable to be unfair or unworkable.
My point is that Indians ARE capable of dealing with free speech, and that is what they are doing. You are trying to impose an absolutist view of free speech into a context where absolute free speech is not workable AS A PRACTICAL MATTER.
You state: "The only socio-political context where lack of free speech can be justified is one where it's okay for the elite to dominate over the rest." That's a wonderful aspirational idea that will work very well just as soon as human beings eliminate need, greed, and violence.
I played DFLW before the cheaters overcame it. In DFLW the gamespace was huge. It was so much fun getting behind the snipers and sniping at them. They couldn't figure out how they were getting killed, so they would accuse me of all sorts of bad cheating things.
Slashdot Mirror
Support publicly owned providers whenever you can. It's the only way to fight the monopoly-monster.
AT&T's goal is to charge you exactly what they can get away with. A public provider's goal is to charge you what is fair.
Very good point. I'll bet that they learned from reading their data that linking to journals and essays generates fewer hits than linking to blogs and press releases. More its means more ad revenue means more return to shareholders, which is what corporations are all about.
Corporate organization pushes a drive to go bigger and bigger--and more and more toward the lowest common denominator. Disney, McDonalds . . .
Anyway, thanks for your post. Maybe I should start spending my time with something a little more engaging!
Ahhhh, the domino theory in another form . . ..
Maybe it's time for "containment!"
No point in agitating Iran. The US might be able to trigger something, but it couldn't control it. There is no way that the US can CREATE a friendly client-state in IRAN. Only people who get paid to think of ways to create client states think that. The revolution, if it comes, will take its own course.
It is very important to remember that the theocratic Iranian government has a huge base of support. Students and the intelligentsia have to shift that before they can do anything.
Iran's got a big problem. It needs technology to oppress its people, but the locals who furnish the technology are the people that the government wants to oppress. Unfortunately, the government has oil money and oil money will finance the purchase of oppression-aiding technology from the "free" countries of the world.
When the oil runs out, the theocracy will die because it can't afford the oppression. The sadness is that all that oil money could be used to build infrastructure for the people for the future. But it won't. 'Tis a pity.
I dunno . . . ever seen the movie "The Return of Martin Guerre?"
Take a major stake in a company run by people you don't trust?
The only stakes I'd want would be a controlling stake or a stake in the CEO's heart.
That's stupid. Evolution doesn't create solutions to anything. Evolution just describes what happens--it isn't an animated event for God's sake.
Hacking started out as a slang term that means one cluster of things. The meaning has since evolved.
Now we've got people citing dictionary meanings of the term.
The drive to classify--and to impose your classification upon others--must be a human biological imperative.
Government intervention does create opportunity for corrupt practices. But without government we have nothing to protect us from the jungle described by Upton Sinclair. We need government that's big enough to protect us from big business. I don't like it, but that's the way it is. Either one can screw us over, so it's up to us to keep things in the best working balance that we can.
Generally, they prove to do the right thing. I want them on my side against the John Gottis and the ENRONs of the world.
The feds often have super-powers when it comes to plea bargaining.
They can make the threat: Plead to three years or face twenty.
When that power is in the wrong hands it can force innocent or very mitigated people to plead guilty.
More importantly--much more importantly--they can use this leverage to FORCE a person to agree to their sentence recommendation. This means that they don't get to plead for mercy from the judge.
This power when used in the right hands, is excellent for hammering bad guys. When used in the wrong hands (for ambition or to avoid embarrassment), it can be downright evil.
We place a lot of trust in our federal prosecutors.
"No they wouldn't. No one who can experience human emotions such as joy is permitted to be a lawyer."
Are you completely CRAZY? If lawyers couldn't experience human emotions like anger, greed, envy, jealousy, and the JOY of having lots of money, they wouldn't even be lawyers anymore. How elxe could they motivate themselves to deal with the garbage of other people's social relations?
Yeah, but think Hatfields vs. McCoys. That kind of stuff leads to a race to the bottom.
That's hilarious.
Blackmail is a crime because if blackmail were not a crime people would be more likely to engage in self-help to rid themselves of the blackmailer. Such self-help could manifest itself in socially destructive ways.
Blackmail is just a variant of extortion, anyway. Surely nobody would doubt that protection rackets are rightfully criminal. Threatening to hurt somebody financially if money is not paid is only a matter of degree less awful than threatening to kick somebody's ass in exchange for money.
Blackmail also is a good way to extort people into doing very undesirable things (like espionage, embezzlement, corrupt political behavior, for example).
Extortion is one more example why free speech must be limited. Words can hurt!
Only a screwed-up unworkable society could ever have unrestrained free speech. One of the best measures of a free society is the care taken to draw equitable lines between unpermitted speech and free speech.
I think we can give up on the idea that developers will ever document their code adequately unless they're compelled by financial circumstance. That won't happen in open source.
I suggest that developers eagerly seek out and ENGAGE documentation writers. It will be a pain teaching an ignorant idiot exactly how your code works, but (a) once the developer does it, his teaching and interpersonal skills will dramatically improve; (b) he will be forced to critically go over his own code as part of the explanation process (improving the code); and (c) his code will be more accessible to other users and other developers.
It will never happen, but it is a cool idea.
Complete documentation of code (including manuals) is probably the single greatest service that can be provided for an existing project because (a) it makes it much easier for new developers to step right up and help; (b) helps narrow the breach between users and developers; and (c) helps users use the project.
The difficulty is engaging with a developer who has already thought everything out and persuading that developer to critically go over all that work all over again. If you can do that, you can collaborate to write awesome documentation, but it's really hard work.
Developers should try to engage documentation writers from the beginning of that project. Although it will be a pain to have to explain your work and insight to somebody else, the rewards would be awesome.
He'd be safer with a lawyer. If the Court finds no conflict and that the DRM law controls his situation, wouldn't he be subject to sanction? I don't know the law of his country, but I think it prudent to be concerned.
He's not a whining sniveling cowardly hypocrite like the Pirate Bay defendants.
This guy's putting it on the line. Does he have a defense fund that can be contributed to?
"People aren't whining about prescription drug prices because of the difference between the price and the cost to make. They are whining because drug companies are making exorbitant amount of money, most of which is ending up in the pocket's of CEO's. Unless the CEO has like 2 billion mouths to feed and has a mortgage on an entire Caribbean island, I'm pretty sure these whiny people are justified."
You should add that the only reason that the drug companies are making this money is because they have their own entitlement--patent law--which is bought and paid for by the taxpayers who suffer for it.
"Maybe too boring for you but the Yankees have proven time and again that such a model does work in professional sports."
a) Just because something works now, doesn't mean that it won't fail in the future.
b) Just because something works for one team, doesn't mean that it is good for the game as a whole.
(1) Attract users with free content and paid content.
(2) Develop a game culture/ecosystem.
(3) Dump the freeloaders.
(4) Profit?
From TFA, you only rent assets? What binds you to the game then? Stupid rank is no big deal once you've already made the max.
There are limitations that must be applied to freedom of speech in a civilized society and the limitation of abusive spam speech is one.
This ought to establish that free speech is not an absolute right--it is a right that must be limited in some circumstances. The scope and manner of those limitations on free speech are a good indicator of the basic freedom and health of that society imposing them.
I hate abusive spammers and I favor the limitation of their freedom to speak to me with abusive spam that I do not want to receive!
Free speech can never be absolute. "Fighting words" is a perfectly good example of a valid free speech limitation that much of Western society accepts. In Germany, Nazi advocacy is limited. In some European countries, religious hate speech is limited. When martial law is imposed (after a riot or a terrorist attack, for example), free speech is drastically limited.
ABSOLUTE free speech is something that most reasonable people do not support. There MUST be some limitations ("fighting words," for example), and different limitations must apply to different cultures (think Nazi advocacy in postwar Germany or religious hate speech in countries on the verge of religious civil war). The important--vital--question is where those limitations must be placed.
Once you accept the proposition that some limitations of free speech are necessary, then you need to consider all the relevant factors in determining the fairest way to accomplish free speech. If you ignore cultural context, your free speech regulation is liable to be unfair or unworkable.
My point is that Indians ARE capable of dealing with free speech, and that is what they are doing. You are trying to impose an absolutist view of free speech into a context where absolute free speech is not workable AS A PRACTICAL MATTER.
You state: "The only socio-political context where lack of free speech can be justified is one where it's okay for the elite to dominate over the rest." That's a wonderful aspirational idea that will work very well just as soon as human beings eliminate need, greed, and violence.
I played DFLW before the cheaters overcame it. In DFLW the gamespace was huge. It was so much fun getting behind the snipers and sniping at them. They couldn't figure out how they were getting killed, so they would accuse me of all sorts of bad cheating things.
Ahhh..... the fun memories.