It will be attached to the end of a "wire like endoscope" So no it's navigation won't be so much of a problem...They go so far as to say they will by able to pass it up into blood vessels in the brain to measure blood flow. Kinda weird, I would be bothered by the idea of a wire in my brain.
We all wish this was a utopia where this was true, however it couldn't be further from it. Criminals will always have access to firearms readily no matter how strict the gun laws are. Increased gun laws or bans tends to result in an increase in organized crime. Sure you cut down on some of the horrible aspects of guns: accidental deaths, anger/alcohol related murders. However when you take guns out of the hands of responsible citizens you do little to dissuade all types of criminals who will still have access to weapons, and in fact will often encourage violent crime since the criminal can be sure that he is the only one with a weapon.
A great example of this is found with the "Gun Free Zones" in the states, particularly schools. Mass school shootings are occurring more and more frequently in the states, with the VATech shooting being the most recent and horrific. Most of these crimes when investigated show a large amount of time and effort went into them. Including obtaining illegal weapons such as explosives in some cases. All the gun bans in the world wouldn't stop these people from acquiring weapons.
In these gun free zones the criminal can be sure that the chances of someone else on campus gun to shoot back with being slim to none. So they attack the campus and shoot and shoot until the police stop them. Oh wait the police have yet to stop any of them in the cases I'm aware of. In fact in every case these individuals have ended the spree THEMSELVES, by taking their own life, usually well before police arrive. Gun free zones and strict gun laws (or bans as you advocate) do nothing other than promote violent crime, and have been shown in studies that enactment of gun laws has increased violent crime.
In my opinion the best balance is limiting access to weapons by background checks, weapon classes for special permits (concealed carry), and limiting some types of weapons. In most potential cases a handgun or shotgun is more than adequate for self defense. As such I agree with bans placed on assault weapons. The last thing we should be doing is taking guns from responsible individuals.
modded troll? come on now you may not like it, but at least he speaks the truth. Liberals spew anti American hate speech. Conservatives Spew anti socialist hate speech, as well as anti poor and others. But really now...troll =/
The guy in the video is brilliant...he ends it by saying that "you don't have to think about wind as much." Umm I wasn't aware that the machine countered for drift due to wind...oh that's right it doesn't. PERHAPS YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THE WIND BECAUSE YOU WHERE IN AN INDOOR SHOOTING RANGE!
You're right...if it happened to me I'd be screaming for a long sentance. In reality I agree with a previous poster with something along the lines of: hope for a short sentence, when he gets out take him some place make him suffer very much for a few hours then make sure he is never seen again.
This has to be the weakest posting I've seen in weeks on slashdot (and that's saying a lot recently). The guy barely wrote anything useful for slashdot and TFA was shit also. This should never have been posted, it's not worth the bandwidth it cost to host it out or for me to view it.
Sounds great...I think I'll try some of that colloidal silver you recommend! I'm mean you can't be too safe right? Oh wait when I finish taking that colloidal silver I might end up looking something like this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_alien. That's not so bad though a little case of Argyria doesn't kill you...but maybe I shouldn't be getting medical advice from an AIDS denier......
Unless you enumerate every single detail and possiblity then ANY and all forms of communication are necessary to be interpreted. Even then it is necessary to interpret what it means from words to meaning in the mind. You claim that you are not offering YOUR interpretation, but rather the ONLY interpretation and our interpretation is inherently wrong...because it's not yours
Congress shall make no law I'll agree with you here pretty clear as can be. abridging the freedom of speech Uh oh...show me in the constitution where it enumerates and defines this "freedom of speech" thing. Some potential interpretations:
Whatever I want to say, about whomever I want to say it, and however I want to say it
Whatever I want to say, about whomever I want to say it
Whatever I want to say.
This part is not so clearly enumerated within that explicit literal reading you are so fond of (Of course you are going to argue that the ONLY possible interpretation is the first one...it's expected, however it's just belligerence rather than actually thinking that's making you do that. Despite your claim that the constitution does not allow for itself to be interpreted by the Supreme Court, this power of interpretation has been recognised for what 150-200+ years (I'm not a constitutional historian and, but I believe it has a long precedent back to at least the 1830's if not further), and this power of interpretation of the constitution is absolutely necessary sice not all of the amendments are quite as clear as the first is in meaning. I believe that the first amendment is not explicit enough to exempt it from interpretation for the reasons above. I also feel that the Supreme court is the branch granted with the power to interpret the constitution, and as such the Supreme court has overall ruled that the second definition of free speech I offered is the one that is most correct, I am inclined to allow them that authority.
Finally, with that interpretation in mind, the law passed here is not unconstitutional as the freedom of speech does not grant you the right to use obscene language through public communication. I don't personally agree with the law...as the law has always been that it's illegal to use obscene language through federal broadcasts (which I feel is justified, despite my not taking offence and using enough obscene language myself to offend most parents), however this particular change regards accidental or "slips of the tongue" that have for a long time been considered acceptable. So now I can be fined if while giving a radio broadcast I drop my coffee on my lap and accidentally curse...that is overboard.
The power to interpret the meaning of law and the constitution is granted to the Supreme Court. Whether or not you agree with the courts interpretation is not the point. The point is that the Supreme Court is tasked with interpreting how it sees fit the Constitution and it's relation to laws. That is their role in the checks and balances.
That isn't to say that the first amendment isn't clear, however the vastness of the interpretation is important. The supreme court has ruled that overall you can say anything you want to about anyone or anything. That is what the supreme court (overall) has so far ruled is the intention of first amendment. However the supreme court has also ruled that HOW you say something may not be protected.
I am free to get up in a public place (we'll say radio for sake of this argument) and say that George W. is an idiot, leading the U.S. in all the wrong directions, favouring big business over citizens...etc. However I am not free to get on that same radio broadcast and say that George W. is a Fucking idiot, a conservative religious cock sucker, and spends his free time jerking the dicks of corporate interests with one hand and jamming his dick in the ass of the citizens.
Notice both those sentences say the same thing (generally speaking). One would be protected fully by the first amendment, the second would be considered obscene by the FCC and the supreme court would rule you do not have the right to say it.
The point is, the current interpretation of the first amendment is that all speech is protected in regards to what you wish to say, however that same protection is not granted to how you wish to say it. I feel that the courts are well within their granted role to rule that way, whether or not you like it. THe fact of the matter is the language is not 100% clear, it leaves room for interpretation. Sure congress can make no laws abridging freedom of speech. That's clear enough. But what is meant by speech? The freedom to say whatever I want, or the freedom to say whatever I want however I want. It is not your job to do that interpretation, you if you where on the Supreme Court, would obviously interpret it to be the latter. The current (and most past) justices have ruled otherwise, and since that is there appointed role (and I believe in the whole constitution not just the parts I want to, like you seem to have done) that makes them more qualified to make that judgement. Though you are free to voice you oppinions and even insult them if you like...but if you got on the radio or public television and started screaming they are a bunch of idiot fucking shove-your-morals-in-my-ass right wing screw fucks...well then they would rule you are not protected.
Why did you go after him for such a pointless argument? Musthh DEFENDSTH the APPLTHLE GODTHS right?
His point was he shouldn't have to buy an mp3 PERIOD if he owns the cd. He's saying that the DRM is there to prevent him from ripping the CD. His point wasn't to rip on iTunes, his point was to rip on the DRM.
Lastly iTunes is a gianormous program to use for a media jukebox...if all I want is a media player I'll choose something more lightweight. If I wanted all the features...well then it's a great program. If not then it's bloatware I don't need, and I'll choose my own software. I don't appreciate programs that install services for hardware i don't own though without my permission (ipodservice).
Re:Wrong - Not the "first" ATM.
on
ATM Turns 40
·
· Score: 1
http://web.mit.edu/invent/iow/simjian.html
Slightly better than wikipedia by your standards I assume.
I believe it should be up to the citizens themselves to protect their information. A few simple changes are all that are needed in any country imo, though I am most familiar with the US policies.
I believe companys have every right to sell the information that you provide them. Being able to will drive up company revenue, which in many circumstances will lead to improved product, or reduced prices. However they should not be able to do this haphazardly. Privacy policies should be required to be clear, easy to find, and explicit. The default should be no sharing unless stated otherwise (meaning if a company provides no policy, then the policy is no information may be shared). Lastly, privacy policies should not be able to be retroactively changed. The statement "may be changed at anytime" should be forbidden, or more exactly any information collected pre change should stay under the previous rules until the customer allows the update.
Basically I don't feel that the government of any country should be looking out for my privacy. My privacy is my problem not theirs. However, there needs to be enough oversight to provide the tools I need to be able to protect my privacy. Stopping retroactive changes, ambiguous privacy policies, and hard to locate and nonexistant policies should provide adequate tools for any consumer to guard themselves. The government getting in the way will just cause problems if they try to be my nanny or mother.
Unfortunately right now...nobody is really doing it right as far as I'm concerned. The US is too lax on it's rules, and Europe has too much government regulation for my taste.
No, just no. The point of the tests are to determine who is over a particular threshold of knowledge and who isn't. The method being called a fraud fails to accurately do that. Since randomness has a proven substantial impact on those tests that threshold becomes blurred. To make matters worse, the harder the test the MORE randomness affects score. As a result the test results are meaningless at any scale. His examples where simplified to illustrate the essential math behind them, he does not need more than 2 people to compare since the math is equally applicable no matter how many are tested. He also does not need to set a scale because the math is equally applicable to any bar you might set.
The point of the article was to illustrate that these hard tests are meant to establish a minimum required level of knowledge, however due to the nature of counting only correct answers, randomness incurs a great penalty to the accuracy of the attempted measurement of knowledgege. He is suggesting, and rightly so, that a test that instead occurs an effective 0 net effect of guessing would much more accurately measure the knowledge of the participants by reducing the effects of guessing to nearly 0
.
What this really comes down to is accuracy and precision. We assume that a test score can be equated to a measurement of knowledge, and for your benefit (it's completely irrelevant) we'll assume that a passing test is 60%.
We give 1 person 5 different tests. We allow for random guessing with no penalty, and the test is very hard. He takes them all and scores wildly different, but averages 65% across all of the tests. If I was to know for a fact that the person in question does indeed deserve to score a 65% then we can say the test was very accurate, but low in precision. On any given test the subject may have passed or failed depending on his luck with guessing.
We now give the same person 5 new tests. We this time remove randomness for the most part by penalizing wrong answers by an amount that results in an effective gain of 0 for random guessing. This time he takes the tests all his scores are within a few points of each other and infact he averages 65% again. In this case the test is highly accurate and is also high precision. On any given test the subject most likely would pass
The article's math indeed illustrates this point very clearly. The unspoken point is that in tests such as these, designed to set standards to be met, it is a fraud to use a test with low accuracy at measuring actual knowledge. The precision gained by penalizing guessing allows the test to be much more fair in it's administration.
Exactly, without learning with the Microsoft crutch these new users will quickly become oriented to the tools available to linux and as such will have no fear of wiping and staring over clean
I think I know what the next./ article will be...Chavez orders all major linux dristro sites blocked =)
IANAL, So someone with a little more understanding how does this affect a non local company. Such as a company based in another state shipping computers to customers in Texas? Would such a company be required to deal with the Texas law, or would it only affect those making computers in Texas? I tried to read the bill, but I couldn't come up with anything conclusive.
Sounds great, in theory. But how do you propose to make this happen, without introducing too large barriers to enter, too short duration of patents or too expensive/slow patent verification processes?
This is such a silly argument it's not even funny. Of course I don't propose to solve all the problems with the current system. That will most likely be the work of a large group of people specializing in that particular field.
Patents try to solve an unsolvable problem today in that they need to be short in duration to minimize the chilling effects, but long to earn their owners cash; broad to be applicable, but narrow to avoid carpet bombing; easy to understand to be of use for others and patent examiners, but obfuscated to prevent information leakage to countries with no patent system and we need a cheap, fast AND thorough patent examination process. Ain't gonna happenn
It's of course not going to be an easy task. However the results are more than worthwhile. And none of the problems you list are unable to be solved imo. The patent system needs to be better designed, and it will take some serious innovation to fix it, but a means to provide for a limited monopoly will overall lead to greater innovation.
Their are issues with patents. Complacency and sitting on patents to prevent competition of an alternative product are major issues that will have to be dealt with. Not, once again, unsolvable imo. Some of the largest innovations may when patented provide a slowing effect, which you list a good example of. However patent protection has shown throughout history to provide a motivation for overall greater innovation.
Hell, just look at Switzerland and the Netherlands a hundred years ago - for a period of over 50 years, neither country had a patent system and they flourished. Many large corporations were founded there at the time; Unilever, Syngenta, Philips and Nestlé.
Come on now, your first and last arguments are horrible scapegoats for what in the middle where at least decent points (if true). You listed 4 companies, 3 of which are production companies working in fields that will have little to no patents. Worse, since they are specialized in producing the products rather then inventing them, they would benefit from an environment where innovations are not protected and they can just steal them as they wish.
Lastly I'd love to see some links to those patent lawyer studies.
The process doesn't have to be replicated, just the product. This isn't applicable to all fields as some fields the development rate is so great, or the cost of reverse engineering makes it not reasonable to do. However the parent claims we should do away with patents altogether...
Some products takes years and lots of money to develop, but once they are developed they may be easy to replicate. Materials, machinery, objects all may be very easy to replicate if you have an original to copy. So you seem to imply that because a product may be cheaply duplicated that it isn't novel enough to deserve protection. I argue that things that are difficult to do the first time, then easy to duplicate once it's been done, are the most deserving and needing of patent protection.
An example:
Company A starts up with 10 million dollars. Spends 3 years and 6 million dollars designing a specialised airfoil for use in high speed high altitude travel.
We'll assume that this R&D produced novel and distinct materials, shapes, etc. That company A would justly be awarded a patent on. But we live in a world without patents. So company a spends the remaining 4 million dollars on machinery to make airfoils.
Company B starts out with 10 million dollars also. Spends $100,000 and buys an original of the airfoil. Hires a couple material science engineers, and aeronautical engineers, and they examine the product. Since the airfoil is in front of them they know what shape to make it, will quickly know how to make the material (since they only have to focus on duplicating the example material), etc. So for some small cost they have now duplicated the airfoil. Maybe they spend $500,000 duplicating the airfoil. They now spend the remaining 9.4 million on machinery to make airfoils.
Economies of scale says that Company B with more than twice the machinery most likely they will be able to produce more airfoils cheaper than Company A. Company A loses it's bids to produce the product since it can't do so as cheap as Company B.
No this is not a perfect example. It's a greatly simplified example to show the reasons we need patents. It's not meant as a straw man it's meant to illustrate the necessity of patents. Does a patent have bad side effects...yes. Is their problems with the current patent system...yes.
Patents have been around in the U.S. as long as the U.S. has. They are a very important part of the market. They are meant to protect the first inventor of an idea, to promote creativity. Company X might have great thinkers and engineers so they come up with this great way of doing something, but lack the manufacturing infrastructure to produce a product, or can only do so in limited expensive quantities. However company Y isn't so hot on the thinking part, but have a great manufacturing infrastructure. Company X goes to company Y and licences their patented tech. This is extremely important else, only large companies could have even a fighting chance to survive.
So to counter your claim more directly. Competition is great, without patents we'd have less competition as only large companies with both the thinks and manufacturing infrastructure will survive. Brand recognition is great....for large companies. First-To-Market is helpful...however when company X makes their product and it costs a ton for them to make then company Y reverse engineers the product and due to economies of scale is able to manufacture it cheaper they will put company X's product to shame quickly.
Patents are meant to foster creativity, and protect the ideas of companies that take time/money to develop from being stolen by the first person to lay their hands on it. Patent abuse is a problem today, patents themselves are a important cornerstone in our market. The patent process needs to be revamped to prevent the abuse that's taking place today, however with the much overused phrase: "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater".
Personally, I don't like my information shared. So I will go out of my way to find frequent sites that have a strong privacy policy. Privacy is a right, however it is not a right you can't sell. A company has every right to sell the information I give them about myself to their affiliates and even non affiliated companies if they so wish. They should be held accountable for having a privacy policy that indicated what they will and will not sell, and the policies they write should have legal backing, with certain limitations (such as preventing retroactive changes).
I think you should pay less if the company is allowed to turn around and sell your information. That is your choice. Choose to frequent shops with stronger privacy policies (and higher prices). A company is around with one purpose: To make a profit. They aren't there to be altruistic, and if they want to offer lower prices and use information you provide them with to turn a profit, that's their choice. Vote with your dollars and we'll see who wins.
THe only thing I'm unhappy with about the U.S. privacy standards is the ability of privacy policies to be changed without notice and retroactively. Both of which should be forbidden. However information sharing should be legal, should be a method of raising income, and should be the consumer's choice (via choosing a competitor).
Re:The GPL: Intellectual Theft
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
At least this made me laugh...I almost choked on at the defragging the ext2 file system. It's extremely comical because it's obvious the person the came up with this (originally) meant it as pure sarcasm, probably not even originally trolled. It has too many make your jaw drop moments to have been serious...GNU protective license lol, defrag ext2 lol, token-ring..... However this has been around forever and always seems to incite people to violence.
Why are you the only person commenting on this with a brain?
Listen people it's really simple. MySpace doesn't get to ADD people to any "lists". My space gets to USE the list to decide if people that have profiles on myspace are on the list ALREADY! How hard of a concept is that really? Any group that is going to do a sex offender check is going to use the actual list not some flubbed together (and I might add not public) list to make it's decisions.
All this shows is that Myspace is using a poor matching algorithm and coming up with false positives from it's comparison. So what? So she got her profile banned from myspace. MySpace needs to wake up and realize it needs a method to resolve false positives or else it will have unhappy customers, but beside that this is a silly concept. She might even be able to argue a lible case if she orchestrated it right.
I love a good conspiracy as much as anyone....but please people don't be silly, sex offenders appear on sex offender lists after they have been convicted of a crime. They don't magically add a new person because they are vaguely similar to another person on the list.
You're kinda nuts...a 2621 runs the same price (on e-bay) as a mid to low end users computer! At $500-$600 on ebay we're talking router tech that's 6-7x the price of the average home router. So as long as that's the kind of hardware the end user will need, i's not going to work.
Slashdot Mirror
It will be attached to the end of a "wire like endoscope" So no it's navigation won't be so much of a problem...They go so far as to say they will by able to pass it up into blood vessels in the brain to measure blood flow. Kinda weird, I would be bothered by the idea of a wire in my brain.
We all wish this was a utopia where this was true, however it couldn't be further from it. Criminals will always have access to firearms readily no matter how strict the gun laws are. Increased gun laws or bans tends to result in an increase in organized crime. Sure you cut down on some of the horrible aspects of guns: accidental deaths, anger/alcohol related murders. However when you take guns out of the hands of responsible citizens you do little to dissuade all types of criminals who will still have access to weapons, and in fact will often encourage violent crime since the criminal can be sure that he is the only one with a weapon.
A great example of this is found with the "Gun Free Zones" in the states, particularly schools. Mass school shootings are occurring more and more frequently in the states, with the VATech shooting being the most recent and horrific. Most of these crimes when investigated show a large amount of time and effort went into them. Including obtaining illegal weapons such as explosives in some cases. All the gun bans in the world wouldn't stop these people from acquiring weapons.
In these gun free zones the criminal can be sure that the chances of someone else on campus gun to shoot back with being slim to none. So they attack the campus and shoot and shoot until the police stop them. Oh wait the police have yet to stop any of them in the cases I'm aware of. In fact in every case these individuals have ended the spree THEMSELVES, by taking their own life, usually well before police arrive. Gun free zones and strict gun laws (or bans as you advocate) do nothing other than promote violent crime, and have been shown in studies that enactment of gun laws has increased violent crime.
In my opinion the best balance is limiting access to weapons by background checks, weapon classes for special permits (concealed carry), and limiting some types of weapons. In most potential cases a handgun or shotgun is more than adequate for self defense. As such I agree with bans placed on assault weapons. The last thing we should be doing is taking guns from responsible individuals.
modded troll? come on now you may not like it, but at least he speaks the truth. Liberals spew anti American hate speech. Conservatives Spew anti socialist hate speech, as well as anti poor and others. But really now...troll =/
And I bet you would ban contraceptives too if you had the chance right?
Read much? They did offer arbitration, the red cross turned it down. J&J is completely in the right to take this to court as that is it's next option.
The guy in the video is brilliant...he ends it by saying that "you don't have to think about wind as much." Umm I wasn't aware that the machine countered for drift due to wind...oh that's right it doesn't. PERHAPS YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THE WIND BECAUSE YOU WHERE IN AN INDOOR SHOOTING RANGE!
You're right...if it happened to me I'd be screaming for a long sentance. In reality I agree with a previous poster with something along the lines of: hope for a short sentence, when he gets out take him some place make him suffer very much for a few hours then make sure he is never seen again.
This has to be the weakest posting I've seen in weeks on slashdot (and that's saying a lot recently). The guy barely wrote anything useful for slashdot and TFA was shit also. This should never have been posted, it's not worth the bandwidth it cost to host it out or for me to view it.
I don't know about you but my porn collection wouldn't fit on either of these USB keys. >.
Sounds great...I think I'll try some of that colloidal silver you recommend! I'm mean you can't be too safe right? Oh wait when I finish taking that colloidal silver I might end up looking something like this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_alien. That's not so bad though a little case of Argyria doesn't kill you...but maybe I shouldn't be getting medical advice from an AIDS denier......
Unless you enumerate every single detail and possiblity then ANY and all forms of communication are necessary to be interpreted. Even then it is necessary to interpret what it means from words to meaning in the mind. You claim that you are not offering YOUR interpretation, but rather the ONLY interpretation and our interpretation is inherently wrong...because it's not yours
Congress shall make no law I'll agree with you here pretty clear as can be. abridging the freedom of speech Uh oh...show me in the constitution where it enumerates and defines this "freedom of speech" thing. Some potential interpretations:
This part is not so clearly enumerated within that explicit literal reading you are so fond of (Of course you are going to argue that the ONLY possible interpretation is the first one...it's expected, however it's just belligerence rather than actually thinking that's making you do that. Despite your claim that the constitution does not allow for itself to be interpreted by the Supreme Court, this power of interpretation has been recognised for what 150-200+ years (I'm not a constitutional historian and, but I believe it has a long precedent back to at least the 1830's if not further), and this power of interpretation of the constitution is absolutely necessary sice not all of the amendments are quite as clear as the first is in meaning. I believe that the first amendment is not explicit enough to exempt it from interpretation for the reasons above. I also feel that the Supreme court is the branch granted with the power to interpret the constitution, and as such the Supreme court has overall ruled that the second definition of free speech I offered is the one that is most correct, I am inclined to allow them that authority.
Finally, with that interpretation in mind, the law passed here is not unconstitutional as the freedom of speech does not grant you the right to use obscene language through public communication. I don't personally agree with the law...as the law has always been that it's illegal to use obscene language through federal broadcasts (which I feel is justified, despite my not taking offence and using enough obscene language myself to offend most parents), however this particular change regards accidental or "slips of the tongue" that have for a long time been considered acceptable. So now I can be fined if while giving a radio broadcast I drop my coffee on my lap and accidentally curse...that is overboard.
The power to interpret the meaning of law and the constitution is granted to the Supreme Court. Whether or not you agree with the courts interpretation is not the point. The point is that the Supreme Court is tasked with interpreting how it sees fit the Constitution and it's relation to laws. That is their role in the checks and balances.
That isn't to say that the first amendment isn't clear, however the vastness of the interpretation is important. The supreme court has ruled that overall you can say anything you want to about anyone or anything. That is what the supreme court (overall) has so far ruled is the intention of first amendment. However the supreme court has also ruled that HOW you say something may not be protected.
I am free to get up in a public place (we'll say radio for sake of this argument) and say that George W. is an idiot, leading the U.S. in all the wrong directions, favouring big business over citizens...etc. However I am not free to get on that same radio broadcast and say that George W. is a Fucking idiot, a conservative religious cock sucker, and spends his free time jerking the dicks of corporate interests with one hand and jamming his dick in the ass of the citizens.
Notice both those sentences say the same thing (generally speaking). One would be protected fully by the first amendment, the second would be considered obscene by the FCC and the supreme court would rule you do not have the right to say it.
The point is, the current interpretation of the first amendment is that all speech is protected in regards to what you wish to say, however that same protection is not granted to how you wish to say it. I feel that the courts are well within their granted role to rule that way, whether or not you like it. THe fact of the matter is the language is not 100% clear, it leaves room for interpretation. Sure congress can make no laws abridging freedom of speech. That's clear enough. But what is meant by speech? The freedom to say whatever I want, or the freedom to say whatever I want however I want. It is not your job to do that interpretation, you if you where on the Supreme Court, would obviously interpret it to be the latter. The current (and most past) justices have ruled otherwise, and since that is there appointed role (and I believe in the whole constitution not just the parts I want to, like you seem to have done) that makes them more qualified to make that judgement. Though you are free to voice you oppinions and even insult them if you like...but if you got on the radio or public television and started screaming they are a bunch of idiot fucking shove-your-morals-in-my-ass right wing screw fucks...well then they would rule you are not protected.
Beware the apple fan boys....
Why did you go after him for such a pointless argument? Musthh DEFENDSTH the APPLTHLE GODTHS right?
His point was he shouldn't have to buy an mp3 PERIOD if he owns the cd. He's saying that the DRM is there to prevent him from ripping the CD. His point wasn't to rip on iTunes, his point was to rip on the DRM.
Lastly iTunes is a gianormous program to use for a media jukebox...if all I want is a media player I'll choose something more lightweight. If I wanted all the features...well then it's a great program. If not then it's bloatware I don't need, and I'll choose my own software. I don't appreciate programs that install services for hardware i don't own though without my permission (ipodservice).
http://web.mit.edu/invent/iow/simjian.html
Slightly better than wikipedia by your standards I assume.
I believe it should be up to the citizens themselves to protect their information. A few simple changes are all that are needed in any country imo, though I am most familiar with the US policies.
I believe companys have every right to sell the information that you provide them. Being able to will drive up company revenue, which in many circumstances will lead to improved product, or reduced prices. However they should not be able to do this haphazardly. Privacy policies should be required to be clear, easy to find, and explicit. The default should be no sharing unless stated otherwise (meaning if a company provides no policy, then the policy is no information may be shared). Lastly, privacy policies should not be able to be retroactively changed. The statement "may be changed at anytime" should be forbidden, or more exactly any information collected pre change should stay under the previous rules until the customer allows the update.
Basically I don't feel that the government of any country should be looking out for my privacy. My privacy is my problem not theirs. However, there needs to be enough oversight to provide the tools I need to be able to protect my privacy. Stopping retroactive changes, ambiguous privacy policies, and hard to locate and nonexistant policies should provide adequate tools for any consumer to guard themselves. The government getting in the way will just cause problems if they try to be my nanny or mother.
Unfortunately right now...nobody is really doing it right as far as I'm concerned. The US is too lax on it's rules, and Europe has too much government regulation for my taste.
No, just no. The point of the tests are to determine who is over a particular threshold of knowledge and who isn't. The method being called a fraud fails to accurately do that. Since randomness has a proven substantial impact on those tests that threshold becomes blurred. To make matters worse, the harder the test the MORE randomness affects score. As a result the test results are meaningless at any scale. His examples where simplified to illustrate the essential math behind them, he does not need more than 2 people to compare since the math is equally applicable no matter how many are tested. He also does not need to set a scale because the math is equally applicable to any bar you might set.
The point of the article was to illustrate that these hard tests are meant to establish a minimum required level of knowledge, however due to the nature of counting only correct answers, randomness incurs a great penalty to the accuracy of the attempted measurement of knowledgege. He is suggesting, and rightly so, that a test that instead occurs an effective 0 net effect of guessing would much more accurately measure the knowledge of the participants by reducing the effects of guessing to nearly 0
.What this really comes down to is accuracy and precision. We assume that a test score can be equated to a measurement of knowledge, and for your benefit (it's completely irrelevant) we'll assume that a passing test is 60%.
The article's math indeed illustrates this point very clearly. The unspoken point is that in tests such as these, designed to set standards to be met, it is a fraud to use a test with low accuracy at measuring actual knowledge. The precision gained by penalizing guessing allows the test to be much more fair in it's administration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AccuracyExactly, without learning with the Microsoft crutch these new users will quickly become oriented to the tools available to linux and as such will have no fear of wiping and staring over clean
I think I know what the next ./ article will be...Chavez orders all major linux dristro sites blocked =)
IANAL, So someone with a little more understanding how does this affect a non local company. Such as a company based in another state shipping computers to customers in Texas? Would such a company be required to deal with the Texas law, or would it only affect those making computers in Texas? I tried to read the bill, but I couldn't come up with anything conclusive.
This is such a silly argument it's not even funny. Of course I don't propose to solve all the problems with the current system. That will most likely be the work of a large group of people specializing in that particular field.
Patents try to solve an unsolvable problem today in that they need to be short in duration to minimize the chilling effects, but long to earn their owners cash; broad to be applicable, but narrow to avoid carpet bombing; easy to understand to be of use for others and patent examiners, but obfuscated to prevent information leakage to countries with no patent system and we need a cheap, fast AND thorough patent examination process. Ain't gonna happennIt's of course not going to be an easy task. However the results are more than worthwhile. And none of the problems you list are unable to be solved imo. The patent system needs to be better designed, and it will take some serious innovation to fix it, but a means to provide for a limited monopoly will overall lead to greater innovation.
For instance, it has been suggested that they delayed the industrial revolution several decades, until James Watt's steam engine patent expired. http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:bSn6RfryVEgJ:wTheir are issues with patents. Complacency and sitting on patents to prevent competition of an alternative product are major issues that will have to be dealt with. Not, once again, unsolvable imo. Some of the largest innovations may when patented provide a slowing effect, which you list a good example of. However patent protection has shown throughout history to provide a motivation for overall greater innovation.
Hell, just look at Switzerland and the Netherlands a hundred years ago - for a period of over 50 years, neither country had a patent system and they flourished. Many large corporations were founded there at the time; Unilever, Syngenta, Philips and Nestlé.Come on now, your first and last arguments are horrible scapegoats for what in the middle where at least decent points (if true). You listed 4 companies, 3 of which are production companies working in fields that will have little to no patents. Worse, since they are specialized in producing the products rather then inventing them, they would benefit from an environment where innovations are not protected and they can just steal them as they wish.
Lastly I'd love to see some links to those patent lawyer studies.
The process doesn't have to be replicated, just the product. This isn't applicable to all fields as some fields the development rate is so great, or the cost of reverse engineering makes it not reasonable to do. However the parent claims we should do away with patents altogether...
Some products takes years and lots of money to develop, but once they are developed they may be easy to replicate. Materials, machinery, objects all may be very easy to replicate if you have an original to copy. So you seem to imply that because a product may be cheaply duplicated that it isn't novel enough to deserve protection. I argue that things that are difficult to do the first time, then easy to duplicate once it's been done, are the most deserving and needing of patent protection.
An example:No this is not a perfect example. It's a greatly simplified example to show the reasons we need patents. It's not meant as a straw man it's meant to illustrate the necessity of patents. Does a patent have bad side effects...yes. Is their problems with the current patent system...yes.
Patents have been around in the U.S. as long as the U.S. has. They are a very important part of the market. They are meant to protect the first inventor of an idea, to promote creativity. Company X might have great thinkers and engineers so they come up with this great way of doing something, but lack the manufacturing infrastructure to produce a product, or can only do so in limited expensive quantities. However company Y isn't so hot on the thinking part, but have a great manufacturing infrastructure. Company X goes to company Y and licences their patented tech. This is extremely important else, only large companies could have even a fighting chance to survive.
So to counter your claim more directly. Competition is great, without patents we'd have less competition as only large companies with both the thinks and manufacturing infrastructure will survive. Brand recognition is great....for large companies. First-To-Market is helpful...however when company X makes their product and it costs a ton for them to make then company Y reverse engineers the product and due to economies of scale is able to manufacture it cheaper they will put company X's product to shame quickly.
Patents are meant to foster creativity, and protect the ideas of companies that take time/money to develop from being stolen by the first person to lay their hands on it. Patent abuse is a problem today, patents themselves are a important cornerstone in our market. The patent process needs to be revamped to prevent the abuse that's taking place today, however with the much overused phrase: "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater".
Personally, I don't like my information shared. So I will go out of my way to find frequent sites that have a strong privacy policy. Privacy is a right, however it is not a right you can't sell. A company has every right to sell the information I give them about myself to their affiliates and even non affiliated companies if they so wish. They should be held accountable for having a privacy policy that indicated what they will and will not sell, and the policies they write should have legal backing, with certain limitations (such as preventing retroactive changes). I think you should pay less if the company is allowed to turn around and sell your information. That is your choice. Choose to frequent shops with stronger privacy policies (and higher prices). A company is around with one purpose: To make a profit. They aren't there to be altruistic, and if they want to offer lower prices and use information you provide them with to turn a profit, that's their choice. Vote with your dollars and we'll see who wins. THe only thing I'm unhappy with about the U.S. privacy standards is the ability of privacy policies to be changed without notice and retroactively. Both of which should be forbidden. However information sharing should be legal, should be a method of raising income, and should be the consumer's choice (via choosing a competitor).
At least this made me laugh...I almost choked on at the defragging the ext2 file system. It's extremely comical because it's obvious the person the came up with this (originally) meant it as pure sarcasm, probably not even originally trolled. It has too many make your jaw drop moments to have been serious...GNU protective license lol, defrag ext2 lol, token-ring..... However this has been around forever and always seems to incite people to violence.
Why are you the only person commenting on this with a brain? Listen people it's really simple. MySpace doesn't get to ADD people to any "lists". My space gets to USE the list to decide if people that have profiles on myspace are on the list ALREADY! How hard of a concept is that really? Any group that is going to do a sex offender check is going to use the actual list not some flubbed together (and I might add not public) list to make it's decisions. All this shows is that Myspace is using a poor matching algorithm and coming up with false positives from it's comparison. So what? So she got her profile banned from myspace. MySpace needs to wake up and realize it needs a method to resolve false positives or else it will have unhappy customers, but beside that this is a silly concept. She might even be able to argue a lible case if she orchestrated it right. I love a good conspiracy as much as anyone....but please people don't be silly, sex offenders appear on sex offender lists after they have been convicted of a crime. They don't magically add a new person because they are vaguely similar to another person on the list.
You're kinda nuts...a 2621 runs the same price (on e-bay) as a mid to low end users computer! At $500-$600 on ebay we're talking router tech that's 6-7x the price of the average home router. So as long as that's the kind of hardware the end user will need, i's not going to work.