And much like your examples they're taking valid results and spinning absurd conclusions based on the findings (frog with no arms and legs goes deaf).
Based on personal experience some of the suggestions the article makes are valid, a conservative when presented with a new idea will react based on how it jives with their existing ideas. I asked a conservative friend of mine what should happen if it can be proven that Bush won by rigging Florida, he said "Nothing, we're in the middle of a war." The flip side of that coin is liberals may be too eager to adopt new ideas. I recall a story about an enviornmentalist convention where a petition got may signatures suggesting that di-hydrogen monoxide be banned.
The really scary part is if you spent enough on lawyers that argument would probally hold up in court.
-That's it, I'm leaving the country, I'm going to New Mexico!
The other facet of corperate America that,especially in IT, makes it difficult in a given company to take today's novice and turn in him to tomorrow's senior is that the way most American companies ajudicate salary is based on a percentage.
Today right out of college in IT if you're lucky very you'll be making mid 40's, more realistic is probally mid 30's so let's use 35 as an example. First 3 years you perform well you're probally looking at 7% per year which would put you at 43 a year another 3 years down the road at the same rate you're at 52.
With six years under your belt you're worth a lot more than 52 and quite often the only way to get it is to go to another company.
And American troops tortured and sexually assaulted hundreds Iraqi prisioners which our country did nothing to stop until it became bad publicity (and yes Rumsfeld himself recieved direct reports of the abuse) but something tells me you won't think we had it coming if New York is nuked tomorrow.
This is actually explicitly legal. In an attempt to defend their lock-in business model the phone company previously tried to prohibit flashing their firmware under the DMCA. They later decided the only purpose to of this was to support a business model and hence they added it to the DMCA exception list.
If a child under any circumstances thinks that playing hitting someone with a shovel is okay likely has problems that have nothing to do with playing a video game. Studies have repeatedly failed to establish a causal relationship between video game violence and real-life violence.
Secondly the minimalist argument. i.e. It doesn't really ban anything because parents could still buy for their kids.
TFA made the comparison that it's similar to prohibiting minors for buying cigarettes. Prohibiting minors from buying cigarettes makes sense because cigarettes have been proven to be detrimental to one's health. But lacking evidence of negative effects of video games the only reason you have left if your own moral distaste.
If that's enough that these should be laws you may as well pass a law stating that no person may at any time sell or make anything available to a minor (hey if their parents still want them to have it they can buy it for them, right?).
I can't fathom why Americans haven't gotten over the idea they everyone else always needs our help. Here in America, neither FOX nor CNN provide news, they provide whatever version of the story will generate the best ratings. There are millions of Americans out there who don't realize that other news sources will provide a more accurate picture of what's going on, like Reuters or AP. So why should these news sources not spam the world and show us the light, because we don't want it. Those of us who want their product will go and find it, those who don't will not. Same with what this article is proposing. Those who want information the government is censoring will find a way to get it, those who don't will not.
I wonder if those who have paid off the RIAA to go away when they received their settlement letters can join this suit. Seems to me they'd be the perfect candidates.
And Intel's failure was due to a lack of backwards compatability. Coming up with "radically new and advanced" architecture does little good in the tech world because no matter how much better it is going forward it has to still work with the technologies that got us here. If someone invents something better by than HTML it won't matter how much better it is, the world isn't going to scrap the content on the internet for the sake of the new technology.
For any/.ers, yea that's just a dumb idea. I think it's a great service for Joe user. When it comes to tech my father's dumber than a load of wood (he uses AOL for god sakes). So he really needs to have his machine wiped and reloaded every few months at best. It would be great for him to just be able to dump stuff he wants to survive his reloads onto Google.
The fact of the matter is they're not just like you and me. If your dad had a few too many drinks one night and was pulled over by his buddy Bob he's facing a considerably different situation than if I get behind the wheel after too much to drink.
You're absolutely right, that's not your job. It's also not my job to play golf with my boss on the weekends but it may end up being a factor in weather or not I get promoted.
I feel you're quite right to be indignant at your examples of the degrading things that come up in a male dominated environment but I think you need a reality check if you think men have a responsibility to go out of the way and change the IT world to be more conducive to females (reminder degradation is not acceptable). If my boss promotes someone dumber than me because he's had the opportunity to hear his great ideas over a golf game, then that's life.
Generally you're right in that there's are negative effects to setting artificial legal parameters for pricing, a free market will of course establish the optimal price. What will always derail the desired effects of a free market is a monopoly with the RIAA definitely has. The amount of royalties they are asking for isn't determined by what they feel the market values of those royalties are, they are designed to put the internet broadcaster out of business, plain and simple.
The big difference here is Microsoft is a convicted monopolist. Google have several competitors selling the same basic service (compitition leads to lower prices, hence having to sell less of my privacy). I can't go to another OS without giving up a lot.
From the sounds of it the company seemed to be expecting to basically have MS Office for free. Whenever you switch to a new platform of any sort there's some initial cost of training and converting old documents (macros are the only thing I can think of they'd have to actually convert). I think they're looking at short term cost and ignoring the long term payback.
I'm wondering how many years the US is away from being able to invade a country without a single person from the US needing to go there. Now that's scary!
The iPhone isn't really very innovative. It doesn't really bring much new to the market. Play music, PDA/Phone's have done that for quite a while. Same for video. The iPhone is about one thing really, marketing. Apple's name is trendy so they take existing features and slap their own look, feel and spin on it.
Face it. "From Apple, the company who brought you the iPod here's the iPhone! Now you can..." is a lot more exciting than "From HP, the company that brough you printers here's the hpPhone! Now you can..."
Slashdot Mirror
Kinda like Bush dismantling that pesky due process thingy.
Because it's no longer a bug, it's a feature!
And much like your examples they're taking valid results and spinning absurd conclusions based on the findings (frog with no arms and legs goes deaf).
Based on personal experience some of the suggestions the article makes are valid, a conservative when presented with a new idea will react based on how it jives with their existing ideas. I asked a conservative friend of mine what should happen if it can be proven that Bush won by rigging Florida, he said "Nothing, we're in the middle of a war." The flip side of that coin is liberals may be too eager to adopt new ideas. I recall a story about an enviornmentalist convention where a petition got may signatures suggesting that di-hydrogen monoxide be banned.
Either extremes have their disadvantages.
The really scary part is if you spent enough on lawyers that argument would probally hold up in court. -That's it, I'm leaving the country, I'm going to New Mexico!
The other facet of corperate America that,especially in IT, makes it difficult in a given company to take today's novice and turn in him to tomorrow's senior is that the way most American companies ajudicate salary is based on a percentage.
Today right out of college in IT if you're lucky very you'll be making mid 40's, more realistic is probally mid 30's so let's use 35 as an example. First 3 years you perform well you're probally looking at 7% per year which would put you at 43 a year another 3 years down the road at the same rate you're at 52.
With six years under your belt you're worth a lot more than 52 and quite often the only way to get it is to go to another company.
And American troops tortured and sexually assaulted hundreds Iraqi prisioners which our country did nothing to stop until it became bad publicity (and yes Rumsfeld himself recieved direct reports of the abuse) but something tells me you won't think we had it coming if New York is nuked tomorrow.
[Homer] Mmmmmm.... batteries....
This is actually explicitly legal. In an attempt to defend their lock-in business model the phone company previously tried to prohibit flashing their firmware under the DMCA. They later decided the only purpose to of this was to support a business model and hence they added it to the DMCA exception list.
DMCA on cell phones
Okay, first the connection with violence.
If a child under any circumstances thinks that playing hitting someone with a shovel is okay likely has problems that have nothing to do with playing a video game. Studies have repeatedly failed to establish a causal relationship between video game violence and real-life violence.
Secondly the minimalist argument. i.e. It doesn't really ban anything because parents could still buy for their kids.
TFA made the comparison that it's similar to prohibiting minors for buying cigarettes. Prohibiting minors from buying cigarettes makes sense because cigarettes have been proven to be detrimental to one's health. But lacking evidence of negative effects of video games the only reason you have left if your own moral distaste.
If that's enough that these should be laws you may as well pass a law stating that no person may at any time sell or make anything available to a minor (hey if their parents still want them to have it they can buy it for them, right?).
Soon it won't be RTFA before you post but RTAS before you post
Counterfeiting money or writing a fraudulent check isn't copyright infringement.
I can't fathom why Americans haven't gotten over the idea they everyone else always needs our help. Here in America, neither FOX nor CNN provide news, they provide whatever version of the story will generate the best ratings. There are millions of Americans out there who don't realize that other news sources will provide a more accurate picture of what's going on, like Reuters or AP. So why should these news sources not spam the world and show us the light, because we don't want it. Those of us who want their product will go and find it, those who don't will not. Same with what this article is proposing. Those who want information the government is censoring will find a way to get it, those who don't will not.
I wonder if those who have paid off the RIAA to go away when they received their settlement letters can join this suit. Seems to me they'd be the perfect candidates.
And Intel's failure was due to a lack of backwards compatability. Coming up with "radically new and advanced" architecture does little good in the tech world because no matter how much better it is going forward it has to still work with the technologies that got us here.
If someone invents something better by than HTML it won't matter how much better it is, the world isn't going to scrap the content on the internet for the sake of the new technology.
For any /.ers, yea that's just a dumb idea. I think it's a great service for Joe user. When it comes to tech my father's dumber than a load of wood (he uses AOL for god sakes). So he really needs to have his machine wiped and reloaded every few months at best. It would be great for him to just be able to dump stuff he wants to survive his reloads onto Google.
The fact of the matter is they're not just like you and me. If your dad had a few too many drinks one night and was pulled over by his buddy Bob he's facing a considerably different situation than if I get behind the wheel after too much to drink.
You're absolutely right, that's not your job. It's also not my job to play golf with my boss on the weekends but it may end up being a factor in weather or not I get promoted.
I feel you're quite right to be indignant at your examples of the degrading things that come up in a male dominated environment but I think you need a reality check if you think men have a responsibility to go out of the way and change the IT world to be more conducive to females (reminder degradation is not acceptable). If my boss promotes someone dumber than me because he's had the opportunity to hear his great ideas over a golf game, then that's life.
Generally you're right in that there's are negative effects to setting artificial legal parameters for pricing, a free market will of course establish the optimal price. What will always derail the desired effects of a free market is a monopoly with the RIAA definitely has. The amount of royalties they are asking for isn't determined by what they feel the market values of those royalties are, they are designed to put the internet broadcaster out of business, plain and simple.
So your suggesting that since the RIAA is bribing officials we should offer a counter-bribe?
Great idea!
So whoever gained from the malfunction is responsible provided they were involved in implementing the technology.
Hence, if the machines were faulty the casino would be responsible and would have to give back anything they gained due to the fault.
So what of these politicians hell bent on using voting machines and resisting any attempt at creating an audit trail?
The big difference here is Microsoft is a convicted monopolist. Google have several competitors selling the same basic service (compitition leads to lower prices, hence having to sell less of my privacy). I can't go to another OS without giving up a lot.
From the sounds of it the company seemed to be expecting to basically have MS Office for free. Whenever you switch to a new platform of any sort there's some initial cost of training and converting old documents (macros are the only thing I can think of they'd have to actually convert). I think they're looking at short term cost and ignoring the long term payback.
I'm wondering how many years the US is away from being able to invade a country without a single person from the US needing to go there. Now that's scary!
I just realized what a great marketing segway Ubuntu is. [new spoksman, young Rasta with dreads and a dubie] "Yer getting a Dell, mon!"
The iPhone isn't really very innovative. It doesn't really bring much new to the market. Play music, PDA/Phone's have done that for quite a while. Same for video. The iPhone is about one thing really, marketing. Apple's name is trendy so they take existing features and slap their own look, feel and spin on it.
..." is a lot more exciting than "From HP, the company that brough you printers here's the hpPhone! Now you can ..."
Face it. "From Apple, the company who brought you the iPod here's the iPhone! Now you can