They would need to allow a 5 minute free zone anyways. The charger itself needs to communicate with the device to pass account information to the outlet. Kind of hard to do without power. You would need some power just to start up to get charged.
USB already works more or less like that. Devices only get 100mA when plugged in, but can 'ask' for more current, up to 500mA.
You can even set up an NS record just for the subdomain and let them manage their own A records without having to waste time in case they change hosts or something.
Why would that be a public domain performance? It just means they sold a royalty-free license, much like most stock photo websites. Nothing in that phrase implies that it's in the public domain.
and so, I should continue to support companies that pay subsistence wages ? and ensuring that they will always be subsistence wages helps them how, exactly ?
My point is that subsistence wages are better than no wages.
And subsistence wages won't "always be". Wages in China have been rising year after year, much like what happened in other places where the process started earlier. But force the raise too soon, and you'll ensure a transition to a richer society never happens.
The fact is that these countries could easily enforce policies where the employees would get paid better and we would still be able to buy cheap crap. You forget that they get shit wages because Mitt Romney doesn't have enough houses, not because that's what they have to be paid to be competitive.
Sorry, but that's not true. Certain Chinese factories are already using machines instead of workers because the wages are rising fast. Raising the costs of employment would just accelerate that process.
Despite your ignominious ad hominem, I don't have to rationalize anything, since I don't have a choice: I can't afford iPhones even if I wanted one.
There's no amount of talking or pragmatic compromise that will solve a basic problem of disrespecting human dignity in the workplace.
Sure. Stop buying the stuff and the disrespect for human dignity in the workplace goes away, because the workplace part ceases to exist. Of course, there'll be a new problem called famine and worse poverty, but since that's not caused directly by you, it's fine, right?
Unlike the starving subsistence farmer, the women and children in the sneaker factory are working at slave wages for our benefit--and this makes us feel unclean. And so there are self-righteous demands for international labor standards: We should not, the opponents of globalization insist, be willing to buy those sneakers and shirts unless the people who make them receive decent wages and work under decent conditions.
This sounds only fair--but is it? Let's think through the consequences.
First of all, even if we could assure the workers in Third World export industries of higher wages and better working conditions, this would do nothing for the peasants, day laborers, scavengers, and so on who make up the bulk of these countries' populations. At best, forcing developing countries to adhere to our labor standards would create a privileged labor aristocracy, leaving the poor majority no better off.
And it might not even do that. The advantages of established First World industries are still formidable. The only reason developing countries have been able to compete with those industries is their ability to offer employers cheap labor. Deny them that ability, and you might well deny them the prospect of continuing industrial growth, even reverse the growth that has been achieved. And since export-oriented growth, for all its injustice, has been a huge boon for the workers in those nations, anything that curtails that growth is very much against their interests. A policy of good jobs in principle, but no jobs in practice, might assuage our consciences, but it is no favor to its alleged beneficiaries.
non revocable could certainly be unconscionable under EU law
That'd be fun. Guy contributes for months to an OSS project, then has a disagreement with them and revokes the license to his code. Suddenly hundreds of distributors are now illegal, the project is half dead until they can get someone who didn't know the code to reimplement it, etc.
Or: photographer puts picture oo stock site, which then sublicenses it to websites, newspapers, etc. Then he revokes the license and sues all of them.
Copyright exists outside of pictures you upload to Facebook. Eliminating the possibility of non-revocable licenses just because of them is ridiculous.
The reasonable course of action is for the EU to create specific legislation about those items, not to mess with copyright just for them.
And yet, if you refuse to buy because of that, you're supporting even worse life conditions than those abuses.
And more: Chinese factories are already automating because of rising labor costs, so even if you force wages to rise that might be counter-productive if you really want to help the workers, since they'll simply be replaced by machines.
If I take a picture and post it online and later want it removed, I should be able to get it done. Under US Law, I have a copyright interest in the photograph.
You do, but as soon as you post it to Facebook (and any other service, really), you gave them have a worldwide, sub-licensable, royalty-free, non-revocable license to it.
So the DMCA doesn't really help you, since they're not violating your copyright.
The Dutch judge concluded that the Neonode N1m already implemented the entirety of Apple's claimed invention with only one difference remaining: Apple's slide-to-unlock patent also claims an unlock image that moves along with the finger as the sliding gesture is performed. But that difference didn't convince the judge that Apple was entitled to a patent. He said that the use of an unlock image was "obvious" (in Dutch he said it was "lying on the hand" in terms of "not far to seek").
(...)
Looking at what was already there before Apple's December 2005 patent application, the judge concluded that what Apple's patent claims is "not inventive", in other words, too trivial to be worthy of patent protection.
It's important to mention that a Dutch court where Apple tried to claim infrigement on the same patent has already ruled it as invalid, after Samsung presented the Neonode N1m as prior art.
? Does the fact that someone, somewhere looks at the picture sexually change that? Does it even matter in the least?
Legally, it does: one of the criteria for the Dost test is " whether the visual depiction is intended or designed to elicit a sexual response in the viewer."
If you'd RTFA, the most active subreddit now banned by Reddit was called/r/preteen_girls. But hey, enjoy your +5.
Then TFA is wrong./r/preteen_girls only existed for a few days (strangely enough, only a couple days after SomethingAwful launched their campaign; just saying) and it only had 620 subscribers, which is pitiful for a subreddit.
The most active was/r/teen_girls (with 11640 subscribers), which didn't allow preteens.
Sure it is. Who do you think the various Inquisitions targeted? The Alhambra Decree alone expelled 40000 Jews from Spain, accused of trying "to subvert their holy Catholic faith and trying to draw faithful Christians away from their beliefs."
now follows some variant of utilitarianism where rights are a convenient and mutable legal fiction to ensure general quality of life.
I apologize in advance if I am incorrect, but you seem to state that as though it's a bad thing, while I think that it cannot be such. For those that believe that unalienable rights are given by a Creator, they can continue to do so. Those that believe that they come from simply being human can do so as well. So long as all of us fight for them, seek to preserve them, we all benefit, no?
I believe he states it as a bad thing because "mutable legal fictions" are not grounds on which you can sustain inalienable rights.
Personally, I find it rather irrelevant; people in power always viewed rights as malleable, regardless of how sacred they were supposed to be. With the possible exception of some fanatic religious leaders, but then again, I'd rather have a corrupt western politician as a head of state.
I admit, in the end, you have to choose something to guide your actions. If you want to say that observations or science or whatever does, that's your choice, but while it may be no worse than postulating an invisible, all-powerful deity, it's really no better.
Yes, it is. Because the deity option leads is either filled with dogma and therefore fanaticism or with hypocrisy.
So what you're advocating is that we live like hypocrite cowards in case the Christian god actually exists and is a shitty little bully how condemns good people just because they didn't believe in him?
If it was, how do you justify saying "slavery was wrong"? Or don't you? Because if rights are only granted by society, then if society as a whole decides certain people don't deserve certain rights, then they don't get those rights and that is perfectly justified (if what you say is true). Perhaps you meant to add certain qualifiers.
Right and wrong is subjective. Slavery was wrong to some, right to others. Since I find slavery to be wrong, I'm glad most society agrees with me, but the fact is that there's no reason to consider one of those positions to be objectively right, therefore they're both valid.
You have to say there are certain rights that humans possess by being human.
Slashdot Mirror
They would need to allow a 5 minute free zone anyways. The charger itself needs to communicate with the device to pass account information to the outlet. Kind of hard to do without power. You would need some power just to start up to get charged.
USB already works more or less like that. Devices only get 100mA when plugged in, but can 'ask' for more current, up to 500mA.
All while adding a ton of energy loss between charging and discharging.
You can even set up an NS record just for the subdomain and let them manage their own A records without having to waste time in case they change hosts or something.
A group that splintered off is still Anonymous. That's the whole point of the term. Anyone who claims to be, is.
Why would that be a public domain performance? It just means they sold a royalty-free license, much like most stock photo websites. Nothing in that phrase implies that it's in the public domain.
and so, I should continue to support companies that pay subsistence wages ? and ensuring that they will always be subsistence wages helps them how, exactly ?
My point is that subsistence wages are better than no wages.
And subsistence wages won't "always be". Wages in China have been rising year after year, much like what happened in other places where the process started earlier.
But force the raise too soon, and you'll ensure a transition to a richer society never happens.
The fact is that these countries could easily enforce policies where the employees would get paid better and we would still be able to buy cheap crap. You forget that they get shit wages because Mitt Romney doesn't have enough houses, not because that's what they have to be paid to be competitive.
Sorry, but that's not true. Certain Chinese factories are already using machines instead of workers because the wages are rising fast. Raising the costs of employment would just accelerate that process.
Despite your ignominious ad hominem, I don't have to rationalize anything, since I don't have a choice: I can't afford iPhones even if I wanted one.
There's no amount of talking or pragmatic compromise that will solve a basic problem of disrespecting human dignity in the workplace.
Sure. Stop buying the stuff and the disrespect for human dignity in the workplace goes away, because the workplace part ceases to exist. Of course, there'll be a new problem called famine and worse poverty, but since that's not caused directly by you, it's fine, right?
Unlike the starving subsistence farmer, the women and children in the sneaker factory are working at slave wages for our benefit--and this makes us feel unclean. And so there are self-righteous demands for international labor standards: We should not, the opponents of globalization insist, be willing to buy those sneakers and shirts unless the people who make them receive decent wages and work under decent conditions.
This sounds only fair--but is it? Let's think through the consequences.
First of all, even if we could assure the workers in Third World export industries of higher wages and better working conditions, this would do nothing for the peasants, day laborers, scavengers, and so on who make up the bulk of these countries' populations. At best, forcing developing countries to adhere to our labor standards would create a privileged labor aristocracy, leaving the poor majority no better off.
And it might not even do that. The advantages of established First World industries are still formidable. The only reason developing countries have been able to compete with those industries is their ability to offer employers cheap labor. Deny them that ability, and you might well deny them the prospect of continuing industrial growth, even reverse the growth that has been achieved. And since export-oriented growth, for all its injustice, has been a huge boon for the workers in those nations, anything that curtails that growth is very much against their interests. A policy of good jobs in principle, but no jobs in practice, might assuage our consciences, but it is no favor to its alleged beneficiaries.
http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/smokey.html
non revocable could certainly be unconscionable under EU law
That'd be fun. Guy contributes for months to an OSS project, then has a disagreement with them and revokes the license to his code. Suddenly hundreds of distributors are now illegal, the project is half dead until they can get someone who didn't know the code to reimplement it, etc.
Or: photographer puts picture oo stock site, which then sublicenses it to websites, newspapers, etc. Then he revokes the license and sues all of them.
Copyright exists outside of pictures you upload to Facebook. Eliminating the possibility of non-revocable licenses just because of them is ridiculous.
The reasonable course of action is for the EU to create specific legislation about those items, not to mess with copyright just for them.
And yet, if you refuse to buy because of that, you're supporting even worse life conditions than those abuses.
And more: Chinese factories are already automating because of rising labor costs, so even if you force wages to rise that might be counter-productive if you really want to help the workers, since they'll simply be replaced by machines.
If I take a picture and post it online and later want it removed, I should be able to get it done. Under US Law, I have a copyright interest in the photograph.
You do, but as soon as you post it to Facebook (and any other service, really), you gave them have a worldwide, sub-licensable, royalty-free, non-revocable license to it.
So the DMCA doesn't really help you, since they're not violating your copyright.
The Dutch judge concluded that the Neonode N1m already implemented the entirety of Apple's claimed invention with only one difference remaining: Apple's slide-to-unlock patent also claims an unlock image that moves along with the finger as the sliding gesture is performed. But that difference didn't convince the judge that Apple was entitled to a patent. He said that the use of an unlock image was "obvious" (in Dutch he said it was "lying on the hand" in terms of "not far to seek").
(...)
Looking at what was already there before Apple's December 2005 patent application, the judge concluded that what Apple's patent claims is "not inventive", in other words, too trivial to be worthy of patent protection.
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/08/dutch-judge-considers-apples-slide-to.html
The Slide-to-unlock patent in question: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7657849.PN.&OS=PN/7657849&RS=PN/7657849
It's important to mention that a Dutch court where Apple tried to claim infrigement on the same patent has already ruled it as invalid, after Samsung presented the Neonode N1m as prior art.
? Does the fact that someone, somewhere looks at the picture sexually change that? Does it even matter in the least?
Legally, it does: one of the criteria for the Dost test is " whether the visual depiction is intended or designed to elicit a sexual response in the viewer."
Which is awfully subjective, of course.
If you'd RTFA, the most active subreddit now banned by Reddit was called /r/preteen_girls. But hey, enjoy your +5.
Then TFA is wrong. /r/preteen_girls only existed for a few days (strangely enough, only a couple days after SomethingAwful launched their campaign; just saying) and it only had 620 subscribers, which is pitiful for a subreddit.
The most active was /r/teen_girls (with 11640 subscribers), which didn't allow preteens.
http://redditlist.com/stats/preteen_girls
http://redditlist.com/stats/teen_girls
Are you confusing patents with copyright? An OS can't simply be copied because it's copyrighted. There's no need for patents.
Or TomTom.
Sure it is. Who do you think the various Inquisitions targeted? The Alhambra Decree alone expelled 40000 Jews from Spain, accused of trying "to subvert their holy Catholic faith and trying to draw faithful Christians away from their beliefs."
now follows some variant of utilitarianism where rights are a convenient and mutable legal fiction to ensure general quality of life.
I apologize in advance if I am incorrect, but you seem to state that as though it's a bad thing, while I think that it cannot be such. For those that believe that unalienable rights are given by a Creator, they can continue to do so. Those that believe that they come from simply being human can do so as well. So long as all of us fight for them, seek to preserve them, we all benefit, no?
I believe he states it as a bad thing because "mutable legal fictions" are not grounds on which you can sustain inalienable rights.
Personally, I find it rather irrelevant; people in power always viewed rights as malleable, regardless of how sacred they were supposed to be. With the possible exception of some fanatic religious leaders, but then again, I'd rather have a corrupt western politician as a head of state.
Some of them actually charge you more, though.
As I have to repeat in each religious thread, they're orthogonal: http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/09/25/8419/
Me, and most atheists are in fact agnostic atheists.
I admit, in the end, you have to choose something to guide your actions. If you want to say that observations or science or whatever does, that's your choice, but while it may be no worse than postulating an invisible, all-powerful deity, it's really no better.
Yes, it is. Because the deity option leads is either filled with dogma and therefore fanaticism or with hypocrisy.
So what you're advocating is that we live like hypocrite cowards in case the Christian god actually exists and is a shitty little bully how condemns good people just because they didn't believe in him?
Fuck that shit.
An appeal to authority and an insult in such a small post. Bravo!
For every cut Warner gets, Moore gets a cut.
Nope. He had his name taken off the film and directed that all profits he might be due from the film be given to Lloyd instead.
Not parent, but:
Ha, that is most certainly not true.
Why, because you don't want it to be?
If it was, how do you justify saying "slavery was wrong"? Or don't you? Because if rights are only granted by society, then if society as a whole decides certain people don't deserve certain rights, then they don't get those rights and that is perfectly justified (if what you say is true). Perhaps you meant to add certain qualifiers.
Right and wrong is subjective. Slavery was wrong to some, right to others. Since I find slavery to be wrong, I'm glad most society agrees with me, but the fact is that there's no reason to consider one of those positions to be objectively right, therefore they're both valid.
You have to say there are certain rights that humans possess by being human.
OK, then please prove it.