You are absolutely right and I think that is largely a side effect of kids being taught from a young age to look down on those jobs. The massive influx of immigration is partly because those jobs are available and there aren't enough Americans willing to work them.
I don't fault Google for adding this in. They are trying to build up Android and one part of doing that is by developing a strong development ecosystem around it. The problem is if there is huge piracy numbers it's hard to get money behind developing an app for Android. By giving some businesses a little more comfort, they can help to encourage adoption of the platform as a viable development platform for a business.
As crazy as your idea sounds, I think it's a pretty good one. Political Parties were created as a way for the public to get a quick idea what someone stood for. They were an easy way to express your policies to the electorate. There have always been different views on some topics within parties, but the party was a general consensus of like minded individuals.
The problem is now, politicians are expected to support their party regardless of their (or better yet their constituents) views. Things like the US's health care bill are great examples. There were many Democrats who didn't like the bill, but they voted for because that is what the party expected them to do. The same could be said of many Republicans for voting against other bills. The problem is the idea that the party is more important than your constituents because the party will help you get reelected.
I think in today's highly connected world getting rid of political parties isn't such a bad idea. It is much easier now for a candidate to express his views and to interact with the electorate. The party should not be what determines what you do, your constituents should be.
If they put the images up themselves and host them, then absolutely. The thing you are ignoring is that most pirate sites don't post content themselves. The content owners should and do have the right to sue whoever is uploading the content. However the site is not responsible. You can debate the responsibility of the site if they are actively encouraging infringment, but that's a discussion for another time. That is why we have safe harbors.
In this example the websites are not services that allow users to post material. Their writers/editors have voluntarily chosen those images in defiance of the license on the content.
It doesn't matter. The images are being used in a fashion that generates revenue. It doesn't matter if they were chosen to generate revenue. They are being used on a commercial site that generates revenue for the owner. That makes the use of the images commercial and a violation of the non-commercial CC license they are under.
The problem is that the law states otherwise. Technically this ruling should be sound as what we call "fair use" is simply the First Amendment restricting copyright. However, it is still very possible this ruling could be overturned. DMCA 1201 (a)(3)
(A) to circumvent a technological measure means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner;
By the reading of the law, circumvention, even for fair use, is illegal. The only way around that is through the First Amendment and "fair use". But "fair use" is only a defense if you are actually sued so even with this ruling it is still likely illegal and you could still get screwed by one judge with a different interpretation.
I think this is the wrong attitude to take. You are conceding that the special interests are too powerful to ever get this law overturned. While I agree that that is likely the case right now, if you aren't willing to fight against it that will never change.
Are Constitution/Government was designed to make it possible to recover from this situation. If we can elect the right people (much easier said than done), it is possible to take back control of our government. We just need people to start taking a more active role in politics. In order to get special interests out of politics we need the electorate to be more responsive. If we can stop bad politicians from being able to get re-elected simply by out-spending any alternatives then we could make the money less important.
You are exactly right. It has become a big problem in this country. People go to college who have no business being in college because that is the cool thing to do and they want to party. In the long term that has led to lowering of standards at many universities simply because they don't want to fail so many people.
What you end up with is many people with degrees who probably shouldn't have been able to get it. Those people have been taught that having a degree means they get a better job and they refuse to do jobs that would be better suited for them and that they would likely enjoy much more, because they feel the deserve a better paying white collar job.
We need to learn to better respect the blue collar jobs. Without people doing those jobs our world doesn't work, yet people are taught from a young age that doing blue-collar work is something you should work to avoid.
The problem is "C" is no longer considered average. In most schools, getting a "C" means below average. It's much more common for a "B" to be considered average now.
You are exactly right. Things like frequencies really need to be maintained by the government. Without government intervention they would quickly become useless. I think that information infrastructure is the same way. It requires a huge build out, and a very intrusive build out, which naturally lends itself towards only doing once.
This is the point. I completely agree that "net neutrality" is a good thing to have. However, I don't support it being forced by the government, especially the FCC. Your idea of "net neutrality" and my idea are probably the exact same thing, but I don't trust the politicians talking about "net neutrality" to implement the same thing we are imagining.
I think the better solution would be to find a way to open up the market to actual competition, and not the sham "competition" we have now. If there was truly 4+ different companies that anyone could get service from then it would limit a lot of these problems. How to open up the market for competition though is still greatly up for debate.
Actually I think making the lines themselves public property is not a bad idea. I am very conservative and generally favor avoiding government intervention, but in this case the lines themselves form a natural monopoly.
If the lines were a publicly owned commodity that was leased wholesale to anyone, we could get much better competition and would ultimately improve the system for everyone.
Phrases that are complete nonsense can be hard to remember, but I find it much easier if the phrase makes sense but isn't grammatically correct. Something like "I has fun at party". It is still very easy to remember and can be easily expanded to be a long phrase, but there is no chance anyone will ever be able to guess your passphrase.
But how do you know that you wanted "Blue Jeans". You know that because at some point, somewhere, someone marketed them to you. Maybe it was your mom when she bought you some or maybe you just saw a pair at a store and bought them, but you only still know about them because they were advertised to you somehow.
Just because the advertising is word of mouth and not a big billboard doesn't mean it isn't still advertising. Of all the things in your life that you need, the only reason you "need" it is because some form of advertising showed you the benefits of it and made you use it.
So I take it you never leave your house? There is nothing private about your age or gender unless you stay permanently indoors. Walk outside your house and now your neighbors know your gender and age (at least approximately which is all this machine would do anyway).
You make a big deal out them knowing your gender and age, but any human being you walk past would know that immediately. Why does the fact that it's being done with technology make you uncomfortable, but for another human to know that is perfectly ok?
Just because the venue was selling the tickets for $100 doesn't mean that that is all they are worth to the market. The reason the brokers do it is because there are people willing to pay those prices. The open market values the tickets much higher and so people will naturally try to profit off the bargain that the venue is selling them for.
I imagine they will be brought over as I believe they already support OpenGL anyway. I know Day of Defeat does so I would imagine porting them would be far simpler than porting the entire Source engine. They probably did Source first because that is their big selling item right now.
I'm not using my ISP DNS server (OpenDNS) and I still get redirection from Firefox address bar. I have a caching server running that forwarders requests to OpenDNS and my ISP (Mediacom) still redirects some, but strangely not all, of the traffic.
No but you can explicitly add the driver to the disk. Search Google for slipstream SATA driver and you'll likely find instructions on how to add the driver.
At the risk of my karma,
"poor tax" and "stupid tax" have a tendency to be relatively similar. In most cases (not all) there is reason someone is poor (like spending money you can't afford to spend on the lottery).
wolrahnaes is exactly right. ClamAV was put in a position where they could easily end up with many email servers running with out of date antivirus definitions, but still think everything was working great. That is far more serious of a situation then stalling a few peoples email queues to force them to update.
Had they silently stopped updating it would be way to easy for newly written viruses to spread because you would have such a large group of people who thought they were protected but weren't.
You are comparing capitalism to your corrupt government. Just because your government is using a capitalist system to get rich doesn't mean it's the system's fault. The heads of the USSR got rich off the communist system too.
The difference is this would be people getting in trouble for airing their views on Facebook from home. Do you think just because someone is employed means that they should talk about their views ever? If their employer tells them not to talk about it at work, fine, but the employer shouldn't be monitoring their online presence for the same things.
Slashdot Mirror
You are absolutely right and I think that is largely a side effect of kids being taught from a young age to look down on those jobs. The massive influx of immigration is partly because those jobs are available and there aren't enough Americans willing to work them.
I don't fault Google for adding this in. They are trying to build up Android and one part of doing that is by developing a strong development ecosystem around it. The problem is if there is huge piracy numbers it's hard to get money behind developing an app for Android. By giving some businesses a little more comfort, they can help to encourage adoption of the platform as a viable development platform for a business.
As crazy as your idea sounds, I think it's a pretty good one. Political Parties were created as a way for the public to get a quick idea what someone stood for. They were an easy way to express your policies to the electorate. There have always been different views on some topics within parties, but the party was a general consensus of like minded individuals.
The problem is now, politicians are expected to support their party regardless of their (or better yet their constituents) views. Things like the US's health care bill are great examples. There were many Democrats who didn't like the bill, but they voted for because that is what the party expected them to do. The same could be said of many Republicans for voting against other bills. The problem is the idea that the party is more important than your constituents because the party will help you get reelected.
I think in today's highly connected world getting rid of political parties isn't such a bad idea. It is much easier now for a candidate to express his views and to interact with the electorate. The party should not be what determines what you do, your constituents should be.
If they put the images up themselves and host them, then absolutely. The thing you are ignoring is that most pirate sites don't post content themselves. The content owners should and do have the right to sue whoever is uploading the content. However the site is not responsible. You can debate the responsibility of the site if they are actively encouraging infringment, but that's a discussion for another time. That is why we have safe harbors.
In this example the websites are not services that allow users to post material. Their writers/editors have voluntarily chosen those images in defiance of the license on the content.
It doesn't matter. The images are being used in a fashion that generates revenue. It doesn't matter if they were chosen to generate revenue. They are being used on a commercial site that generates revenue for the owner. That makes the use of the images commercial and a violation of the non-commercial CC license they are under.
The problem is that the law states otherwise. Technically this ruling should be sound as what we call "fair use" is simply the First Amendment restricting copyright. However, it is still very possible this ruling could be overturned. DMCA 1201 (a)(3)
(A) to circumvent a technological measure means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner;
By the reading of the law, circumvention, even for fair use, is illegal. The only way around that is through the First Amendment and "fair use". But "fair use" is only a defense if you are actually sued so even with this ruling it is still likely illegal and you could still get screwed by one judge with a different interpretation.
I think this is the wrong attitude to take. You are conceding that the special interests are too powerful to ever get this law overturned. While I agree that that is likely the case right now, if you aren't willing to fight against it that will never change.
Are Constitution/Government was designed to make it possible to recover from this situation. If we can elect the right people (much easier said than done), it is possible to take back control of our government. We just need people to start taking a more active role in politics. In order to get special interests out of politics we need the electorate to be more responsive. If we can stop bad politicians from being able to get re-elected simply by out-spending any alternatives then we could make the money less important.
You are exactly right. It has become a big problem in this country. People go to college who have no business being in college because that is the cool thing to do and they want to party. In the long term that has led to lowering of standards at many universities simply because they don't want to fail so many people.
What you end up with is many people with degrees who probably shouldn't have been able to get it. Those people have been taught that having a degree means they get a better job and they refuse to do jobs that would be better suited for them and that they would likely enjoy much more, because they feel the deserve a better paying white collar job.
We need to learn to better respect the blue collar jobs. Without people doing those jobs our world doesn't work, yet people are taught from a young age that doing blue-collar work is something you should work to avoid.
The problem is "C" is no longer considered average. In most schools, getting a "C" means below average. It's much more common for a "B" to be considered average now.
You are exactly right. Things like frequencies really need to be maintained by the government. Without government intervention they would quickly become useless. I think that information infrastructure is the same way. It requires a huge build out, and a very intrusive build out, which naturally lends itself towards only doing once.
This is the point. I completely agree that "net neutrality" is a good thing to have. However, I don't support it being forced by the government, especially the FCC. Your idea of "net neutrality" and my idea are probably the exact same thing, but I don't trust the politicians talking about "net neutrality" to implement the same thing we are imagining. I think the better solution would be to find a way to open up the market to actual competition, and not the sham "competition" we have now. If there was truly 4+ different companies that anyone could get service from then it would limit a lot of these problems. How to open up the market for competition though is still greatly up for debate.
Actually I think making the lines themselves public property is not a bad idea. I am very conservative and generally favor avoiding government intervention, but in this case the lines themselves form a natural monopoly. If the lines were a publicly owned commodity that was leased wholesale to anyone, we could get much better competition and would ultimately improve the system for everyone.
Phrases that are complete nonsense can be hard to remember, but I find it much easier if the phrase makes sense but isn't grammatically correct. Something like "I has fun at party". It is still very easy to remember and can be easily expanded to be a long phrase, but there is no chance anyone will ever be able to guess your passphrase.
But how do you know that you wanted "Blue Jeans". You know that because at some point, somewhere, someone marketed them to you. Maybe it was your mom when she bought you some or maybe you just saw a pair at a store and bought them, but you only still know about them because they were advertised to you somehow. Just because the advertising is word of mouth and not a big billboard doesn't mean it isn't still advertising. Of all the things in your life that you need, the only reason you "need" it is because some form of advertising showed you the benefits of it and made you use it.
So I take it you never leave your house? There is nothing private about your age or gender unless you stay permanently indoors. Walk outside your house and now your neighbors know your gender and age (at least approximately which is all this machine would do anyway). You make a big deal out them knowing your gender and age, but any human being you walk past would know that immediately. Why does the fact that it's being done with technology make you uncomfortable, but for another human to know that is perfectly ok?
No the USPTO is still in the review of the patent but the judge in RIM's case refused to wait until the USPTO finished it's review.
Just because the venue was selling the tickets for $100 doesn't mean that that is all they are worth to the market. The reason the brokers do it is because there are people willing to pay those prices. The open market values the tickets much higher and so people will naturally try to profit off the bargain that the venue is selling them for.
I imagine they will be brought over as I believe they already support OpenGL anyway. I know Day of Defeat does so I would imagine porting them would be far simpler than porting the entire Source engine. They probably did Source first because that is their big selling item right now.
Either you are missing something or I need a recalibration of my sarcasm meter.
I'm not using my ISP DNS server (OpenDNS) and I still get redirection from Firefox address bar. I have a caching server running that forwarders requests to OpenDNS and my ISP (Mediacom) still redirects some, but strangely not all, of the traffic.
No but you can explicitly add the driver to the disk. Search Google for slipstream SATA driver and you'll likely find instructions on how to add the driver.
At the risk of my karma, "poor tax" and "stupid tax" have a tendency to be relatively similar. In most cases (not all) there is reason someone is poor (like spending money you can't afford to spend on the lottery).
wolrahnaes is exactly right. ClamAV was put in a position where they could easily end up with many email servers running with out of date antivirus definitions, but still think everything was working great. That is far more serious of a situation then stalling a few peoples email queues to force them to update. Had they silently stopped updating it would be way to easy for newly written viruses to spread because you would have such a large group of people who thought they were protected but weren't.
You are comparing capitalism to your corrupt government. Just because your government is using a capitalist system to get rich doesn't mean it's the system's fault. The heads of the USSR got rich off the communist system too.
The difference is this would be people getting in trouble for airing their views on Facebook from home. Do you think just because someone is employed means that they should talk about their views ever? If their employer tells them not to talk about it at work, fine, but the employer shouldn't be monitoring their online presence for the same things.