You should check out how much money Microsoft has spent over the last ten years trying to become an advertising company. They know that between FOSS alternatives and Google that MS Office is doomed and they're looking for a new cash cow. They tried TV (many times in many ways) and failed. They tried video games and, while they managed to break into the market, it's certainly no cash cow like Office is. That's why their current focus is on Bing and cloud services and other services that Google already does better and more successfully -- basically, the statistic you provided just demonstrates how massively MS is failing in their current endeavors. They're still just milking the same old cows that are ready for the slaughterhouse while their grain fields are failing to grow.
1) CO2 is a biproduct of burning ethanol. Not as much CO2 is produced as gasoline, but more ethanol needs to be burned for the same amount of energy. While it certainly is an improvement in this regard, it's not worth the effort.
2) Growing corn isn't carbon neutral. Farm equipment, fertilizers, and transporting the product more than offset any benefits of the ethanol. Ethanol actually takes more energy to produce than we get out of it.
3) A bivalent hydrogen engine can utilize both gasoline and liquid hydrogen. So if I'm in BFE I can just fill up on gas. This is the transition technology that will lead to actual positive change. Utilizing ethanol mixes doesn't prepare us for the future, it clings to the past.
The real issue here is that food is being used to make fuel.
Well, if you think about it, that makes sense. Fuel is just food for machines. Or food is just fuel for animals. Just because most machine fuels are poisonous to animals doesn't mean the inverse is true. However, in this case it is true. Ethanol fuel will poison my lovely sports car.
Maybe I mistook what you're saying. Are you complaining about food being wasted? Because, really, there's enough food on the planet to feed everyone regardless of whether we put alcohol in cars. Not to mention that corn's a pretty poor source of sustenance.
Yes, some cars 'may' be damaged. But if they withstand E10, E15 is really a non issue
Just like if you can handle 10 drinks of a 10% wine, 10 drinks of a 15% wine is a non-issue. ..
Not to mention ethanol is better for the engine in some ways (less carbon deposits)
It's not like gasoline engines are like diesels where carbon deposits are a huge issue (and really, modern diesels have mitigated this issue). Furthermore, it's a bad trade-off. Less efficiency and more corrosion so my engine won't be as dirty after 300k miles? Uh, no thanks. Trading gasoline for ethanol is like trading mice for roaches. Give me the mice, they're easy to deal with. Trading gasoline for ethanol 'enhanced' gasoline is like trading mice for mice and roaches.
The problem is that adding ethanol to gasoline is pointless. Unless you grow corn or represent a corn-growing state in congress, that is. I can't imagine there are any benefits to ethanol fuel that aren't offset by the added requirements on the engine to deal with it.
Unless the car is running on 100% ethanol, what's the point? 15% is just enough to fuck up my valves and seals but not enough to actually lower my carbon footprint. Just like combusting gasoline, combusting ethanol releases CO2. Perhaps one could argue that it's about making America energy-independent but there are better ways to go about doing that.
The government should be doing everything it can to promote the availability of liquid hydrogen at filling stations and the production of bivalent liquid hydrogen cars. The only appeal to ethanol is that we make it from corn and a lot of corn is grown in the States.
I couldn't care less about some idiot who puts the wrong fuel in their vehicle. I do care about the energy policies of this country. Just to shoot down your argument for the hell of it, though: If I go on a road trip and I'm about to run out of gas and I pull into the only filling station for miles, it would be real fucked up for me to not be able to fill up my tank because the station was given some incentive to use E15 gas (which, of course, many idiots will use). A boat or a lawnmower isn't something you take across the country dependent on random gas stations.
Speaking as someone that lives in a socialist country, bills get passed that favor the politicians, not the corporations or the people.
1) Everyone who lives in a first-world nation lives in a socialist country. A better retort to the parent would be, "you're making a distinction without a difference" or something similar that highlights that there are no capitalist and socialist countries -- it's just the ones that are afraid to embrace policies that are construed as socialist limit their ability to run effectively. He happens to call the countries he views favorably as socialist but any government that subsidizes anything is socialist.
2) Speaking as someone who lives in a country that pretends it's not socialist (because that's a dirty word here), there are also many bills that get passed here that favor the politicians. For instance, congressmen vote to determine their salaries/benefits. Congressmen can use any information gained on capitol hill for financial gain whereas a Wall Street guy can go to jail for doing something analogous in his industry. What you're describing is in no way unique to socialist countries. Those in power have a tendency to use that power to their own advantage.
3) I find it hard to believe the parliament or whatever type of legislature your country has does nothing but pass bills that make things better for politicians and bureaucrats. Of course, your'e an AC who didn't even mention the socialist country you come from, so it could be any country in the world with a functional government. I'd guess that you're a lying American trying to slander the name of socialism -- using the spelling "favor" rather than "favour" exposes you. Non-Americans are taught British English like 95% of the time and Canadians also spell it "favour." Also, American English is obviously your first language considering that you said "Speaking as someone that lives" rather than "Speaking as someone who lives." The latter is more technically correct but the former is more common amongst Americans.
Score one for the English nerd. -1 for the American libertarian pretending to be European. The main reason I went through this thorough explanation is because I see this pattern all the time on/. Anonymous Coward says: "I live in a socialist country and the healthcare system sucks" or something similar. It's always stuff like that and the language is always suspiciously American and the socialist country in question is never named (wouldn't want to expose your claims to real scrutiny, now would you?). You/. libertarians are so funny -- a minority group on the site yet consistently the most vocal.
When it comes to reselling digital goods, I think that's a whole clusterfuck our legal system doesn't properly account for. How can the court rule one way or the other when there are no laws to interpret? And even if there is some law that applies, is it possible for the court the overrule it on the basis of absurdity?
For instance, if I managed to get a law passed through congress that stated that people must respirate using CO2 rather than O2, does a court have the power to void the law regardless of whether its constitutional or not?
The questions may seem rather dumb, but it seems to me that the nature of digital is so far removed from our normal interpretation of property that it cannot be treated as such. The main difference being that if I resell a guitar of mine, for instance, I no longer have that guitar. With software or digital media, I can just make a copy. If I can't make a copy (well, if it's difficult to make a copy) that's just because the software is designed that way. But the problem with designing software so that it cannot be copied is that it's a futile effort -- it goes against the nature of what software is. All that's needed is electricity and a storage device and you can make as many duplicates as you want. I seriously doubt it's possible to make foolproof DRM -- DRM reminds me of a dog chasing it's tail.
When it comes to the first case I think it's obvious which way the court will rule. There's no way a copyright invalidates the resale of an item. That's not what copyrights were designed to do -- they're purpose is in the name, to grant exclusive rights over copying (and selling) material. When it comes to the second case I think a false dichotomy is being presented. While I do find it questionable whether the first-sale doctrine applies to digital content, but I don't like the idea of 'licensing' something that exists on my HDD (even though, technically, it's all licensed). If it exists on my HDD or SSD it seems that I should be able to do what I want with it aside from make copies to resell (however, I see it solely as a copyright issue, fuck software patents).
I dunno, I guess all I'm saying is that this shit's way too complicated. It's one of many cracks that's forming in capitalism. I'm sure in John Locke's day the idea that property is an innate right sounded good (especially to those with property). But have we extended ownership rights too far? Do I really have the right to own an idea? Sure, but once I publicly express that idea, perhaps it now belongs to the public.
One of the most ironic parts of Atlas Shrugged is when the government abolishes patents and copyrights. Henry Rearden is pissed. I thought it was so funny that throughout the entire book the main characters are bitching and moaning about the government being all over their backs, but when the government actually grants more freedom to society, when the government decides to stop using the threat of violence to protect the coffers of the wealthiest in society, only then do they want the government to wield and assert its power. How can one advocate a philosophy that demands the public be given the least amount of restrictions on their freedom as possible, and at the same time insist that the government is duty-bound to enforce patents and copyrights?
If you really get down and examine what property is, both in a concrete and abstract sense, it exposes itself to be the big gaping logical hole in capitalism. In a concrete sense one's property is the things they have in their possession -- that includes the music and software on your HDD. In an abstract sense, property is what the government grants one a legal claim over and is willing to enforce that claim. Basically, the law doesn't reflect reality, it reflects an abstraction that conflicts with reality. We try to make reality adhere to the abstraction but that's not always possible. Because, in reality, one can only have total ownership over an idea by not expressing it. Once it's been expressed -- verbally, in print, or digitally -- it belongs to anyone who remembers it.
Probably none of this makes sense. I blame eggnog.
10 years is a ridiculous amount of time to be in prison for something like this. Child molesters and murderers get less time.
Maybe Child Molesters and Murderers should go to prison longer.
You must work for the prison industry. Someone's going to prison for ten years for a non-violent crime for which violent offenders often far less severe punishments. Of course, that couldn't possibly be because his punishment is excessive (and hence unconstitutional under the eighth amendment). It's because we're not punishing violent criminals enough. Despite the fact that the U.S. leads the world in both the number of people incarcerated and the percentage of our population that's incarcerated.
This is just another example of how broken the U.S. justice system is. Don't mess with the rich and wealthy. They can get away with murder yet Joe Shmoe will spend a decade of his life in prison for sifting through their mail. Of course, it's not like this type of injustice is anything new:
In the courtroom of honor, the judge pounded his gavel
To show that all's equal and that the courts are on the level
And that the strings in the books ain't pulled and persuaded
And that even the nobles get properly handled
Once that the cops have chased after and caught 'em
And that the ladder of law has no top and no bottom,
Stared at the person who killed for no reason
Who just happened to be feelin' that way without warnin'.
And he spoke through his cloak, most deep and distinguished,
And handed out strongly, for penalty and repentance,
William Zanzinger with a six-month sentence.
Oh, but you who philosophize disgrace and criticize all fears,
My friends think I'm weird because I won't let people take my picture. I tell them about social networking sites and facial recognition technology and how the only way to stay out of the system is to abstain completely.
Social networking sites are like Africa. Facebook is HIV, MySpace is Hepatitis, and Google+ is some parasite that you never realize you've contracted but stays with you for the rest of your life. Okay, non-car analogies are difficult. The point is, when in Africa, keep your dick in your pants. When on the internet, keep your personal information away from the infectious diseases that are social networking sites. Sadly, it's gotten to a point where a crappy cell phone picture of you might as well be your social security number.
I'd much rather they nicked my spur-of-the-moment snaps than used me to defraud lonely and desperate people.
I know. I mean, it's so unfair that these lonely and desperate people might see a picture of my sexy ass, which will prompt them to sign up for some crappy dating site. Then they'll spend hours and hours searching for my profile on the dating site to no avail. It's not easy being sexy, everyone's always looking to exploit me.
In all seriousness, this probably explains why FB was willing to fork over so much cash for Instagram. While it's good that they actually had a plan in place to monetize their purchase, the plan itself is very objectionable. I'm sure their lawyers found some way to make it legal, but I find this practice unsettling. It seems unethical. Even if it's not, I'm sure many of their users wouldn't approve. The sad thing is most will never know.
I don't think Apple ever would have been in Microsoft's position because they never really went after the dirt-cheap commodity market. Low-margins isn't Apple's thing. A good example is how they left that for Android and others in the cell phone market. There's no low-end Apple phone.
By no means do I think that Apple is a perfect company with an impeccable ethical record. But, unlike Microsoft, they make products I appreciate and they've never done something so egregious that I chose to boycott them.
Just like SHARP has a monopoly on the software that runs my microwave. I would replace it with a KitchenAid, but they have a monopoly on the KitchenAid firmware!
I'm not sure that word means what you think it means. . .
The only thing I find shocking is that you find an anti-Microsoft stance on/. to be shocking.
What exactly do you mean by 'promoting dev freedom by taking on Apple?' Apple's created an ecosystem that allows software developers to actually make money. Most of the crappy apps that people pay for on the Mac App store were available before the App store as shareware -- the developers couldn't find major distribution for them and no one paid money for them. When it comes to the iPhone apps, like 90% of them are junk but thousands of developers are making money off them thanks to Apple providing the market.
I don't know where you got this idea that developers are entitled to some special form of freedom. As a software developer you're free to do whatever you want, but if you want to make money then market forces will create restrictions. But that's how it always is. A musician is free to play any type of music he wants, but if he wants to make money off his music he better play something that people will pay money for. Does a bar owner restrict musician freedom by not hiring jazz musicians? Maybe, in some abstract perversion of the word freedom, but no one's entitled to profit.
The only thing I can conclude from your various posts on this topic is that you're very young. If you were part of my generation you would understand why people on/. (especially those low UIDs) cheer the demise of Microsoft. There's a difference between what Apple does -- leverage their platform and popularity to their advantage; and what Microsoft does -- actively bribe, lie, and destroy competition by any means necessary. Look up the Halloween Documents, for a glaring example.
Microsoft stagnated technology when innovation should have been at its finest (look up Windows 95 and the internet). Since the late 90s Apple has done nothing but keep the tech industry on its heels by constantly innovating and creating quality products. That's why so many/.ers use Apple products and hope to see them succeed further: We remember what it's like to have no feasible alternative to Microsoft and we don't like it. Freedom. ..how quaint. The only thing I want to be free from is using Microsoft products, which unfortunately is something I can't do with my current job.
but if our government ever lived up to the ideals set out in it's founding documents it wasn't in my life time.
Please don't hold the founding documents in such high regard. According to those, a black person is worth 3/5ths the value of a white person when counting the census.
Also, "freedom of speech" isn't really what it sounds like. Once you get into the specifics and court precedents, it becomes apparent that it's ill-defined. Then when you look at the various ways that people practice free speech, the value of the concept becomes rather questionable (including the founding fathers . . . check out the lies they printed about each other when in attack mode, especially anonymously or under pseudonyms).
While I respect your cynicism, you could probably be a bit more cynical. Don't fall for the golden age bullshit that attempts to deify the founding fathers. While the things they did and believed him are important, that doesn't necessarily mean they were right or that they should be placed on a pedestal.
So, a jump in global temperature, i.e. one that is faster than evolution can keep pace with, would pose a serious threat to animals in areas where the gap between their core temperature and the environment is reduced.
Yes, that's why every human and every other animal at or near the equator is dead today.
Oh. Wait.
He said they reduce their activity. Ever hear of a siesta? It's one thing for temperatures to hit around 100F during the middle of the day, it's quite another for that to be the night temperature and a significantly higher temperature during the day. There's a reason that so many equatorial mammals are nocturnal or crepuscular -- it's too hot during the day to do anything but sleep in the shade/water.
But no one has provided an example of when this action actually is more convenient. Gestures can be done on a trackpad (hello MacBook), all other forms of input can be done with the trackpad/keyboard.
To me the touchscreen laptop is like a car that comes with a joystick that's on the dash above the steering wheel. You can use it to do the things the steering wheel does, but the steering wheel does a better job and is conveniently placed. The joystick is just added costs and has the potential to do bad things when brushed up against unintentionally.
There are lots and lots of times when a dialog pops up and it's just easier to reach out and touch the button than use the trackpad to maneuver the cursor to the right place and click the button.
ENTER
COMMAND+W
ESC
Are you suggesting I reach past my keyboard, where my hands probably already are, to touch the screen? And this is somehow supposed to save me time and effort? And keep my screen clean?
The fact is that it's not easier to just touch the screen. There are multiple ways to already deal with this issue and they work better.
As much as I hate Bieber and Lopez, (Psy is pretty awesome), how else could you judge subjective materials in an objective way?
Logic? I know this is hard for some people to understand, but logic can be applied to things other than numbers, code, and chess pieces. Dismissing art as subjective is an easy was to not understand it. It's as academically lazy as dismissing man made climate change because it's very difficult to understand and not immediately intuitive. Quality is objective, art is judged in terms of its quality. Thus art is not subjective.
This is false, so you don't get it. Art can be entertainment, but isn't necessarily entertainment. Entertainment can be art, but isn't necessarily art.
Most people's 'best movie ever' isn't even an attempt to create art.
I agree. They're better than the originals, especially Revenge of the Sith.
I think the biggest problem is that the originals left so much open to the imagination when it came to the prequels. People grew up on them and their imagination of the prequels took hold and they imagined them to be something they couldn't possibly be. Too many people as adults continued to remember Star Wars from their childhood perspective and never acknowledged much of the silliness and flaws -- the silliness and flaws weren't apparent when we were children and they're hard to acknowledge as an adult because that would mean reassessing the quality of those films.
But then watching the new movies, which also have their fair share of silliness and flaws, these now-adults weren't able to return to that child state of mind. They were new, so they lacked the nostalgia of the originals.
When Revenge of the Sith came out I was taking an Art Appreciation class (or something along those lines) and I wrote an essay on how Revenge of the Sith epitomized great storytelling and was representative of the highest pinnacle that art could aspire to. It took the irreverent and thematically weak first trilogy and added meaning to them that was previously lacking. To do that retroactively using prequels really blew my mind. There's so much depth to Revenge of the Sith that's always overlooked for all the wrong reasons: The viewer's having a tough time reconciling old feelings of nostalgia, they want to criticize the acting or dialogue, they hate Jar-Jar, they think it breaks with what Lucas should have done because of what some Star Wars book did, etc. Not once have I heard a strong criticism of the story - people just ignore that for some reason. There's so much depth to the story, there are so many parallels to what was going on in the world when it came out, it takes note of timeless historical consistencies, it examines ethics and even metaphysics, and finally it takes a long hard look at character.
The most sad thing about the prequel-hate is that you'll notice that the most vocal criticism comes from people who don't believe in objective quality in art, they don't know a damn thing about film or storytelling (many of them Transformers fans), and they would normally never consider themselves to be qualified to critique a film. All these idiots who bitch and moan about the Star Wars prequels probably would have loved them if Michael Bay made them. Because, really, that's who Lucas was when he made the originals. Then he grew up and, in making the prequels, turned his entertainment into art, thus losing the mass-appeal that makes movies like Transformers and the original Star Wars so popular.
It could be that people hate stoners so they wreck into them. Probably not, but it's just as plausible as your theory.
Most stoners don't wait until they get home to light up. Cars have ashtrays.
Perhaps we should install catheters in all vehicles because god forbid some person that has to pee real bad causes a wreck because they're in such a hurry to get home.
I agree that computer driven vehicles are a possible solution for the future, like what Google's doing in Cali, but it's not a solution for right now. It's not practical to assume that such vehicles will be mainstream anytime soon.
I don't see what enforces your claim that field sobriety tests are a poor measure. It tests for coordination, awareness, and concentration -- the three necessities for driving safely. It doesn't matter if you fail it because you're drunk, high, fatigued, mentally impaired, or just uncoordinated; it any case you shouldn't be driving. So it's not post hoc if it's not used to specifically test for drunkenness but is instead used to test for the general ability to drive. The cause isn't assumed, nor is it relevant.
Slashdot Mirror
You should check out how much money Microsoft has spent over the last ten years trying to become an advertising company. They know that between FOSS alternatives and Google that MS Office is doomed and they're looking for a new cash cow. They tried TV (many times in many ways) and failed. They tried video games and, while they managed to break into the market, it's certainly no cash cow like Office is. That's why their current focus is on Bing and cloud services and other services that Google already does better and more successfully -- basically, the statistic you provided just demonstrates how massively MS is failing in their current endeavors. They're still just milking the same old cows that are ready for the slaughterhouse while their grain fields are failing to grow.
1) CO2 is a biproduct of burning ethanol. Not as much CO2 is produced as gasoline, but more ethanol needs to be burned for the same amount of energy. While it certainly is an improvement in this regard, it's not worth the effort.
2) Growing corn isn't carbon neutral. Farm equipment, fertilizers, and transporting the product more than offset any benefits of the ethanol. Ethanol actually takes more energy to produce than we get out of it.
3) A bivalent hydrogen engine can utilize both gasoline and liquid hydrogen. So if I'm in BFE I can just fill up on gas. This is the transition technology that will lead to actual positive change. Utilizing ethanol mixes doesn't prepare us for the future, it clings to the past.
The real issue here is that food is being used to make fuel.
Well, if you think about it, that makes sense. Fuel is just food for machines. Or food is just fuel for animals. Just because most machine fuels are poisonous to animals doesn't mean the inverse is true. However, in this case it is true. Ethanol fuel will poison my lovely sports car.
Maybe I mistook what you're saying. Are you complaining about food being wasted? Because, really, there's enough food on the planet to feed everyone regardless of whether we put alcohol in cars. Not to mention that corn's a pretty poor source of sustenance.
Yes, some cars 'may' be damaged. But if they withstand E10, E15 is really a non issue
Just like if you can handle 10 drinks of a 10% wine, 10 drinks of a 15% wine is a non-issue. . .
Not to mention ethanol is better for the engine in some ways (less carbon deposits)
It's not like gasoline engines are like diesels where carbon deposits are a huge issue (and really, modern diesels have mitigated this issue). Furthermore, it's a bad trade-off. Less efficiency and more corrosion so my engine won't be as dirty after 300k miles? Uh, no thanks. Trading gasoline for ethanol is like trading mice for roaches. Give me the mice, they're easy to deal with. Trading gasoline for ethanol 'enhanced' gasoline is like trading mice for mice and roaches.
The problem is that adding ethanol to gasoline is pointless. Unless you grow corn or represent a corn-growing state in congress, that is. I can't imagine there are any benefits to ethanol fuel that aren't offset by the added requirements on the engine to deal with it.
Unless the car is running on 100% ethanol, what's the point? 15% is just enough to fuck up my valves and seals but not enough to actually lower my carbon footprint. Just like combusting gasoline, combusting ethanol releases CO2. Perhaps one could argue that it's about making America energy-independent but there are better ways to go about doing that.
The government should be doing everything it can to promote the availability of liquid hydrogen at filling stations and the production of bivalent liquid hydrogen cars. The only appeal to ethanol is that we make it from corn and a lot of corn is grown in the States.
I couldn't care less about some idiot who puts the wrong fuel in their vehicle. I do care about the energy policies of this country. Just to shoot down your argument for the hell of it, though: If I go on a road trip and I'm about to run out of gas and I pull into the only filling station for miles, it would be real fucked up for me to not be able to fill up my tank because the station was given some incentive to use E15 gas (which, of course, many idiots will use). A boat or a lawnmower isn't something you take across the country dependent on random gas stations.
Speaking as someone that lives in a socialist country, bills get passed that favor the politicians, not the corporations or the people.
1) Everyone who lives in a first-world nation lives in a socialist country. A better retort to the parent would be, "you're making a distinction without a difference" or something similar that highlights that there are no capitalist and socialist countries -- it's just the ones that are afraid to embrace policies that are construed as socialist limit their ability to run effectively. He happens to call the countries he views favorably as socialist but any government that subsidizes anything is socialist.
2) Speaking as someone who lives in a country that pretends it's not socialist (because that's a dirty word here), there are also many bills that get passed here that favor the politicians. For instance, congressmen vote to determine their salaries/benefits. Congressmen can use any information gained on capitol hill for financial gain whereas a Wall Street guy can go to jail for doing something analogous in his industry. What you're describing is in no way unique to socialist countries. Those in power have a tendency to use that power to their own advantage.
3) I find it hard to believe the parliament or whatever type of legislature your country has does nothing but pass bills that make things better for politicians and bureaucrats. Of course, your'e an AC who didn't even mention the socialist country you come from, so it could be any country in the world with a functional government. I'd guess that you're a lying American trying to slander the name of socialism -- using the spelling "favor" rather than "favour" exposes you. Non-Americans are taught British English like 95% of the time and Canadians also spell it "favour." Also, American English is obviously your first language considering that you said "Speaking as someone that lives" rather than "Speaking as someone who lives." The latter is more technically correct but the former is more common amongst Americans.
Score one for the English nerd. -1 for the American libertarian pretending to be European. The main reason I went through this thorough explanation is because I see this pattern all the time on /. Anonymous Coward says: "I live in a socialist country and the healthcare system sucks" or something similar. It's always stuff like that and the language is always suspiciously American and the socialist country in question is never named (wouldn't want to expose your claims to real scrutiny, now would you?). You /. libertarians are so funny -- a minority group on the site yet consistently the most vocal.
When it comes to reselling digital goods, I think that's a whole clusterfuck our legal system doesn't properly account for. How can the court rule one way or the other when there are no laws to interpret? And even if there is some law that applies, is it possible for the court the overrule it on the basis of absurdity?
For instance, if I managed to get a law passed through congress that stated that people must respirate using CO2 rather than O2, does a court have the power to void the law regardless of whether its constitutional or not?
The questions may seem rather dumb, but it seems to me that the nature of digital is so far removed from our normal interpretation of property that it cannot be treated as such. The main difference being that if I resell a guitar of mine, for instance, I no longer have that guitar. With software or digital media, I can just make a copy. If I can't make a copy (well, if it's difficult to make a copy) that's just because the software is designed that way. But the problem with designing software so that it cannot be copied is that it's a futile effort -- it goes against the nature of what software is. All that's needed is electricity and a storage device and you can make as many duplicates as you want. I seriously doubt it's possible to make foolproof DRM -- DRM reminds me of a dog chasing it's tail.
When it comes to the first case I think it's obvious which way the court will rule. There's no way a copyright invalidates the resale of an item. That's not what copyrights were designed to do -- they're purpose is in the name, to grant exclusive rights over copying (and selling) material. When it comes to the second case I think a false dichotomy is being presented. While I do find it questionable whether the first-sale doctrine applies to digital content, but I don't like the idea of 'licensing' something that exists on my HDD (even though, technically, it's all licensed). If it exists on my HDD or SSD it seems that I should be able to do what I want with it aside from make copies to resell (however, I see it solely as a copyright issue, fuck software patents).
I dunno, I guess all I'm saying is that this shit's way too complicated. It's one of many cracks that's forming in capitalism. I'm sure in John Locke's day the idea that property is an innate right sounded good (especially to those with property). But have we extended ownership rights too far? Do I really have the right to own an idea? Sure, but once I publicly express that idea, perhaps it now belongs to the public.
One of the most ironic parts of Atlas Shrugged is when the government abolishes patents and copyrights. Henry Rearden is pissed. I thought it was so funny that throughout the entire book the main characters are bitching and moaning about the government being all over their backs, but when the government actually grants more freedom to society, when the government decides to stop using the threat of violence to protect the coffers of the wealthiest in society, only then do they want the government to wield and assert its power. How can one advocate a philosophy that demands the public be given the least amount of restrictions on their freedom as possible, and at the same time insist that the government is duty-bound to enforce patents and copyrights?
If you really get down and examine what property is, both in a concrete and abstract sense, it exposes itself to be the big gaping logical hole in capitalism. In a concrete sense one's property is the things they have in their possession -- that includes the music and software on your HDD. In an abstract sense, property is what the government grants one a legal claim over and is willing to enforce that claim. Basically, the law doesn't reflect reality, it reflects an abstraction that conflicts with reality. We try to make reality adhere to the abstraction but that's not always possible. Because, in reality, one can only have total ownership over an idea by not expressing it. Once it's been expressed -- verbally, in print, or digitally -- it belongs to anyone who remembers it.
Probably none of this makes sense. I blame eggnog.
10 years is a ridiculous amount of time to be in prison for something like this. Child molesters and murderers get less time.
Maybe Child Molesters and Murderers should go to prison longer.
You must work for the prison industry. Someone's going to prison for ten years for a non-violent crime for which violent offenders often far less severe punishments. Of course, that couldn't possibly be because his punishment is excessive (and hence unconstitutional under the eighth amendment). It's because we're not punishing violent criminals enough. Despite the fact that the U.S. leads the world in both the number of people incarcerated and the percentage of our population that's incarcerated.
This is just another example of how broken the U.S. justice system is. Don't mess with the rich and wealthy. They can get away with murder yet Joe Shmoe will spend a decade of his life in prison for sifting through their mail. Of course, it's not like this type of injustice is anything new:
In the courtroom of honor, the judge pounded his gavel
To show that all's equal and that the courts are on the level
And that the strings in the books ain't pulled and persuaded
And that even the nobles get properly handled
Once that the cops have chased after and caught 'em
And that the ladder of law has no top and no bottom,
Stared at the person who killed for no reason
Who just happened to be feelin' that way without warnin'.
And he spoke through his cloak, most deep and distinguished,
And handed out strongly, for penalty and repentance,
William Zanzinger with a six-month sentence.
Oh, but you who philosophize disgrace and criticize all fears,
Bury the rag deep in your face
For now's the time for your tears.
My friends think I'm weird because I won't let people take my picture. I tell them about social networking sites and facial recognition technology and how the only way to stay out of the system is to abstain completely.
Social networking sites are like Africa. Facebook is HIV, MySpace is Hepatitis, and Google+ is some parasite that you never realize you've contracted but stays with you for the rest of your life. Okay, non-car analogies are difficult. The point is, when in Africa, keep your dick in your pants. When on the internet, keep your personal information away from the infectious diseases that are social networking sites. Sadly, it's gotten to a point where a crappy cell phone picture of you might as well be your social security number.
I'd much rather they nicked my spur-of-the-moment snaps than used me to defraud lonely and desperate people.
I know. I mean, it's so unfair that these lonely and desperate people might see a picture of my sexy ass, which will prompt them to sign up for some crappy dating site. Then they'll spend hours and hours searching for my profile on the dating site to no avail. It's not easy being sexy, everyone's always looking to exploit me.
In all seriousness, this probably explains why FB was willing to fork over so much cash for Instagram. While it's good that they actually had a plan in place to monetize their purchase, the plan itself is very objectionable. I'm sure their lawyers found some way to make it legal, but I find this practice unsettling. It seems unethical. Even if it's not, I'm sure many of their users wouldn't approve. The sad thing is most will never know.
I don't think Apple ever would have been in Microsoft's position because they never really went after the dirt-cheap commodity market. Low-margins isn't Apple's thing. A good example is how they left that for Android and others in the cell phone market. There's no low-end Apple phone.
By no means do I think that Apple is a perfect company with an impeccable ethical record. But, unlike Microsoft, they make products I appreciate and they've never done something so egregious that I chose to boycott them.
the iOS platform is a MONOPOLY.
Just like SHARP has a monopoly on the software that runs my microwave. I would replace it with a KitchenAid, but they have a monopoly on the KitchenAid firmware!
I'm not sure that word means what you think it means. . .
RMS was right as usual
That's funny. Oh, wait, you were being serious.
The only thing I find shocking is that you find an anti-Microsoft stance on /. to be shocking.
What exactly do you mean by 'promoting dev freedom by taking on Apple?' Apple's created an ecosystem that allows software developers to actually make money. Most of the crappy apps that people pay for on the Mac App store were available before the App store as shareware -- the developers couldn't find major distribution for them and no one paid money for them. When it comes to the iPhone apps, like 90% of them are junk but thousands of developers are making money off them thanks to Apple providing the market.
I don't know where you got this idea that developers are entitled to some special form of freedom. As a software developer you're free to do whatever you want, but if you want to make money then market forces will create restrictions. But that's how it always is. A musician is free to play any type of music he wants, but if he wants to make money off his music he better play something that people will pay money for. Does a bar owner restrict musician freedom by not hiring jazz musicians? Maybe, in some abstract perversion of the word freedom, but no one's entitled to profit.
The only thing I can conclude from your various posts on this topic is that you're very young. If you were part of my generation you would understand why people on /. (especially those low UIDs) cheer the demise of Microsoft. There's a difference between what Apple does -- leverage their platform and popularity to their advantage; and what Microsoft does -- actively bribe, lie, and destroy competition by any means necessary. Look up the Halloween Documents, for a glaring example.
Microsoft stagnated technology when innovation should have been at its finest (look up Windows 95 and the internet). Since the late 90s Apple has done nothing but keep the tech industry on its heels by constantly innovating and creating quality products. That's why so many /.ers use Apple products and hope to see them succeed further: We remember what it's like to have no feasible alternative to Microsoft and we don't like it. Freedom. . .how quaint. The only thing I want to be free from is using Microsoft products, which unfortunately is something I can't do with my current job.
but if our government ever lived up to the ideals set out in it's founding documents it wasn't in my life time.
Please don't hold the founding documents in such high regard. According to those, a black person is worth 3/5ths the value of a white person when counting the census.
Also, "freedom of speech" isn't really what it sounds like. Once you get into the specifics and court precedents, it becomes apparent that it's ill-defined. Then when you look at the various ways that people practice free speech, the value of the concept becomes rather questionable (including the founding fathers . . . check out the lies they printed about each other when in attack mode, especially anonymously or under pseudonyms).
While I respect your cynicism, you could probably be a bit more cynical. Don't fall for the golden age bullshit that attempts to deify the founding fathers. While the things they did and believed him are important, that doesn't necessarily mean they were right or that they should be placed on a pedestal.
Yes, that's why every human and every other animal at or near the equator is dead today.
Oh. Wait.
He said they reduce their activity. Ever hear of a siesta? It's one thing for temperatures to hit around 100F during the middle of the day, it's quite another for that to be the night temperature and a significantly higher temperature during the day. There's a reason that so many equatorial mammals are nocturnal or crepuscular -- it's too hot during the day to do anything but sleep in the shade/water.
Your pessimism is extremely optimistic.
But no one has provided an example of when this action actually is more convenient. Gestures can be done on a trackpad (hello MacBook), all other forms of input can be done with the trackpad/keyboard.
To me the touchscreen laptop is like a car that comes with a joystick that's on the dash above the steering wheel. You can use it to do the things the steering wheel does, but the steering wheel does a better job and is conveniently placed. The joystick is just added costs and has the potential to do bad things when brushed up against unintentionally.
There are lots and lots of times when a dialog pops up and it's just easier to reach out and touch the button than use the trackpad to maneuver the cursor to the right place and click the button.
ENTER
COMMAND+W
ESC
Are you suggesting I reach past my keyboard, where my hands probably already are, to touch the screen? And this is somehow supposed to save me time and effort? And keep my screen clean?
The fact is that it's not easier to just touch the screen. There are multiple ways to already deal with this issue and they work better.
As much as I hate Bieber and Lopez, (Psy is pretty awesome), how else could you judge subjective materials in an objective way?
Logic? I know this is hard for some people to understand, but logic can be applied to things other than numbers, code, and chess pieces. Dismissing art as subjective is an easy was to not understand it. It's as academically lazy as dismissing man made climate change because it's very difficult to understand and not immediately intuitive. Quality is objective, art is judged in terms of its quality. Thus art is not subjective.
Art is subjective.
This is false, so you don't get it. Art can be entertainment, but isn't necessarily entertainment. Entertainment can be art, but isn't necessarily art.
Most people's 'best movie ever' isn't even an attempt to create art.
I agree. They're better than the originals, especially Revenge of the Sith.
I think the biggest problem is that the originals left so much open to the imagination when it came to the prequels. People grew up on them and their imagination of the prequels took hold and they imagined them to be something they couldn't possibly be. Too many people as adults continued to remember Star Wars from their childhood perspective and never acknowledged much of the silliness and flaws -- the silliness and flaws weren't apparent when we were children and they're hard to acknowledge as an adult because that would mean reassessing the quality of those films.
But then watching the new movies, which also have their fair share of silliness and flaws, these now-adults weren't able to return to that child state of mind. They were new, so they lacked the nostalgia of the originals.
When Revenge of the Sith came out I was taking an Art Appreciation class (or something along those lines) and I wrote an essay on how Revenge of the Sith epitomized great storytelling and was representative of the highest pinnacle that art could aspire to. It took the irreverent and thematically weak first trilogy and added meaning to them that was previously lacking. To do that retroactively using prequels really blew my mind. There's so much depth to Revenge of the Sith that's always overlooked for all the wrong reasons: The viewer's having a tough time reconciling old feelings of nostalgia, they want to criticize the acting or dialogue, they hate Jar-Jar, they think it breaks with what Lucas should have done because of what some Star Wars book did, etc. Not once have I heard a strong criticism of the story - people just ignore that for some reason. There's so much depth to the story, there are so many parallels to what was going on in the world when it came out, it takes note of timeless historical consistencies, it examines ethics and even metaphysics, and finally it takes a long hard look at character.
The most sad thing about the prequel-hate is that you'll notice that the most vocal criticism comes from people who don't believe in objective quality in art, they don't know a damn thing about film or storytelling (many of them Transformers fans), and they would normally never consider themselves to be qualified to critique a film. All these idiots who bitch and moan about the Star Wars prequels probably would have loved them if Michael Bay made them. Because, really, that's who Lucas was when he made the originals. Then he grew up and, in making the prequels, turned his entertainment into art, thus losing the mass-appeal that makes movies like Transformers and the original Star Wars so popular.
It could be that people hate stoners so they wreck into them. Probably not, but it's just as plausible as your theory.
Most stoners don't wait until they get home to light up. Cars have ashtrays.
Perhaps we should install catheters in all vehicles because god forbid some person that has to pee real bad causes a wreck because they're in such a hurry to get home.
I agree that computer driven vehicles are a possible solution for the future, like what Google's doing in Cali, but it's not a solution for right now. It's not practical to assume that such vehicles will be mainstream anytime soon.
I don't see what enforces your claim that field sobriety tests are a poor measure. It tests for coordination, awareness, and concentration -- the three necessities for driving safely. It doesn't matter if you fail it because you're drunk, high, fatigued, mentally impaired, or just uncoordinated; it any case you shouldn't be driving. So it's not post hoc if it's not used to specifically test for drunkenness but is instead used to test for the general ability to drive. The cause isn't assumed, nor is it relevant.
It sounds like you're not coordinated enough to drive.
1) You're getting pulled over sober, under suspicion of being drunk
2) You can't pass a field sobriety test