I propose an alternative to the dolphin button. Perhaps a "2.0" feeling symbol that net savy children are more likely to use without fear of embarassment. We'd like to retain some sort of child friendly message, maybe relating to candy or lollipops. So maybe, instead of an animal, a highly stylized stick and circle representation of a lollipop would make a better method of allowing children to instantly evade online harassment.
See, this way you combine humor with ridicule and open up an entire discussion about the merits of stick and circle symbols to help combat child predators.
We all can see the likelyhood of a gmail skin brought to us by Coke. What about more subtle advertising inside an app? Word selection in spell check or thesaurus for example ("lymon" appears on searches for fruit). Then there's the idea of using the data they gather to dynamicly generate integrated campaigns through your OS. Google is pretty sophisticated in its advertising, and while I'm certain they'd have the ability, I don't know how such a thing would be recieved.
Is Energy Star a requirement? I can purchase a non-Energy Star TV if I want one, yes? I'm not saying that "costs less to run" isn't a selling point. I'm just saying that it doesn't appear that I'm currently unable to buy a "giant and cheap to buy but costs more to run" TV, which is what CA seems to have proposed.
Rule 1: New Orleans and LA are not responsible. Rule 2: Other people are responsible.
Those are the rules of argument. It is possible that either A: The Corps of Engineers or B: God (eg Act of God) is responsible. As, thusfar, God has refused to appear in court or pay judgements against Him, it is much more productive to assign culpability to The Corps of Engineers. Arguments that the fault lies on the people that stood to loose the most and would be directly impacted by the failures of the levies violates Rule 1, so they cannot be used. Other people, Bush, Haliburton Weather Control Inc., and the Illuminati will be sued in time.
As a culture, we've decided to feel guilty about the Katrina disaster. Many of the people of New Orleans belive the disaster was man made, AND that the people of New Orleans have little to no responsibility for it. Because we feel guilty, we hang our head in shame and nod, then give them money, afirming their belief. One day we'll be providing special programs for the decendants of the victims of Katrina.
Apparently I will soon have a Ministry of Culture controlling the content of my entertainment to enhance socialist values. Welcome to the People's Republic of Stormwind.
It's been over for you for a long time. You live in a rapidly nationalizing, disarmed, surveilence society. The world needs the UK and her historic spirit of resolve. It makes me sad to think that it's gone. I hope I'm wrong.
Great Britian is the name of the island on which nearly everyone in th UK lives. If people call The United States simply "America", I'm not going to be upset that they've missed Hawaii. Ireland and Hawaii are both nice places, but saying Great Britain and America gets the point across.
If it makes you feel better, you're very much smarter than me.
I'm fairly sure that if a new partnership forms (G2), wherein each party has the rights to it's own content produced by their respective original partnerships (G1a and G1b), and they produce a G3, no party to any G1 would have more than a 25% share of the G3 content anyway. Also, there's good argument to say that the emergent properties in the G3 produced by G2 represent an original work by G2. It might depend on the legal standards set in regard to the relationship between the raw data contributed and produced work.
Still, I doubt anyone would wish to retain ownership over too many generations of their data. The resulting liability for data containing bugs, particularly if those bugs are knowingly reproduced, could have consequences.
You can sign away the right to a piece of property, transfering ownership, but still retain the right to decide what to do with your own property.
I think what is being proposed is a universal, irrevokable, ownership of one's DNA, both the physical and information aspects, and a contract that provides for limitted use rights for the duration and scope of the owner's consent. I'm sure someone out ther is a lawyer and could better describe the specifics, but I believe that's the gist.
I wonder what the complexities would be around copyrighting your own DNA data. It seems fairly straightforward, as long as you don't want your data used for anything. However, I'm not sure it would be all that easy to take advantage of medical services if everyone had their own EULA for their info. I can't imagine a doctor would agree to signing a random EULA from Joe Normal, or want to pay for a lawyer to review such a document.
Also, do you have the rights at all? Could the partnership that originally created the data claim the rights to it that information or is there an implicit transference of ownership at the age of majority?;)
In the US, all citizens have the right to equal access to their government, within the limits of the government to provide that access. Not everyone has the right to a personal interview with the POTUS. In the case of the Office of the President, there is no practical problem with extending access to FOX as well as CNN and others, so any refusal to do so is based on prejudices (valid or invalid) aginst that orginization. It may be that the validity of those prejudices is questionable, but even if they are, they may not justify removing an orginization's equal access to the government. Anytime a person or group of people have their access to the government limited because of what they say, it should be a cause for caution.
However, in the case of Spain, they can make up whatever social right they want. Implying that a similar natural right (basis in the US) exists simply because a social right has been created elsewhere is a falicy. Also, since social rights are created by law and limitted to the scope of that law, a social right in Spain does not imply, or require, a social right in the US.
The Spanish Constitution is not based in Natural Rights, but in Social Rights. Natural Rights exist prior to the law, and most natural right theory would argue against a "right" that requires the goods or services of another. Social Rights are created by the law. If the government of Spain decides that there is a social right to purchase a velvet Elvis, poof, there's a social right to purchase a velvet Elvis. In the USA, where natural rights are generally agreed to be the foundation of law, there is a social right to legal representation. The similarities in the terminology can cause confusion. It is correct to say that there is no natural right to broadband, but it is also correct to say that it's perfectly within the structure of the Spanish Constitution to create a social right of that sort.
While a discussion of the merits of social rights theory would be facinating, I present this only for purposes of clarity.
Heh, and do you tax on delivery, billing, or purchaser's residence addresses? I could just as easily open a PO Box across the city border if they had lower taxes. Still, I'm a bit surprised that there aren't GIS tools for this sort of thing.
Well, yes... I don't think people are expecting the magic glow goo to allow the KPA to dance across a field unmolested and yell "boo!" on the other side. It seems the concern is that it would allow for mapping existing fields and degrade their value. Though, I wonder if sending such a tool would violate the existing agreement there, not that such violations are uncommon.
I do see your point about the number of retailers. With the cost of obtainnig the tax tables apprently being so high, that does make an issue of it.
Given the amount of money at stake, and the ease the states would have in compiling a publicly available list, it seems that this can't really be about the ability to manage the tax rates. Where I live there are state agencies responsible for oversight that certainly maintain this information already. Making it available is negligable, even if a retailer has to put the data into their system themselves.
Odds are the availablilty of the information is not the issue. Amazon, and other online retailers, likely want to maintain their competative edge, while local governments want some of that "internet money". Then agin, it could be so stupid as to be,"We passed a law now you have to go to each county and input their taxes, which change yearly, and no we won't give you any information because it's your job not ours."
Governmental institutions have no interest in producing a simple and transparrent system of taxation. Complexity allows for manipulation and obfuscation. Additionally, municipalities are largely able to write whatever tax codes they like, and do so in order to promote their own goals and protect their turf.
It would be relatively easy for Amazon to provide a portal for municipalities or state comptrollers (or other apropriate office) to provide their proper tax rates.
Slashdot Mirror
1 in 4?
It's clear that the Internet should be arrested.
No, no, no... you say it this way...
I propose an alternative to the dolphin button. Perhaps a "2.0" feeling symbol that net savy children are more likely to use without fear of embarassment. We'd like to retain some sort of child friendly message, maybe relating to candy or lollipops. So maybe, instead of an animal, a highly stylized stick and circle representation of a lollipop would make a better method of allowing children to instantly evade online harassment.
See, this way you combine humor with ridicule and open up an entire discussion about the merits of stick and circle symbols to help combat child predators.
We all can see the likelyhood of a gmail skin brought to us by Coke. What about more subtle advertising inside an app? Word selection in spell check or thesaurus for example ("lymon" appears on searches for fruit). Then there's the idea of using the data they gather to dynamicly generate integrated campaigns through your OS. Google is pretty sophisticated in its advertising, and while I'm certain they'd have the ability, I don't know how such a thing would be recieved.
Alternatively, build another power plant.
Thought Experiment: CA passes a law limiting the purchase of computers to machines that use no larger than a 250w power supply.
Is Energy Star a requirement? I can purchase a non-Energy Star TV if I want one, yes? I'm not saying that "costs less to run" isn't a selling point. I'm just saying that it doesn't appear that I'm currently unable to buy a "giant and cheap to buy but costs more to run" TV, which is what CA seems to have proposed.
I think you misunderstand.
Rule 1: New Orleans and LA are not responsible.
Rule 2: Other people are responsible.
Those are the rules of argument. It is possible that either A: The Corps of Engineers or B: God (eg Act of God) is responsible. As, thusfar, God has refused to appear in court or pay judgements against Him, it is much more productive to assign culpability to The Corps of Engineers. Arguments that the fault lies on the people that stood to loose the most and would be directly impacted by the failures of the levies violates Rule 1, so they cannot be used. Other people, Bush, Haliburton Weather Control Inc., and the Illuminati will be sued in time.
As a culture, we've decided to feel guilty about the Katrina disaster. Many of the people of New Orleans belive the disaster was man made, AND that the people of New Orleans have little to no responsibility for it. Because we feel guilty, we hang our head in shame and nod, then give them money, afirming their belief. One day we'll be providing special programs for the decendants of the victims of Katrina.
Apparently I will soon have a Ministry of Culture controlling the content of my entertainment to enhance socialist values. Welcome to the People's Republic of Stormwind.
Well, one Leviathan is as good as another.
It's been over for you for a long time. You live in a rapidly nationalizing, disarmed, surveilence society. The world needs the UK and her historic spirit of resolve. It makes me sad to think that it's gone. I hope I'm wrong.
Great Britian is the name of the island on which nearly everyone in th UK lives. If people call The United States simply "America", I'm not going to be upset that they've missed Hawaii. Ireland and Hawaii are both nice places, but saying Great Britain and America gets the point across.
If it makes you feel better, you're very much smarter than me.
The internet is not the problem. The people of Great Britian need new governance that doesn't think Hobbes had the right idea.
I'm fairly sure that if a new partnership forms (G2), wherein each party has the rights to it's own content produced by their respective original partnerships (G1a and G1b), and they produce a G3, no party to any G1 would have more than a 25% share of the G3 content anyway. Also, there's good argument to say that the emergent properties in the G3 produced by G2 represent an original work by G2. It might depend on the legal standards set in regard to the relationship between the raw data contributed and produced work.
Still, I doubt anyone would wish to retain ownership over too many generations of their data. The resulting liability for data containing bugs, particularly if those bugs are knowingly reproduced, could have consequences.
You can sign away the right to a piece of property, transfering ownership, but still retain the right to decide what to do with your own property.
I think what is being proposed is a universal, irrevokable, ownership of one's DNA, both the physical and information aspects, and a contract that provides for limitted use rights for the duration and scope of the owner's consent.
I'm sure someone out ther is a lawyer and could better describe the specifics, but I believe that's the gist.
Huh...Bill Gates just disables the ability to assimilate vaccinations on his.
I wonder what the complexities would be around copyrighting your own DNA data. It seems fairly straightforward, as long as you don't want your data used for anything. However, I'm not sure it would be all that easy to take advantage of medical services if everyone had their own EULA for their info. I can't imagine a doctor would agree to signing a random EULA from Joe Normal, or want to pay for a lawyer to review such a document.
;)
Also, do you have the rights at all? Could the partnership that originally created the data claim the rights to it that information or is there an implicit transference of ownership at the age of majority?
In the US, all citizens have the right to equal access to their government, within the limits of the government to provide that access. Not everyone has the right to a personal interview with the POTUS. In the case of the Office of the President, there is no practical problem with extending access to FOX as well as CNN and others, so any refusal to do so is based on prejudices (valid or invalid) aginst that orginization. It may be that the validity of those prejudices is questionable, but even if they are, they may not justify removing an orginization's equal access to the government. Anytime a person or group of people have their access to the government limited because of what they say, it should be a cause for caution.
However, in the case of Spain, they can make up whatever social right they want. Implying that a similar natural right (basis in the US) exists simply because a social right has been created elsewhere is a falicy. Also, since social rights are created by law and limitted to the scope of that law, a social right in Spain does not imply, or require, a social right in the US.
The Spanish Constitution is not based in Natural Rights, but in Social Rights. Natural Rights exist prior to the law, and most natural right theory would argue against a "right" that requires the goods or services of another. Social Rights are created by the law. If the government of Spain decides that there is a social right to purchase a velvet Elvis, poof, there's a social right to purchase a velvet Elvis. In the USA, where natural rights are generally agreed to be the foundation of law, there is a social right to legal representation. The similarities in the terminology can cause confusion. It is correct to say that there is no natural right to broadband, but it is also correct to say that it's perfectly within the structure of the Spanish Constitution to create a social right of that sort.
While a discussion of the merits of social rights theory would be facinating, I present this only for purposes of clarity.
Heh, and do you tax on delivery, billing, or purchaser's residence addresses? I could just as easily open a PO Box across the city border if they had lower taxes.
Still, I'm a bit surprised that there aren't GIS tools for this sort of thing.
Well, yes... I don't think people are expecting the magic glow goo to allow the KPA to dance across a field unmolested and yell "boo!" on the other side. It seems the concern is that it would allow for mapping existing fields and degrade their value.
Though, I wonder if sending such a tool would violate the existing agreement there, not that such violations are uncommon.
I do see your point about the number of retailers. With the cost of obtainnig the tax tables apprently being so high, that does make an issue of it.
Given the amount of money at stake, and the ease the states would have in compiling a publicly available list, it seems that this can't really be about the ability to manage the tax rates. Where I live there are state agencies responsible for oversight that certainly maintain this information already. Making it available is negligable, even if a retailer has to put the data into their system themselves.
Odds are the availablilty of the information is not the issue. Amazon, and other online retailers, likely want to maintain their competative edge, while local governments want some of that "internet money".
Then agin, it could be so stupid as to be,"We passed a law now you have to go to each county and input their taxes, which change yearly, and no we won't give you any information because it's your job not ours."
Governmental institutions have no interest in producing a simple and transparrent system of taxation. Complexity allows for manipulation and obfuscation. Additionally, municipalities are largely able to write whatever tax codes they like, and do so in order to promote their own goals and protect their turf.
But without high taxation to manipulate, how would the government exercise control over local retailers through tax incentives?
It would be relatively easy for Amazon to provide a portal for municipalities or state comptrollers (or other apropriate office) to provide their proper tax rates.