I work for a small non-profit and charity and we've just recently put together a little t-shirt contest to build our community and get people involved. In short order, we got two separate emails from designers complaining about how our contest "cheapens" professional design.
Anyway, we had a little fun sending a reply back. I've posted it here: http://www.cogno.ca/b/
The damaged shuttle would have to be jettisoned before a rescue vehicle could arrive, because the station cannot accommodate two shuttles.
Maybe I didn't RTFA properly, but I think it means that the shuttle would stay there and be used until they needed the docking port to rescue the astronauts... it would spend most of the month attached, likely.
I can't believe I'm going to feed a troll, but here goes...
Those seniors have a reasonable expectation that the system they pay into is going to provide for them when they need it; they would not have contributed had it been suggested that they would be no benefits.
Private investment for retirement isn't a bad thing; people are free to do that if they choose. It also means risk however. Social Security reduces risk, but offers a lower rate of return. Think of it as an insurance policy.
What with all the news about how fast the arctic is heating up, maybe a technology that has the large scale effect cools the poles and heats the equator isn't such a bad thing. Think of the bounty! A larger coffee-growing zone, great gobs of new skin-only beaches...
As a software environment gets more and more sophisticated, the interplay of the components get more and more chaotic... it's not like anyone designs an environment from the ground up these days... you put parts together... you really can't foresee every possible combination of variables, especially when you didn't code it all yourself.
The only reason a company offers something for free is to raise their profile so that they can sell some profitable services, whether it's eyeball-time (ads) or other services.
Sometimes it happens that their initial business plan fails because a smaller percentage of the public opted for the "pay" services than the company in question expected. It's certainly fair play to add new "pay" features, and it's even fair play for a company to turn some of its "free" services into "pay" services as long as appropriate notice is given.
I honestly don't expect my Bigfoot account to be around forever, nor my Hotmail account... They don't owe me anything in that regard, except for common courtesy. Problem is that we tend to get wrapped up into a sense of entitlement once we get habituated to something...
Of course, that's just MY opinion, and I'm often wrong. (Just as my ex-girlfriends...)
You know, my concerns having little to do with privacy for privacy's sake. Instead, I'm just worried that we're being forced into more and more "choices" that don't really involve any choice. Microsoft can leverage it's marketshare to make me do all sorts of things I certainly wouldn't want to do otherwise. Saying that something is "optional" is only as good as having a viable choice.
I know it's probably blasphemy here (flamebait, even!), but I don't consider linux to be a viable desktop OS choice for me. Sure, it's an alternative to windows but I'd have to sacrifice functionality to switch over (not only in terms of some of my more unusual peripherals that still lack working linux drivers, but also all the software that I actually purchased instead of "liberated"). For all intents and purposes, Microsoft has me like a dealer has a junkie. I'm too used to the desktop feel, for example, to switch to something else compeltely...
So, basically, Microsoft is the only game in town and if they want to move in a particular direction, I'm forced to follow. I may not like their point of view on how society's "infrastructure" should be changed (subscription-based software, "Hailstorm", etc..), but what practical choice do I have?
I MAY technically have a choice, but I, like most other lay-people out there, don't really see it that way... Follow the herd, follow the herd...
Five or six years ago, I came across a side-splitting page that documented what was actually housed in the wearhouse that the Ark of the Covenant is put into at the end of Raiders of The Lost Ark. (You know, stuff like Hoffa's body, the cure for cancer, etc...)
I've searched countless times, in vain, to find that fabulous piece of humour. I want, very badly, to find that page again, although I fear that it's been lost forever.
Electronic submission means applications will be stored on a publicly available server for at least some small amount of time. Public accessibility means that sooner or later someone will see if they can exploit a vulnerability in the system and change an application.
Personally, I wish I could've caught the one-click patent doing something like this and had it registered in my name instead...
Then again, maybe I'll just save my cracking prowess for when a patent on cold fusion comes up... Buahahahaha....
Here's what EXACTLY needs to happen for me to support this:
1) Access can't be to JUST BMG's "active catalogue". The whole reason I (and many many others) use Napster is for those hard-to-find songs, the ones that have been out of print.. the ones I can't get anywhere else except through Napster.
2) They MUST allow for some sort of short term "try-out period" for songs... That would give you more incentive to check out new things (risk free). I mean, how often does it happen that you download a song only to find out that it's not what you thought it was? (I know, I know, you should check DURING the download...) If the "rights management" system gave me an hour or so to decide whether to "keep" the song, it would deal pretty well with that issues, I think.
As long as there are people trying to protect music/code/games/porn whatever with code there will be people who will defeat them. Laws in the US mean nothing in Canada or Russia.
What world do you live in? Canada has, at best, a modicum of independance... If the US of A wanted things to go a particular way, we'd be hard pressed to stop them... it's hard to "stand on guard for thee" when your opponent thinks that might equals right...
As for your other contention, it's never a matter of whether SOME person out there is going to try to circumvent protection, it's a matter of trying to disuade as many people as possible from doing it. Frankly, I miss the days when only the 3lit3 hax0rs traded mp3s. Now Susie GradeEight can trade her Britney Spears with abandon...
Me thinks the user has forgotten about watermarks embedded in the sound itself...
Of course, I'll bet a good equalizer could get rid of that little issue in a hurry... Just mask the right frequencies...
Actually, I never got the impression that we're supposed to hate Magneto, either in the comic or the movie. (Mind you, I got into the series in about 1990 and haven't read it for a couple years now.) I've always felt he was presented as a sort of tragic figure, who has an admirable goal (mutants being able to live in peace) but is going about it in a horribly wrong way.
The thing that impressed me most about Singer (the director) is that he allegedly told Ian Mclellan that the difference between Xavier and Magneto was the difference between Martin Luther King, Jr and Malcolm X... If that's true, then I'd be happy to heap tons of credit his way for coming to understand the X-men property.
Is there or is there not a big difference between "the will of the people" as exemplified on the political stage as opposed to the "will of the people" as exemplified in the Marketplace? It seems to me that much of the debate on Jon's post may be missing the point because of a double standard. What I mean is, we clearly find distasteful any political movement that appeals to human weakness (eg. Nazism) because we prefer to keep to the high road; even if we disagree with it, we're far more likely to respect a political movement borne of an appeal to the strengths of a person. We feel that the will of the people has properly found voice in those sorts of movements. When it comes to the will of the people in the Marketplace (the foundation of capitalism -- the supply/demand equation) we seem to think that ANY tactic is fair play. Corporations are free to appeal to the weaknesses of the individual and we don't look down on them. Sure, they're manipulating the will of the people and artificially increasing demand through finely tuned persuasion, but that's okay... Personally, I think that our views should remain consistent between these two areas. I have a problem with the will of the people being modified by an appeal to weakness, regardless of the particular realm we're talking about. It's one thing to talk about stopping to support a company such a McDonalds by not patronizing the place, but it's another to recognize that our decisions aren't always volitional. If we forces coporations to play by the same rules we expect of our politicians (taking the high road) then we'd be more equipped to make the rational decision.
Re:No use without teachers who understand computer
on
Laptops In Education
·
· Score: 1
I currently attend a university here in Canada where we're guinea pigs for just this sort of computer-intensive education. We're all given laptops as part of our enrollment package (although they DO charge us an extra $1000 a year to cover the lease costs).
Our single biggest issue here has probably been the fact that our administration didn't negotiate with the teacher's union about all this before they brought it in. As such, there are many classes where we never even USE the laptops and those teachers that DO use them only use them for powerpoint presentations and other minor things. What's the point of that?
Any school that wants to do this sort of thing had better be willing to pour some serious money into developing teaching pedagogies (sp?) that utilize these new technologies. They're certainly not trained for "wired" classrooms...
Even without profs who know what they're doing (or at least using the technology creatively) there are still benefits. With EVERY other student online, we use ICQ instead of the phone, we ALL run Napster and we can all code basic html... We're technologically aware and VERY valuable to employers because we already "know our way around".
(Regarding logistics, we have power plugs and 10mbit Ethernet connections EVERYWHERE on campus.. in dorm rooms, at the desks in classrooms, in the study cubicles in the library and even on the benches in the hallways...)
True, CDs are cheaper in the US - the problem being that lots of good stuff simply doesn't get a US release, due to the US' notoriously music markets conservatism. The result is that I tend to buy a lot of Jap/Euro imports, which tend to run $15-$20 - *more* expensive than the European prices. Well, truth be told, people in the 'States are getting shafted regarding audio CDs too. I'm from Vancouver, BC, Canada and we've got about the lowest CD prices in the world (as far as I can tell).... A new release (top 40-bound) will cost $11.99CDN (~$8US)! Jealous? It's what happens when you've got real competition someplace. (Funny that!) We're lucky enough here to have a well-entrenched (30 yrs old) local chain (A&B Sound) willing to do ANYTHING to be lower then the competitor. 30 years in the business and they're still in the black... you CAN make money that way... At least in Vancouver we realized the dream of CDs being cheaper than tapes...
Slashdot Mirror
I work for a small non-profit and charity and we've just recently put together a little t-shirt contest to build our community and get people involved. In short order, we got two separate emails from designers complaining about how our contest "cheapens" professional design.
Anyway, we had a little fun sending a reply back. I've posted it here: http://www.cogno.ca/b/
The damaged shuttle would have to be jettisoned before a rescue vehicle could arrive, because the station cannot accommodate two shuttles.
Maybe I didn't RTFA properly, but I think it means that the shuttle would stay there and be used until they needed the docking port to rescue the astronauts... it would spend most of the month attached, likely.
I can't believe I'm going to feed a troll, but here goes...
Those seniors have a reasonable expectation that the system they pay into is going to provide for them when they need it; they would not have contributed had it been suggested that they would be no benefits.
Private investment for retirement isn't a bad thing; people are free to do that if they choose. It also means risk however. Social Security reduces risk, but offers a lower rate of return. Think of it as an insurance policy.
What with all the news about how fast the arctic is heating up, maybe a technology that has the large scale effect cools the poles and heats the equator isn't such a bad thing. Think of the bounty! A larger coffee-growing zone, great gobs of new skin-only beaches...
And malaria further north... Err... nevermind.
The endgame comes when you complete all the goals the game has set for you over a series of chapters, and you gain Real Ultimate Power(tm).
I gain the power of ninjas? That's so cool I just punched myself in the face!
http://www.realultimatepower.net/
'21 Rules of Thumb - How Microsoft Develops Its Software'
21? There's a bad joke lurking there... "all thumbs".... hmmm...
Translation for the non-programmers among us: a quick a dirty rot 13
As a software environment gets more and more sophisticated, the interplay of the components get more and more chaotic... it's not like anyone designs an environment from the ground up these days... you put parts together... you really can't foresee every possible combination of variables, especially when you didn't code it all yourself.
...... Preaching to the converted... ....
The only reason a company offers something for free is to raise their profile so that they can sell some profitable services, whether it's eyeball-time (ads) or other services.
Sometimes it happens that their initial business plan fails because a smaller percentage of the public opted for the "pay" services than the company in question expected. It's certainly fair play to add new "pay" features, and it's even fair play for a company to turn some of its "free" services into "pay" services as long as appropriate notice is given.
I honestly don't expect my Bigfoot account to be around forever, nor my Hotmail account... They don't owe me anything in that regard, except for common courtesy. Problem is that we tend to get wrapped up into a sense of entitlement once we get habituated to something...
Of course, that's just MY opinion, and I'm often wrong. (Just as my ex-girlfriends...)
CCTV = Closed CIRCUIT TV, not Closed CAPTIONED TV....
You know, my concerns having little to do with privacy for privacy's sake. Instead, I'm just worried that we're being forced into more and more "choices" that don't really involve any choice. Microsoft can leverage it's marketshare to make me do all sorts of things I certainly wouldn't want to do otherwise. Saying that something is "optional" is only as good as having a viable choice.
I know it's probably blasphemy here (flamebait, even!), but I don't consider linux to be a viable desktop OS choice for me. Sure, it's an alternative to windows but I'd have to sacrifice functionality to switch over (not only in terms of some of my more unusual peripherals that still lack working linux drivers, but also all the software that I actually purchased instead of "liberated"). For all intents and purposes, Microsoft has me like a dealer has a junkie. I'm too used to the desktop feel, for example, to switch to something else compeltely...
So, basically, Microsoft is the only game in town and if they want to move in a particular direction, I'm forced to follow. I may not like their point of view on how society's "infrastructure" should be changed (subscription-based software, "Hailstorm", etc..), but what practical choice do I have?
I MAY technically have a choice, but I, like most other lay-people out there, don't really see it that way... Follow the herd, follow the herd...
Five or six years ago, I came across a side-splitting page that documented what was actually housed in the wearhouse that the Ark of the Covenant is put into at the end of Raiders of The Lost Ark. (You know, stuff like Hoffa's body, the cure for cancer, etc...)
I've searched countless times, in vain, to find that fabulous piece of humour. I want, very badly, to find that page again, although I fear that it's been lost forever.
ps. if anyone knows otherwise, let me know...
Electronic submission means applications will be stored on a publicly available server for at least some small amount of time. Public accessibility means that sooner or later someone will see if they can exploit a vulnerability in the system and change an application.
Personally, I wish I could've caught the one-click patent doing something like this and had it registered in my name instead...
Then again, maybe I'll just save my cracking prowess for when a patent on cold fusion comes up... Buahahahaha....
Here's what EXACTLY needs to happen for me to support this:
1) Access can't be to JUST BMG's "active catalogue". The whole reason I (and many many others) use Napster is for those hard-to-find songs, the ones that have been out of print.. the ones I can't get anywhere else except through Napster.
2) They MUST allow for some sort of short term "try-out period" for songs... That would give you more incentive to check out new things (risk free). I mean, how often does it happen that you download a song only to find out that it's not what you thought it was? (I know, I know, you should check DURING the download...) If the "rights management" system gave me an hour or so to decide whether to "keep" the song, it would deal pretty well with that issues, I think.
Those are just my 2 cents worth...
As long as there are people trying to protect music/code/games/porn whatever with code there will be people who will defeat them. Laws in the US mean nothing in Canada or Russia.
What world do you live in? Canada has, at best, a modicum of independance... If the US of A wanted things to go a particular way, we'd be hard pressed to stop them... it's hard to "stand on guard for thee" when your opponent thinks that might equals right...
As for your other contention, it's never a matter of whether SOME person out there is going to try to circumvent protection, it's a matter of trying to disuade as many people as possible from doing it. Frankly, I miss the days when only the 3lit3 hax0rs traded mp3s. Now Susie GradeEight can trade her Britney Spears with abandon...
(yes, I'm going to off-topic hell now...)
Me thinks the user has forgotten about watermarks embedded in the sound itself... Of course, I'll bet a good equalizer could get rid of that little issue in a hurry... Just mask the right frequencies...
The thing that impressed me most about Singer (the director) is that he allegedly told Ian Mclellan that the difference between Xavier and Magneto was the difference between Martin Luther King, Jr and Malcolm X... If that's true, then I'd be happy to heap tons of credit his way for coming to understand the X-men property.
Is there or is there not a big difference between "the will of the people" as exemplified on the political stage as opposed to the "will of the people" as exemplified in the Marketplace? It seems to me that much of the debate on Jon's post may be missing the point because of a double standard. What I mean is, we clearly find distasteful any political movement that appeals to human weakness (eg. Nazism) because we prefer to keep to the high road; even if we disagree with it, we're far more likely to respect a political movement borne of an appeal to the strengths of a person. We feel that the will of the people has properly found voice in those sorts of movements. When it comes to the will of the people in the Marketplace (the foundation of capitalism -- the supply/demand equation) we seem to think that ANY tactic is fair play. Corporations are free to appeal to the weaknesses of the individual and we don't look down on them. Sure, they're manipulating the will of the people and artificially increasing demand through finely tuned persuasion, but that's okay... Personally, I think that our views should remain consistent between these two areas. I have a problem with the will of the people being modified by an appeal to weakness, regardless of the particular realm we're talking about. It's one thing to talk about stopping to support a company such a McDonalds by not patronizing the place, but it's another to recognize that our decisions aren't always volitional. If we forces coporations to play by the same rules we expect of our politicians (taking the high road) then we'd be more equipped to make the rational decision.
I currently attend a university here in Canada where we're guinea pigs for just this sort of computer-intensive education. We're all given laptops as part of our enrollment package (although they DO charge us an extra $1000 a year to cover the lease costs).
Our single biggest issue here has probably been the fact that our administration didn't negotiate with the teacher's union about all this before they brought it in. As such, there are many classes where we never even USE the laptops and those teachers that DO use them only use them for powerpoint presentations and other minor things. What's the point of that?
Any school that wants to do this sort of thing had better be willing to pour some serious money into developing teaching pedagogies (sp?) that utilize these new technologies. They're certainly not trained for "wired" classrooms...
Even without profs who know what they're doing (or at least using the technology creatively) there are still benefits. With EVERY other student online, we use ICQ instead of the phone, we ALL run Napster and we can all code basic html... We're technologically aware and VERY valuable to employers because we already "know our way around".
(Regarding logistics, we have power plugs and 10mbit Ethernet connections EVERYWHERE on campus.. in dorm rooms, at the desks in classrooms, in the study cubicles in the library and even on the benches in the hallways...)
True, CDs are cheaper in the US - the problem being that lots of good stuff simply doesn't get a US release, due to the US' notoriously music markets conservatism. The result is that I tend to buy a lot of Jap/Euro imports, which tend to run $15-$20 - *more* expensive than the European prices. Well, truth be told, people in the 'States are getting shafted regarding audio CDs too. I'm from Vancouver, BC, Canada and we've got about the lowest CD prices in the world (as far as I can tell).... A new release (top 40-bound) will cost $11.99CDN (~$8US)! Jealous? It's what happens when you've got real competition someplace. (Funny that!) We're lucky enough here to have a well-entrenched (30 yrs old) local chain (A&B Sound) willing to do ANYTHING to be lower then the competitor. 30 years in the business and they're still in the black... you CAN make money that way... At least in Vancouver we realized the dream of CDs being cheaper than tapes...