I see what you're saying. There's something we've both missed, however. A person shopping at the apple store has no reasonable expectation of immediate privacy - that is, they can reasonably expect that store security has cameras set up to catch shoplifters. However, it probably could be argued that they have a reasonable expectation that people won't be taking clandestine photographs of them and putting them on public display.
There's a couple of problems with this, not the least of which is that if the artist made any money at all off of this, he needed to get a release form from everyone he photographed.
All that aside, the other thing we haven't nailed down is that, as you said, whether the security guard had the store's permission to authorize the installation of spy software on their computers, that permission, whether given by the guard or the store manager/owner, does not trump the law, and in most states at least, there are pretty clear laws about what you can and cannot do regarding taking clandestine photographs in a non-public (legally, the store is not public because it's private property) area.
I'm having trouble believing that you really think a building security guard should or does have the authority to authorize installing spyware on a tenant's computer.
"The building will provide security" is not synonymous with "The building will provide security, and our guard is authorized to make business decisions regarding your property."
You *might* have had a point if the ..erm. . "artist" had wanted to place his own camera in the store (although even then, security is supposed to keep people from breaking in, fighting, or stealing. They are not supposed to authorize any activity they feel like without checking with the store). But he didn't. The artist wanted to install a spy program on the store's computer. The manager is the appropriate one to make that decision, not the security guard.
if you think all it takes to be a nerd is leveling up a dwarf in WoW while loling at the n00bs, you're indicative (that big word means "a sign") of exactly why this country is losing its leadership in technical fields. Intelligence is a prerequisite to being a real nerd, and intelligent people aren't afraid of a few paragraphs.
No, that isn't true, especially if the security guard was employed by the owner of the building rather than the lessor of the building (Apple) - as is very often the case, especially in malls or downtown buildings where these stores were.
Additionally, just because a security guard tells you it's OK to do something, does not mean that any law against it is suddenly repealed.
Clearly. Frankly, none of this is NASA's fault. The elected-government changes their mission as often as some people change socks. "Go to the moon! OK you got there now stop! Scrap everything! For chrissakes don't even THINK of building on that technology to do something bigger with it! Start all over again! Build a shuttle! OK now stop with the shuttle! Go to Mars! Well, no, don't go to Mars, go to an asteroid. And THEN go to Mars. Some time. Maybe. If I find some change under the couch cushions."
With such schizophrenic funding and marching orders from up top, it's no wonder NASA can't get anything done. Frankly it's a miracle they got what they got out of the shuttles.
All this was a long way of making the point that you're right: You don't just order up a new shuttle and have it on the launch pad by Thursday. Which is why it would have been really nice if NASA had been allowed to continue development of the next-gen space plane instead of dumping a squillion dollars into the design phase and then scrapping it before the first bolt was turned.But that was scrapped ("whooeee! We's a-goin' t' Mars!") and now we're stuck without a launch vehicle because of bullshit political whims.
Well, generally when I start bitching that my car is too old, I replace it. I don't get rid of the car and then sit around at home for at least 5 years figuring out what my next car will be. It'd be nice if our elected officials had the same foresight with NASA as we all do with our cars.
I don't have a problem with turning over space transportation to private companies, but I do think it would be really nice if those private companies were ready to transport before we turned it over to them.
I'm not a real big fan of hitching rides with the Russians. All it's gonna take is for the Presidents of each country to have a pissfight and suddenly we lose our ride to the station that we, for the most part, built.
Here's the problem with that. Patents, especially in high-tech fields such as medicine, can take a decade or more to be approved, but the patent counts from the filing date. That means that if you get your way, a drug company that's just spent half a billion or more to develop a drug gets only 4 years to make a profit before the generics come in and undercut them in price.
Now, I'm certainly not saying that patents should be unlimited, but an effectively 4 year patent isn't very much incentive to bring a new product to market.
Also, I think we do, as someone else mentioned, need to distinguish between product patents and software patents. (btw, your book example refers to copyright, not patent, law and is a whole different animal). You might think software should fall under copyright law as well, but there's a good reason it doesn't - copyright law generally says that you (or your heirs) own the copyright until 70 years after your death. Most software is written by corporations, and corporations cannot die.
At any rate, I have no particular problem with the author of a book living off the proceeds for the rest of his life. I don't think that either encourages or discourages the writing of books. Tom Clancy was mega-rich after Red October, but he kept writing more books. He certainly didn't need the money. By contrast, Harper Lee wrote one book her entire life, but few would say that the arts suffered for having To Kill a Mockingbird be that book.
Where I think we really need patent reform is in instituting a "use it or lose it" clause in patent law. There are all sorts of technologies out there that aren't being used, and can't be developed because some asshole is sitting on the patent. Currently there's nothing to stop, for instance, an oil company from buying up all the patents on solar energy and killing the development of better solar panels for the duration of the patent.
I also think patent trolling needs to be addressed.
However, just because there are problems with the patent system does not mean that it would be a good idea to abolish patents entirely (which is why my original reply said what it said - -it was *not* a troll). If we abolish patents entirely, we're going to end up like China, where any time anything is invented, 5 days later some jackass is making cheap knockoffs of it (because he doesn't have to pay for the R&D process) and killing the originating company's profits. That, is what's going to kill innovation, not patents.
Why is it the responsibility of a religion to hunt down and destroy criminals who claim to be a part of that religion?
Should the Christians have to form a vigilante mob every time a Lutheran robs a convenience store?
Or.. Hey, I'm just wondering, should all Christians be condemned because they haven't "stood fast and help us hunt down and destroy" the Catholic priest child molesters?
I think it was fair. In any news organization, ethics generally come from the top down. As Murdoch and his corporation are both ethically bankrupt, we can expect the individual media outlets he owns to be ethically bankrupt.
Or, put another way, if it were only this ONE tabloid in his whole operation that was busy making a mockery of journalism, it'd be one thing. But every one of his properties is encouraged, by the head office, to view "journalistic ethics" as a curious anachronism best left dead and buried.
When the leader is busy telling his employees that it's not only OK to be ethically repugnant, but that it is required, then the leader bears a large share of the culpability when one of his employees is ethically repugnant.
In all the articles I've read on this, it's never explained why they did it. It's obvious that when they hack phones belonging to celebrities they're looking for scandal dirt. What did they expect to dig up on a little dead girl?
Meh. You're right, of course, but I don't think the strategy will hurt Google with +. MMO's do ultra-limited releases to special beta testers too, and they do just fine. I think they'll build enough buzz and then do a wide release, and I think that once they release it they'll have their biggest marketing advantage still intact- - people are pissed at FB for all the privacy BS they pull, and would love to ditch it.
Guilty of nothing other than being a mouthbreathing redneck jackass. . .
Your post reads just like the asshole rants we heard in the 30's. "Well that darkie who cleans my house is OK but the rest of them blacks oughta be strung up."
Your bigoted idiot rants, as well as your sigline, show you for what you are - nothing more than a small-minded KKK aspirant.
The nice thing about American society, when it works as it should, is that you and I can hold such widely varying beliefs on something as core as religion without one of us being killed or persecuted over it;) From your words, it seems you and I have similar "live and let live" attitudes toward people who are different from us. Were more "religious-types" like you, I think we'd be better off.
First off, I should clarify that I didn't actually assume anything about your stance on the issue, either biblically or otherwise. I was arguing against your devil's advocate comment, but I didn't actually assume that you agreed with the passages you cited.
That said: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness"
That idea would carry more weight if all Scripture were internally consistent.
"if you had a friend who you knew was making a poor decision, wouldn't you come alongside them in friendship and advise them to do otherwise?"
I should qualify my comment by disclosing that I'm agnostic with athiestic leanings, so discussing seeing a friend "making a poor decision" with regards to homosexuality is as meaningless to me from a biblical standpoint as discussing a friend who made the "poor" decision to be black.
If I saw a friend making a poor decision I suppose I would chat with him about it, but I wouldn't base my determination on the . . Poorness of his decision on a book which is so wildly inconsistent as to say that eating pork is sinful, but an all powerful being psychologically torturing a man by making him think he is required to murder his son is just fine and dandy.
"While I am fully in support of homosexual relationships being given equal legal status to that of marriages, I do not believe that those relationships should be referred to as "marriage""
I don't particularly care what they call it as long as everyone has equal legal status. Of course, this obviously means that if state-recognized homosexual unions have to be called something other than marriage, then so do state-recognized heterosexual unions. But that said, I'm annoyed that only when homosexuals are finally stepping up to the union plate does anyone think of the idea that maybe government and churches shouldn't be collaborating so much on this marriage thing.
Slashdot Mirror
I see what you're saying. There's something we've both missed, however. A person shopping at the apple store has no reasonable expectation of immediate privacy - that is, they can reasonably expect that store security has cameras set up to catch shoplifters. However, it probably could be argued that they have a reasonable expectation that people won't be taking clandestine photographs of them and putting them on public display.
There's a couple of problems with this, not the least of which is that if the artist made any money at all off of this, he needed to get a release form from everyone he photographed.
All that aside, the other thing we haven't nailed down is that, as you said, whether the security guard had the store's permission to authorize the installation of spy software on their computers, that permission, whether given by the guard or the store manager/owner, does not trump the law, and in most states at least, there are pretty clear laws about what you can and cannot do regarding taking clandestine photographs in a non-public (legally, the store is not public because it's private property) area.
Good point, though I have trouble figuring out why a Windows fan would be upset about reading a lot of text. Have you SEEN the license agreement? ;)
I'm having trouble believing that you really think a building security guard should or does have the authority to authorize installing spyware on a tenant's computer.
"The building will provide security" is not synonymous with "The building will provide security, and our guard is authorized to make business decisions regarding your property."
You *might* have had a point if the . .erm. . "artist" had wanted to place his own camera in the store (although even then, security is supposed to keep people from breaking in, fighting, or stealing. They are not supposed to authorize any activity they feel like without checking with the store). But he didn't. The artist wanted to install a spy program on the store's computer. The manager is the appropriate one to make that decision, not the security guard.
if you think all it takes to be a nerd is leveling up a dwarf in WoW while loling at the n00bs, you're indicative (that big word means "a sign") of exactly why this country is losing its leadership in technical fields. Intelligence is a prerequisite to being a real nerd, and intelligent people aren't afraid of a few paragraphs.
I am asserting that the contract does not include "and building security can make business decisions for the lessor."
No, that isn't true, especially if the security guard was employed by the owner of the building rather than the lessor of the building (Apple) - as is very often the case, especially in malls or downtown buildings where these stores were.
Additionally, just because a security guard tells you it's OK to do something, does not mean that any law against it is suddenly repealed.
He didn't get the owner's permission. He got the mall rent-a-cop's permission. Big difference.
Clearly. Frankly, none of this is NASA's fault. The elected-government changes their mission as often as some people change socks. "Go to the moon! OK you got there now stop! Scrap everything! For chrissakes don't even THINK of building on that technology to do something bigger with it! Start all over again! Build a shuttle! OK now stop with the shuttle! Go to Mars! Well, no, don't go to Mars, go to an asteroid. And THEN go to Mars. Some time. Maybe. If I find some change under the couch cushions."
With such schizophrenic funding and marching orders from up top, it's no wonder NASA can't get anything done. Frankly it's a miracle they got what they got out of the shuttles.
All this was a long way of making the point that you're right: You don't just order up a new shuttle and have it on the launch pad by Thursday. Which is why it would have been really nice if NASA had been allowed to continue development of the next-gen space plane instead of dumping a squillion dollars into the design phase and then scrapping it before the first bolt was turned.But that was scrapped ("whooeee! We's a-goin' t' Mars!") and now we're stuck without a launch vehicle because of bullshit political whims.
Well, generally when I start bitching that my car is too old, I replace it. I don't get rid of the car and then sit around at home for at least 5 years figuring out what my next car will be. It'd be nice if our elected officials had the same foresight with NASA as we all do with our cars.
I don't have a problem with turning over space transportation to private companies, but I do think it would be really nice if those private companies were ready to transport before we turned it over to them.
I'm not a real big fan of hitching rides with the Russians. All it's gonna take is for the Presidents of each country to have a pissfight and suddenly we lose our ride to the station that we, for the most part, built.
Here's the problem with that. Patents, especially in high-tech fields such as medicine, can take a decade or more to be approved, but the patent counts from the filing date. That means that if you get your way, a drug company that's just spent half a billion or more to develop a drug gets only 4 years to make a profit before the generics come in and undercut them in price.
Now, I'm certainly not saying that patents should be unlimited, but an effectively 4 year patent isn't very much incentive to bring a new product to market.
Also, I think we do, as someone else mentioned, need to distinguish between product patents and software patents. (btw, your book example refers to copyright, not patent, law and is a whole different animal). You might think software should fall under copyright law as well, but there's a good reason it doesn't - copyright law generally says that you (or your heirs) own the copyright until 70 years after your death. Most software is written by corporations, and corporations cannot die.
At any rate, I have no particular problem with the author of a book living off the proceeds for the rest of his life. I don't think that either encourages or discourages the writing of books. Tom Clancy was mega-rich after Red October, but he kept writing more books. He certainly didn't need the money. By contrast, Harper Lee wrote one book her entire life, but few would say that the arts suffered for having To Kill a Mockingbird be that book.
Where I think we really need patent reform is in instituting a "use it or lose it" clause in patent law. There are all sorts of technologies out there that aren't being used, and can't be developed because some asshole is sitting on the patent. Currently there's nothing to stop, for instance, an oil company from buying up all the patents on solar energy and killing the development of better solar panels for the duration of the patent.
I also think patent trolling needs to be addressed.
However, just because there are problems with the patent system does not mean that it would be a good idea to abolish patents entirely (which is why my original reply said what it said - -it was *not* a troll). If we abolish patents entirely, we're going to end up like China, where any time anything is invented, 5 days later some jackass is making cheap knockoffs of it (because he doesn't have to pay for the R&D process) and killing the originating company's profits. That, is what's going to kill innovation, not patents.
Here's hoping you're not actually serious about that ..
Why is it the responsibility of a religion to hunt down and destroy criminals who claim to be a part of that religion?
Should the Christians have to form a vigilante mob every time a Lutheran robs a convenience store?
Or.. Hey, I'm just wondering, should all Christians be condemned because they haven't "stood fast and help us hunt down and destroy" the Catholic priest child molesters?
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4475823/death-panel-deception
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4475253/death-panel-comeback
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4313344/first-sign-of-death-panels
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/beck-has-happy-fearmongering-session
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ac3_1251310849
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSI4RTWRTxo
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4475784/return-of-death-panels/?playlist_id=87937
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201101020001
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkbzoGZTelU
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201101060003
http://www.mrctv.org/videos/glenn-beck-ny-times-vindicates-death-panels-foxnews-2010-10-04
You were saying?
Do you want more? Because I can show you a lot more death panel videos from Fox.
Oh by the way, you might find this interesting:
http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/romenesko/110179/memos-reveal-how-fox-news-spun-the-health-care-debate/
I think it was fair. In any news organization, ethics generally come from the top down. As Murdoch and his corporation are both ethically bankrupt, we can expect the individual media outlets he owns to be ethically bankrupt.
Or, put another way, if it were only this ONE tabloid in his whole operation that was busy making a mockery of journalism, it'd be one thing. But every one of his properties is encouraged, by the head office, to view "journalistic ethics" as a curious anachronism best left dead and buried.
When the leader is busy telling his employees that it's not only OK to be ethically repugnant, but that it is required, then the leader bears a large share of the culpability when one of his employees is ethically repugnant.
In all the articles I've read on this, it's never explained why they did it. It's obvious that when they hack phones belonging to celebrities they're looking for scandal dirt. What did they expect to dig up on a little dead girl?
Meh. You're right, of course, but I don't think the strategy will hurt Google with +. MMO's do ultra-limited releases to special beta testers too, and they do just fine. I think they'll build enough buzz and then do a wide release, and I think that once they release it they'll have their biggest marketing advantage still intact- - people are pissed at FB for all the privacy BS they pull, and would love to ditch it.
Yeah, that strategy was a huge flop for Gmail. . . ;)
Guilty of nothing other than being a mouthbreathing redneck jackass. . .
Your post reads just like the asshole rants we heard in the 30's. "Well that darkie who cleans my house is OK but the rest of them blacks oughta be strung up."
Your bigoted idiot rants, as well as your sigline, show you for what you are - nothing more than a small-minded KKK aspirant.
So since the terrorists identified themselves as Muslim, that means we should kill all the Muslims. Gotcha.
Well, OK, but since Dahmer was a member of the Church of Christ, I assume you're OK with us killing all the Christians too?
It's only a drawback if you give it unsavory traits.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095719/ ;)
Even if it were possible, is it a good idea?
"Hey I know, let's make something that reproduces and can't be killed en-masse."
Or, in short, let's make an even more indestructible cockroach.
Is he allowed to use a computer yet? Last I heard he still couldn't, and had to hire people to do the driving for him.
The nice thing about American society, when it works as it should, is that you and I can hold such widely varying beliefs on something as core as religion without one of us being killed or persecuted over it ;) From your words, it seems you and I have similar "live and let live" attitudes toward people who are different from us. Were more "religious-types" like you, I think we'd be better off.
First off, I should clarify that I didn't actually assume anything about your stance on the issue, either biblically or otherwise. I was arguing against your devil's advocate comment, but I didn't actually assume that you agreed with the passages you cited.
That said:
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness"
That idea would carry more weight if all Scripture were internally consistent.
"if you had a friend who you knew was making a poor decision, wouldn't you come alongside them in friendship and advise them to do otherwise?"
I should qualify my comment by disclosing that I'm agnostic with athiestic leanings, so discussing seeing a friend "making a poor decision" with regards to homosexuality is as meaningless to me from a biblical standpoint as discussing a friend who made the "poor" decision to be black.
If I saw a friend making a poor decision I suppose I would chat with him about it, but I wouldn't base my determination on the . . Poorness of his decision on a book which is so wildly inconsistent as to say that eating pork is sinful, but an all powerful being psychologically torturing a man by making him think he is required to murder his son is just fine and dandy.
"While I am fully in support of homosexual relationships being given equal legal status to that of marriages, I do not believe that those relationships should be referred to as "marriage""
I don't particularly care what they call it as long as everyone has equal legal status. Of course, this obviously means that if state-recognized homosexual unions have to be called something other than marriage, then so do state-recognized heterosexual unions. But that said, I'm annoyed that only when homosexuals are finally stepping up to the union plate does anyone think of the idea that maybe government and churches shouldn't be collaborating so much on this marriage thing.