This will make things LOOK pretty. It won't make missing data suddenly appear. At best it will make something ugly LOOK a little better. But that's just a computer-generated illusion, not a reflection of reality.
Not really. If I take a picture of a sign and my hand is shaking as I take the picture, you already know it's a fixed, flat surface. If you can algorithmically find exactly how my hand was shaking and so clear up the image, that's not an illusion. Consider it more like that even in the short shutter time you have many images superimposed on each other, this aligns them so the picture becomes clearer. It won't work for the generic case but for a certain class of pictures this is close to magic.
Windows has a ton of old AAA titles that have hit the bargain bin so the plenty games you can get for $5-10 drives price down. After all the games are already written, so there's no point in not selling them they just gradually go down in price to squeeze the last drops from the market. The other platforms, not so much...
On the plus side you can't get filtered without your consent (yet) but on the downside you have to show a positive decision to allow porn, which some people may be uncomfortable with. It also gives the ISP's a nice list of who "chose" to watch porn.
Or those that need their net pre-filtered or those who feel they can do their own filtering by not going to websites they don't want.... unless you're scared you will forever be mentally crippled if someone links you to a porn site. Actually,if they have a category for shock sites that's one category I might check myself, the goatse.cx guy is one thing I could gladly do without...
Want a bet? We'll discuss this again when resolutions greater than 2560x1600 become common due to apple introducing retina display laptops, and when 10 bit colour becomes common on high end monitors.
Now this I would like to see... but not as long as Apple can sell a 1024x768 screen for $499 (the iPad 1 & 2).
Firewire is both faster and better than USB, however it's more expensive in both hardware and design/implementation, which is why USB has won that fight, the majority of people are all about cheep, not better.
Except if you wanted really fast, then firewire HDDs were inferior to an internal HDD due to translation costs. eSATA was the first standard where performance on internal and external disks became approximately equal since it's basically the same protocol. Firewire solved a problem that didn't exists, for printers and scanners and other peripherals the actual data transfer speed is usually higher than the scanning/printing speed. For the most part it was an overpriced, overkill solution.
The only thing it excelled at was as you say stable bandwidth, to capture recordings from DV and HDV cameras. But as we moved to flash and HDD based cameras that wasn't important, it's just a file on the camera that we can optimistically send as fast as we manage and resend any segment that didn't make it. I loved it when I could get rid of that fickle capture process, since even with Firewire tiny hangups would lead to frame drops. My computer is not a RT system and so hooking up a RT firewire device just didn't give you the alleged benefits.
In summary, Firewire is one port I'm not going to miss from any consumer system.
Doesn't anyone on Slashdot take time to actually read the article?
Well, usually there's at least one post to explain that the summary is utterly wrong, so that puts the lower bound at one. Besides I'm curious how to this "slashdot effect" works when nobody reads TFA. Maybe we just open it in a background tab, then go on to read the comments instead? On that note, I haven't read TFA yet....
I also thought it is "required" for photographers to ask for a "model release" if they take recognizable pictures of people.
Not for news reporting, typically only for illustration or advertising, so it'd be fully legal to run a news article with "Here's happy people at the $foo festival in $bar, see our picture slideshow". And a hobby photographer doesn't need a model release unless he intends to publish the image in a recognizable form, for example a painter may wish to photograph a scene and paint it later with altered faces. Absolutely no signatures are required to take the photo.
My understanding must be more nuanced than you believe since I know that if you make a death threat, it's the threat that gets you into trouble, not the speech. It's just a (perhaps lesser) case of brandishing a weapon, not a 1st amendment issue.
How would that work if the first amendment doesn't substantially protect the content of what you're saying? If you make a blasphemous speech it's the blasphemy that gets you into trouble, not the speech? If you make a speech critical of the government it's the sedition that gets you into trouble, not the speech?
Likewise, the police aren't searching your shed if they pursue a criminal into it. Seeing the pot is incidental to capturing the fleeing suspect.
Not much of a right if there's a hidden "unless it's incidental to some other police work", we gave everyone in the crowd a pat down because had probable cause to believe someone had a hidden firearm and everything else we found was incidental. Because it's not a search unless we say it's a search.
Yes, I know I'm being extraordinarily difficult here. I'm just trying to prove there's a bit more complexity here than you could summarize in one or two sentences in the bill of rights. It's an executive summary without all the tiny little qualifiers and modifiers that says yes you have freedom of religion but not if your religion requires human sacrifices (remember, constitutional law trumps a normal law against murder). With a bit of sanity and common sense you can agree that it ought to be that way, but it's not actually there in the words of the law.
What about that is so complicated that the courts and the governor can't understand it? A cellphone is an effect and the Bill of rights says you need a warrant to search those. It offers no exceptions.
Emphasis mine. This is the problem with trying to make a laymen readable bill of rights, the first amendment doesn't offer any exception that says death threats are excluded either, but they are. If a cop pursues a fleeing suspect and he happens to hide in the shed where you're growing pot, you can quote the fourth amendment all you like but it won't help you. It's an exception even though none are offered. That said, I don't think searching through your cell phone should be one of them but trying to read the bill of rights as total absolutes is not likely to impress any judge.
The media, of course, is in love with walled gardens, and are in awe of Jobs' ability to sell them. It all makes total and complete sense.
Most people care about what it can do, not what it can't do and even less why it can't do it. A lot of Apple's competitor have gone with the "we do more, but we suck at it" approach and failed. I doubt most of Apple's customers even know that the garden has walls.
Oil is sold on markets. When oil is scarce, price goes up. As price goes up, a greater number of people buy less oil than they did before. After a certain price, other energy sources become relatively cheap enough that there is less reason to prefer oil. So the result of a long slow decrease in supply is a long slow increase in price and a long slow decrease in demand for oil, to be offset by alternative energy sources and other ways of doing things.
If "everyone" predicts that peak oil has hit and oil will only continue to become more valuable, you may start seeing hoarding and a market crash very rapidly. Many people need their car which runs on gasoline so short term their demand is inelastic, the price has to go way up for people to use significantly less.
The second thing is that things may never get as good as they used to be, eventually alternative sources may take over yes but only at prices where people have to drive less or poorer people not at all. Very impractical if where you live is not where you work and public transport sucks. So I wouldn't assume it'll all happen so smoothly...
"It's better to keep people poor, so they can be more environmentally friendly." Is that a fair summary of what you're trying to say ? This is generally not true poorer countries are generally not as environmentally friendly as rich ones.
As much as we like to be "green" in the western world I can assure you the people who drink water and eat a bowl of rice in their shack pollute a lot less per capita than the average westerner with his gadgets and gizmos, throwing lots of junk in the trash and burning plenty electricity and gas because we can. Factories are in general more polluting, but as far as consumption goes we're all between L and XXL. Add the required number of X's if you're American. That seven billion people might want a car has been one of the things that worry environmentalists.
Losing 20% market share in a single year is actually pretty startling.
Not surprising if you know how Apple does all their markets, they don't want to play at the low end. Look at the Macs for example, cheapest MacBook they sell is $999. Can you get good laptops for less than $999? Hell yeah. Does Apple want to sell those? Hell no. Same with the iPad, if you want a $199 or $299 tablet that's fine but it won't be an Apple tablet. iPods, iPhones, they've never been the cheapest on the market so it's inevitable that someone will release a cheap tablet and take the customers Apple don't want. Of course there are high-end tablets trying to go head to head with Apple as well, but those numbers alone don't say if they're succeeding or not. Just anecdotally I don't have that impression, of course that's not data.
Just on that note, the 18th century was primitive but not that primitive. They had cannons and other large, military equipment of far greater destructive power than a musketman. Even though it just takes one person to actually fire the cannon, anything crew-operated or too big to carry has never been considered covered by the second amendment.
Of course that still leaves assault rifles, light machine guns, combat shotguns, grenade launchers, sniper rifles and hand grenades up for debate since they're all individual weapons. But the second amendment don't give you a right to own tanks today anymore than owning cannons back then.
From what I gather, his point would be that not enough went into basic development of the web. To be honest, I'd be a bit inclined to agree with him as the adoption was massive but in the 1990s Netscape and Internet Explorer were making up proprietary tags by the dozen. Proprietary extensions like Java applets (1995), ActiveX (1996) and Flash (1996) was used to deliver many things the web couldn't deliver. Even now in 2011 we're still not anywhere near a standard <video> tag I can put on my website to show a clip. In an alternative timeline where the web was patented and an organization with funding were to develop it, perhaps we wouldn't have ended up in the mess where IE had 95% market share and almost nothing worked to a standard. Maybe there would be a proper licensing organization that'd ensure compliance and we wouldn't need Firefox to resurrect web standards from the dead.
The discussion reminds me a little of the BSD / LGPL / GPL / dual licensing debate. In that sense, the web was much like BSD, everyone could go off and make their own proprietary extensions and they did. Do you just trust the the pull will be strong enough that everybody wants to put things back into the standard? Or do you want it to be more like Java, if you want to call it Java you must support exactly these functions in this way or it's not Java. Yes, I know I'm mixing standards and implementations and possibly trademarks here, but many of the "do people contribute it back?" questions remain the same. There's no question that around IE5/6 the web was a "de facto" standard made by Microsoft, not whatever Tim-Berner Lee, W3C or a bunch of RFCs said.
Do you need a revenue stream? Well, maybe you don't but a lot of people need to make rent and put food on the table so no doubt it helps, even ideal organizations have paid workers. It's a little like dual licensing, of course if you go BSD or LGPL then people are free to make proprietary software, instantly that's of course a boost to the project. The question is, do those make up for the revenue you make on dual licensing to fund back into developing it? Or does it just slowly wither away while other proprietary products get better? Same with standards, they'd need to evolve otherwise companies would just ignore them or make their own. Honestly if it wasn't for open source software I think the open web standards would have died out in the early 2000s. Fortunately Firefox found their revenue stream...
No, there's not. There is no "interpretation" of the constitution.
"The way I read it is the only way of reading it"
Most teenagers could read it and tell you very directly what's meant and all agree.
Try it. When the results are anything but, I'm sure you'll argue they've all been poisoned by whatever.
The best example is the right to bare arms... it's not the right to bare hunting rifles.
Bear. The world is bear. And in 1939 the Supreme Court said:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to any preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
Then in 2010 they said:
(f) None of the Courtâ(TM)s precedents forecloses the Courtâ(TM)s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47â"54.
A sawed-off shotgun would be an excellent weapon for close self-defense, but it's not protected by the second amendment because it's not usable in a militia? They can pretend not to have changed their minds, but I would clearly say the Supreme Court of 1939 and the Supreme Court of 2010 had two vastly different interpretations of the second amendment. And if the supreme justices that are experts on constitutional law have had different interpretations, you can bet a bunch of teenagers will.
The USA is the only country I know of that does exclude evidence like that.
Norway would be the second country then. In fact, it's probably stronger than the US protection because an employer that made illegal recordings of his employers had the evidence rejected after filing charges for embezzlement. That one went to the supreme court, I couldn't find a similar case where the police used illegal methods because once that is known the charges would be dropped. Honestly I would be surprised if a modern rule of law didn't include something like that, otherwise there's a million loophole where the police can protect each other or hired thugs to provide evidence without any clear trail.
So when YouTube receives a takedown request obviously the intent is to block that content from being on YouTube. Therefore it should be YouTube's responsibility to act in the spirit of that ruling and find and block any and all variations of it. If they don't, the copyright holder should be able to sue them for not following the spirit of the order. Do you see how easily I took something reasonable and turned it into something completely unreasonable? That is what starts happening when you mess with things like that. What if the ISP screws up and blocks some other domain which they thought pointed to TPB but actually didn't? Not only can they be prosecuted for taking down too little, but also too much. That is why they should follow the order to the letter and let any errors be the fault of the court.
The whole of human achievement is pretty much the story of people doing things just to see if they can, or because it's interesting to them, or because it's never been done before.
Most of the achievements that actually push the world forward have been either to impress girls, make money or scientific curiosity. Hobbies don't tend to have the ambition to do any of those things, only to have personal value to you. It'd be a snowball's chance in hell if me watching TV or playing video games lead to anything like an achievement (or well, lately games have been giving me 100s of achievements for random crap). Sports or exercise might get me in better shape, but I'm not about to set any records at anything. I like to develop as a hobby, I think it's cool to be able to control a computer into doing things for me, like some people like to teach their dogs tricks only with less fur and far more obedient.
The only time I go "Why?" is when I feel you're making it extremely difficult for yourself for no particular reason I can think of, like can you scrub this floor with a toothbrush. Of course you can, but like... why? I fully understand when people want to do it themselves, like make their own pasta from wheat even though it's available in the store but not just arbitrarily limit myself to poor tools. Even within a hobby it's fun to do the best you can. Somehow using a javascript engine to run Linux sounds a bit like using the worst possible tool for the job. Yes, it's half "Wow, you can do that?" but the other half is "With a toothbrush? Seriously?"
I recall people complaining that their Vista system with 8GB of RAM had no free memory. This was true of systems running with 2 GB RAM and 16 GB RAM. This tells me that much of that was cache but that didn't stop people from claiming that Vista was a memory hog.
One thing is cache, leaving things in memory after you've used them. But early Vista had a very aggressive idea of SuperFetch, pre-caching applications and other resources it thought you might need in best Clippy-style. So no matter how much RAM you had, Vista would churn on your disk. I think most people mistakenly identified this as swapping because Vista was out of memory. From what I understand later SPs and Win7 dialed it back to far more reasonable levels.
True, but some of the damages award have also been nasty so they do care about winning or losing in the end. Nothing like losing $100m to a cringe-worthy patent.
That the Pirate Party was willing to negotiate was clear, it wasn't all that clear how well received they'd be. The groups mostly mirror traditional party blocks and PP didn't really fit in any of those. A lot of the mainstream press and probably representatives considered it to be one of the "loons" based on the name alone. If nobody wanted to give them time from the group, being in the group would be pointless. ALDE didn't offer much of anything from what I remember, about on par with just being an independent. Luckily they didn't have to make that choice, because the Greens and PP got along well.
Maybe it's somewhere down there on the list of reasons, but I doubt it'd even make the top ten. Lot more languages, lot more different cultures and once you cross that border it's a "foreign film". Some countries go a little better together like Scandinavia but there's us, the English, French, German, Spanish, Italian and then some with dubs of varying quality losing a lot of lip sync and intonation. Hollywood is the exception in penetrating most of Europe, not the norm. I would say it's due to two things. One, by already having the entire US market most Hollywood movies have solid budgets and look good. Pretty much everything breaking new ground in special effects has been from the US. The other is the gun crazy culture the US has making for good action movies, that other countries can watch without caring much for a bad dub. I just don't see any country in Europe making anything like Rambo or Terminator.
You can still see this in music, apart from the international superstars singing in English I got no clue what's popular in France or Germany or Spain or Italy or Finland right now. When I visit Germany they've barely heard of a Norwegian artist and I've barely heard one or two of theirs. Huge, huge domestic artists are complete nobodies one or two states over, by US standards. While I'm pretty sure a guy from California will have a lot more in common with what's popular in New York, Texas and Florida. If they go to cinemas they're likely to have much the same movies. The only movies youÂre likely to find everywhere here are those from Hollywood....
Which happen to coincide to a large degree with the copyright policies of the Swedish Pirate Party, probably because they have a MEP who is a member of the Green group.
It should be noted that the Greens were already fairly critical and that is why the Pirate Party joined it rather than be an independent, but I'm glad to see they're moving in the Pirate Party's direction. For all those that don't know the EP though, it has 736 representatives so the Greens in total are 7.5%, obviously fighting most for their green policies. They're a long way from changing EU politics, but hopefully they can at least be the critical voice.
I would say it's highly unlikely the business would respond fast enough unless it's very clear to them that you are in immediate risk of disappearing, so it's easier to just come clean and say it. Otherwise they'll typically redirect you to the yearly round of raises or some review of the management structure, long after your other offer has expired. If they have any clue they will ask why now, why such a hurry and you will end up showing your hand anyway. If you don't they'll still feel played when they learn that you leave, why not be straight with what it'd take to make you stay? The only time it actually works well is if you get what you want just like that.
Besides, sometimes unexpected things happen. I was switching jobs a couple years ago, I'd essentially made up my mind. But my current employer said "Isn't there anything we can do to keep you?" and I didn't want to say absolutely no way so I asked for a salary quite a lot higher than I'd been offered, thinking no way. Yes way, they matched and raised. Sadly for them the new job also upped their offer so it didn't work, but I got a completely unexpected - but very welcome - pay raise.
Slashdot Mirror
This will make things LOOK pretty. It won't make missing data suddenly appear. At best it will make something ugly LOOK a little better. But that's just a computer-generated illusion, not a reflection of reality.
Not really. If I take a picture of a sign and my hand is shaking as I take the picture, you already know it's a fixed, flat surface. If you can algorithmically find exactly how my hand was shaking and so clear up the image, that's not an illusion. Consider it more like that even in the short shutter time you have many images superimposed on each other, this aligns them so the picture becomes clearer. It won't work for the generic case but for a certain class of pictures this is close to magic.
Windows has a ton of old AAA titles that have hit the bargain bin so the plenty games you can get for $5-10 drives price down. After all the games are already written, so there's no point in not selling them they just gradually go down in price to squeeze the last drops from the market. The other platforms, not so much...
On the plus side you can't get filtered without your consent (yet) but on the downside you have to show a positive decision to allow porn, which some people may be uncomfortable with. It also gives the ISP's a nice list of who "chose" to watch porn.
Or those that need their net pre-filtered or those who feel they can do their own filtering by not going to websites they don't want.... unless you're scared you will forever be mentally crippled if someone links you to a porn site. Actually,if they have a category for shock sites that's one category I might check myself, the goatse.cx guy is one thing I could gladly do without...
Want a bet? We'll discuss this again when resolutions greater than 2560x1600 become common due to apple introducing retina display laptops, and when 10 bit colour becomes common on high end monitors.
Now this I would like to see... but not as long as Apple can sell a 1024x768 screen for $499 (the iPad 1 & 2).
Firewire is both faster and better than USB, however it's more expensive in both hardware and design/implementation, which is why USB has won that fight, the majority of people are all about cheep, not better.
Except if you wanted really fast, then firewire HDDs were inferior to an internal HDD due to translation costs. eSATA was the first standard where performance on internal and external disks became approximately equal since it's basically the same protocol. Firewire solved a problem that didn't exists, for printers and scanners and other peripherals the actual data transfer speed is usually higher than the scanning/printing speed. For the most part it was an overpriced, overkill solution.
The only thing it excelled at was as you say stable bandwidth, to capture recordings from DV and HDV cameras. But as we moved to flash and HDD based cameras that wasn't important, it's just a file on the camera that we can optimistically send as fast as we manage and resend any segment that didn't make it. I loved it when I could get rid of that fickle capture process, since even with Firewire tiny hangups would lead to frame drops. My computer is not a RT system and so hooking up a RT firewire device just didn't give you the alleged benefits.
In summary, Firewire is one port I'm not going to miss from any consumer system.
Doesn't anyone on Slashdot take time to actually read the article?
Well, usually there's at least one post to explain that the summary is utterly wrong, so that puts the lower bound at one. Besides I'm curious how to this "slashdot effect" works when nobody reads TFA. Maybe we just open it in a background tab, then go on to read the comments instead? On that note, I haven't read TFA yet....
I also thought it is "required" for photographers to ask for a "model release" if they take recognizable pictures of people.
Not for news reporting, typically only for illustration or advertising, so it'd be fully legal to run a news article with "Here's happy people at the $foo festival in $bar, see our picture slideshow". And a hobby photographer doesn't need a model release unless he intends to publish the image in a recognizable form, for example a painter may wish to photograph a scene and paint it later with altered faces. Absolutely no signatures are required to take the photo.
My understanding must be more nuanced than you believe since I know that if you make a death threat, it's the threat that gets you into trouble, not the speech. It's just a (perhaps lesser) case of brandishing a weapon, not a 1st amendment issue.
How would that work if the first amendment doesn't substantially protect the content of what you're saying? If you make a blasphemous speech it's the blasphemy that gets you into trouble, not the speech? If you make a speech critical of the government it's the sedition that gets you into trouble, not the speech?
Likewise, the police aren't searching your shed if they pursue a criminal into it. Seeing the pot is incidental to capturing the fleeing suspect.
Not much of a right if there's a hidden "unless it's incidental to some other police work", we gave everyone in the crowd a pat down because had probable cause to believe someone had a hidden firearm and everything else we found was incidental. Because it's not a search unless we say it's a search.
Yes, I know I'm being extraordinarily difficult here. I'm just trying to prove there's a bit more complexity here than you could summarize in one or two sentences in the bill of rights. It's an executive summary without all the tiny little qualifiers and modifiers that says yes you have freedom of religion but not if your religion requires human sacrifices (remember, constitutional law trumps a normal law against murder). With a bit of sanity and common sense you can agree that it ought to be that way, but it's not actually there in the words of the law.
What about that is so complicated that the courts and the governor can't understand it? A cellphone is an effect and the Bill of rights says you need a warrant to search those. It offers no exceptions.
Emphasis mine. This is the problem with trying to make a laymen readable bill of rights, the first amendment doesn't offer any exception that says death threats are excluded either, but they are. If a cop pursues a fleeing suspect and he happens to hide in the shed where you're growing pot, you can quote the fourth amendment all you like but it won't help you. It's an exception even though none are offered. That said, I don't think searching through your cell phone should be one of them but trying to read the bill of rights as total absolutes is not likely to impress any judge.
The media, of course, is in love with walled gardens, and are in awe of Jobs' ability to sell them. It all makes total and complete sense.
Most people care about what it can do, not what it can't do and even less why it can't do it. A lot of Apple's competitor have gone with the "we do more, but we suck at it" approach and failed. I doubt most of Apple's customers even know that the garden has walls.
Oil is sold on markets. When oil is scarce, price goes up. As price goes up, a greater number of people buy less oil than they did before. After a certain price, other energy sources become relatively cheap enough that there is less reason to prefer oil. So the result of a long slow decrease in supply is a long slow increase in price and a long slow decrease in demand for oil, to be offset by alternative energy sources and other ways of doing things.
If "everyone" predicts that peak oil has hit and oil will only continue to become more valuable, you may start seeing hoarding and a market crash very rapidly. Many people need their car which runs on gasoline so short term their demand is inelastic, the price has to go way up for people to use significantly less.
The second thing is that things may never get as good as they used to be, eventually alternative sources may take over yes but only at prices where people have to drive less or poorer people not at all. Very impractical if where you live is not where you work and public transport sucks. So I wouldn't assume it'll all happen so smoothly...
"It's better to keep people poor, so they can be more environmentally friendly." Is that a fair summary of what you're trying to say ? This is generally not true poorer countries are generally not as environmentally friendly as rich ones.
As much as we like to be "green" in the western world I can assure you the people who drink water and eat a bowl of rice in their shack pollute a lot less per capita than the average westerner with his gadgets and gizmos, throwing lots of junk in the trash and burning plenty electricity and gas because we can. Factories are in general more polluting, but as far as consumption goes we're all between L and XXL. Add the required number of X's if you're American. That seven billion people might want a car has been one of the things that worry environmentalists.
Losing 20% market share in a single year is actually pretty startling.
Not surprising if you know how Apple does all their markets, they don't want to play at the low end. Look at the Macs for example, cheapest MacBook they sell is $999. Can you get good laptops for less than $999? Hell yeah. Does Apple want to sell those? Hell no. Same with the iPad, if you want a $199 or $299 tablet that's fine but it won't be an Apple tablet. iPods, iPhones, they've never been the cheapest on the market so it's inevitable that someone will release a cheap tablet and take the customers Apple don't want. Of course there are high-end tablets trying to go head to head with Apple as well, but those numbers alone don't say if they're succeeding or not. Just anecdotally I don't have that impression, of course that's not data.
Just on that note, the 18th century was primitive but not that primitive. They had cannons and other large, military equipment of far greater destructive power than a musketman. Even though it just takes one person to actually fire the cannon, anything crew-operated or too big to carry has never been considered covered by the second amendment.
Of course that still leaves assault rifles, light machine guns, combat shotguns, grenade launchers, sniper rifles and hand grenades up for debate since they're all individual weapons. But the second amendment don't give you a right to own tanks today anymore than owning cannons back then.
From what I gather, his point would be that not enough went into basic development of the web. To be honest, I'd be a bit inclined to agree with him as the adoption was massive but in the 1990s Netscape and Internet Explorer were making up proprietary tags by the dozen. Proprietary extensions like Java applets (1995), ActiveX (1996) and Flash (1996) was used to deliver many things the web couldn't deliver. Even now in 2011 we're still not anywhere near a standard <video> tag I can put on my website to show a clip. In an alternative timeline where the web was patented and an organization with funding were to develop it, perhaps we wouldn't have ended up in the mess where IE had 95% market share and almost nothing worked to a standard. Maybe there would be a proper licensing organization that'd ensure compliance and we wouldn't need Firefox to resurrect web standards from the dead.
The discussion reminds me a little of the BSD / LGPL / GPL / dual licensing debate. In that sense, the web was much like BSD, everyone could go off and make their own proprietary extensions and they did. Do you just trust the the pull will be strong enough that everybody wants to put things back into the standard? Or do you want it to be more like Java, if you want to call it Java you must support exactly these functions in this way or it's not Java. Yes, I know I'm mixing standards and implementations and possibly trademarks here, but many of the "do people contribute it back?" questions remain the same. There's no question that around IE5/6 the web was a "de facto" standard made by Microsoft, not whatever Tim-Berner Lee, W3C or a bunch of RFCs said.
Do you need a revenue stream? Well, maybe you don't but a lot of people need to make rent and put food on the table so no doubt it helps, even ideal organizations have paid workers. It's a little like dual licensing, of course if you go BSD or LGPL then people are free to make proprietary software, instantly that's of course a boost to the project. The question is, do those make up for the revenue you make on dual licensing to fund back into developing it? Or does it just slowly wither away while other proprietary products get better? Same with standards, they'd need to evolve otherwise companies would just ignore them or make their own. Honestly if it wasn't for open source software I think the open web standards would have died out in the early 2000s. Fortunately Firefox found their revenue stream...
No, there's not. There is no "interpretation" of the constitution.
"The way I read it is the only way of reading it"
Most teenagers could read it and tell you very directly what's meant and all agree.
Try it. When the results are anything but, I'm sure you'll argue they've all been poisoned by whatever.
The best example is the right to bare arms... it's not the right to bare hunting rifles.
Bear. The world is bear. And in 1939 the Supreme Court said:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to any preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
Then in 2010 they said:
(f) None of the Courtâ(TM)s precedents forecloses the Courtâ(TM)s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47â"54.
A sawed-off shotgun would be an excellent weapon for close self-defense, but it's not protected by the second amendment because it's not usable in a militia? They can pretend not to have changed their minds, but I would clearly say the Supreme Court of 1939 and the Supreme Court of 2010 had two vastly different interpretations of the second amendment. And if the supreme justices that are experts on constitutional law have had different interpretations, you can bet a bunch of teenagers will.
The USA is the only country I know of that does exclude evidence like that.
Norway would be the second country then. In fact, it's probably stronger than the US protection because an employer that made illegal recordings of his employers had the evidence rejected after filing charges for embezzlement. That one went to the supreme court, I couldn't find a similar case where the police used illegal methods because once that is known the charges would be dropped. Honestly I would be surprised if a modern rule of law didn't include something like that, otherwise there's a million loophole where the police can protect each other or hired thugs to provide evidence without any clear trail.
So when YouTube receives a takedown request obviously the intent is to block that content from being on YouTube. Therefore it should be YouTube's responsibility to act in the spirit of that ruling and find and block any and all variations of it. If they don't, the copyright holder should be able to sue them for not following the spirit of the order. Do you see how easily I took something reasonable and turned it into something completely unreasonable? That is what starts happening when you mess with things like that. What if the ISP screws up and blocks some other domain which they thought pointed to TPB but actually didn't? Not only can they be prosecuted for taking down too little, but also too much. That is why they should follow the order to the letter and let any errors be the fault of the court.
The whole of human achievement is pretty much the story of people doing things just to see if they can, or because it's interesting to them, or because it's never been done before.
Most of the achievements that actually push the world forward have been either to impress girls, make money or scientific curiosity. Hobbies don't tend to have the ambition to do any of those things, only to have personal value to you. It'd be a snowball's chance in hell if me watching TV or playing video games lead to anything like an achievement (or well, lately games have been giving me 100s of achievements for random crap). Sports or exercise might get me in better shape, but I'm not about to set any records at anything. I like to develop as a hobby, I think it's cool to be able to control a computer into doing things for me, like some people like to teach their dogs tricks only with less fur and far more obedient.
The only time I go "Why?" is when I feel you're making it extremely difficult for yourself for no particular reason I can think of, like can you scrub this floor with a toothbrush. Of course you can, but like... why? I fully understand when people want to do it themselves, like make their own pasta from wheat even though it's available in the store but not just arbitrarily limit myself to poor tools. Even within a hobby it's fun to do the best you can. Somehow using a javascript engine to run Linux sounds a bit like using the worst possible tool for the job. Yes, it's half "Wow, you can do that?" but the other half is "With a toothbrush? Seriously?"
I recall people complaining that their Vista system with 8GB of RAM had no free memory. This was true of systems running with 2 GB RAM and 16 GB RAM. This tells me that much of that was cache but that didn't stop people from claiming that Vista was a memory hog.
One thing is cache, leaving things in memory after you've used them. But early Vista had a very aggressive idea of SuperFetch, pre-caching applications and other resources it thought you might need in best Clippy-style. So no matter how much RAM you had, Vista would churn on your disk. I think most people mistakenly identified this as swapping because Vista was out of memory. From what I understand later SPs and Win7 dialed it back to far more reasonable levels.
True, but some of the damages award have also been nasty so they do care about winning or losing in the end. Nothing like losing $100m to a cringe-worthy patent.
That the Pirate Party was willing to negotiate was clear, it wasn't all that clear how well received they'd be. The groups mostly mirror traditional party blocks and PP didn't really fit in any of those. A lot of the mainstream press and probably representatives considered it to be one of the "loons" based on the name alone. If nobody wanted to give them time from the group, being in the group would be pointless. ALDE didn't offer much of anything from what I remember, about on par with just being an independent. Luckily they didn't have to make that choice, because the Greens and PP got along well.
Maybe it's somewhere down there on the list of reasons, but I doubt it'd even make the top ten. Lot more languages, lot more different cultures and once you cross that border it's a "foreign film". Some countries go a little better together like Scandinavia but there's us, the English, French, German, Spanish, Italian and then some with dubs of varying quality losing a lot of lip sync and intonation. Hollywood is the exception in penetrating most of Europe, not the norm. I would say it's due to two things. One, by already having the entire US market most Hollywood movies have solid budgets and look good. Pretty much everything breaking new ground in special effects has been from the US. The other is the gun crazy culture the US has making for good action movies, that other countries can watch without caring much for a bad dub. I just don't see any country in Europe making anything like Rambo or Terminator.
You can still see this in music, apart from the international superstars singing in English I got no clue what's popular in France or Germany or Spain or Italy or Finland right now. When I visit Germany they've barely heard of a Norwegian artist and I've barely heard one or two of theirs. Huge, huge domestic artists are complete nobodies one or two states over, by US standards. While I'm pretty sure a guy from California will have a lot more in common with what's popular in New York, Texas and Florida. If they go to cinemas they're likely to have much the same movies. The only movies youÂre likely to find everywhere here are those from Hollywood....
Which happen to coincide to a large degree with the copyright policies of the Swedish Pirate Party, probably because they have a MEP who is a member of the Green group.
It should be noted that the Greens were already fairly critical and that is why the Pirate Party joined it rather than be an independent, but I'm glad to see they're moving in the Pirate Party's direction. For all those that don't know the EP though, it has 736 representatives so the Greens in total are 7.5%, obviously fighting most for their green policies. They're a long way from changing EU politics, but hopefully they can at least be the critical voice.
I would say it's highly unlikely the business would respond fast enough unless it's very clear to them that you are in immediate risk of disappearing, so it's easier to just come clean and say it. Otherwise they'll typically redirect you to the yearly round of raises or some review of the management structure, long after your other offer has expired. If they have any clue they will ask why now, why such a hurry and you will end up showing your hand anyway. If you don't they'll still feel played when they learn that you leave, why not be straight with what it'd take to make you stay? The only time it actually works well is if you get what you want just like that.
Besides, sometimes unexpected things happen. I was switching jobs a couple years ago, I'd essentially made up my mind. But my current employer said "Isn't there anything we can do to keep you?" and I didn't want to say absolutely no way so I asked for a salary quite a lot higher than I'd been offered, thinking no way. Yes way, they matched and raised. Sadly for them the new job also upped their offer so it didn't work, but I got a completely unexpected - but very welcome - pay raise.