For me, the problem is when "we" all agree that piracy is a problem.
Is it really?
Isn't Hollywood making record money? What's the problem, again?
Secondly, if there's no solution to a problem, there's no problem. Say there's a rudeness epidemic. Maybe, maybe not. But if it can't be solved other than by assigning each citizen a personal minder, there's no (practical) solution.
Similarly, if a "problem" can't be solved other than by turning the country into a police state or otherwise trampling freedoms hitherto thought inviolable, that's not really a solution, and hence, there's no (real) problem in the first place that needs to be solved.
Somebody once said the Constitution is whatever (a majority of) the Supreme Court says it is. So, by that standard, yes, you're right.
On the other hand, I was speaking normatively.
I.e., "I believe the 1st amendment amended the copyright clause, and we should promote this belief."
Supreme Court justices don't exist in a vacuum. They are influenced by the world around them, including the New York Times and New York Times Magazine. Once something spreads in a culture, it'll affect the Supreme Court too.
So, if you're for strong 1st amendment protections, spread this meme. (Also, the copyright laws allow for book-burning.)
All throughout this campaign we've have news stories on TV where whey show Candidate XYZ's ad (in toto).
How's it OK to show all 30 seconds of an ad (100%), but not OK to show.5 out of 20 minutes (2.5%)?
The TV news couldn't exist for a day without violating somebody's copyright. (Think about it: when somebody gets up and holds a press conference, who holds the copyright to that? Hint-who holds the copyright to a live music performance?) Not that there's anything at all wrong with that.
Your last sentence threw a wrench in the works, otherwise I would have come on much harder:
> fair use for what purpose? Well, basically for the main purpose for which the 1st amendment was meant: namely, political speech.
If there's any purpose at all to free speech as enshrined in the Bill of Rights, it's for political speech. Quoting a newsclip verbatim regarding one's political opponent seems to be at the very heart of what speech is supposed to be for--talking about politics. Think about it: you just fought a revolution against the Brits, and the new laws are going to ban political pamphleteering of the kinds that won the revolution?
Finally, the copyright clause is part of the original constitution. When an amendment passes, it amends all parts of the Constitution necessary for it to function. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_implied_repeal) The 1st amendment amends the original constitution. Ergo, the 1st amendment amends and (trumps) the copyright clause.
In case you haven't been listening to the debates, he's already stated that his ideal would be one thing, but given the reality of how people have paid into the Social Security and other systems, there needs to be an orderly transition. And he's said he wouldn't cut things off for people dependent on those programs, and (in his view) the only way to save them is to make deep cuts now elsewhere (such as overseas spending).
Regarding ending the Fed, that's another ideal, but as far as a policy proposal, all he wants to do is legalize the use of gold and silver as currency (by removing the tax on their transfer--you don't get hit with a sales tax when you give someone a $20 bill).
As for other stuff, there's plenty of things where a majority can be cobbled together for individual votes: -Repeal of onerous surveillance laws. Dems vote for this stuff because they're afraid of the GOP calling them weaklings. If you have a GOP president calling for its repeal, suddenly, it's a whole new game. -No bailouts: Given how hard Goldman Sachs had to twist arms and threaten to get the previous bailouts, I think it will be easy to get a no-bailouts majority. -Border enforcement: He's in favor of vigorous border enforcement. I think he could get the votes for that. -Stopping busts of medical marijuana stores: He doesn't need the Congress for that. Obama was already doing that before he changed tack and started busting them again.
In a situation in which he wins the election, that itself would be a manifestation of a political mandate, which many in Congress would bow to, the notorious go-with-the-crowd type that they are.
For example, after the election of Reagan (also deemed a wild extremist), he had a Democratic Congress to work with, but he still got his programs through because a majority of legislators saw which way the wind was blowing.
Same as how GW Bush got his stuff approved (including 2 wars, Patriot Act, and more).
He is polling a few points behind the President, and has been for a while in a lot of polls.
In case you haven't been paying attention, Congress hasn't passed a budget in how long?
Regarding the points you actually mentioned:
-teachers are paid out of local property taxes. -police are paid by cities or states (highway patrol).
Although a sudden unavailability of subsidies for school meals would hurt, the current system whereby the feds take local money, bring it to Washington, take x% out to pay for the Dept. of Education's building and employees, and then dole it right back to the states is nutty.
Are you talking about the notification rectangle with rounded corners and black background that appears in a corner of the screen in Ubuntu?
What's so annoying about that is that if you (intuitively) go towards it to hover over it or click on it to get more information (or to actually bring the program that generated the notice to the foreground), the notification disappears! Nuts!
Your first point may or may not be true according to the law.
But the second (regarding his house and cars) is totally irrelevant. Are you actually proposing that that he be prosecuted because he bought a big house?
And the 3rd point: that he had prior convictions. OK, so he was convicted of something before, now that (in itself) calls for another round of convictions?
What about threatening to put people in cages with rapists? Does that qualify as making the threateners "vile-evildoers"? (The Obama administration is helping the British government find the whistleblower who leaked the Climategate emails so they can be sent to prison.)
It makes no sense to throw in the line about India being the "world's largest democracy".
All that that means is that India holds elections, and that it has a lot of people.
It doesn't mean that (as in other 3rd world democracies): -India has a guarantee of freedom of speech like in the US -India has constitutional protections for "life, liberty, and property" -You can refuse to testify against yourself (an important protection against torture) -The government doesn't censor (plenty of stories on RIM, etc., on Slashdot re: that)
The word you're looking for is "liberal democracy", i.e., a democracy in which an emphasis is placed on liberty.
What are you talking about? Good on you for having great health.
Meanwhile plenty of geeks suffer from computer-related health problems. The most common up to now has been carpal tunnel or repetitive stress syndrome.
The advent of touchscreens means people are bending their necks downward for extended periods. For many/most it may not be a problem.
For others, it can result in cervical spondylosis, a debilitating condition of the neck.
The reason for such articles is to encourage people to take preventive measures. One of the best is Workrave, a break reminder program for Win and Lin. Click to install. (Deb/Ub/Mint)
Obviously, I'd suppose you still needed a few lexicographers to come up with the system.
And to maintain it, right?
The problem seems to be when you've put 95% of lexicographers out of a job, who's going to train the next bunch, and will it be cost-effective at a university level to have a graduate program in such for 1 or 2 individuals?
1) Namecheap offers services beyond domain reg, but it doesn't throw it in your face constantly. I.e., you or a client can actually complete a registration without accidentally buying 3 other things.
2) Namecheap is quite fast. I tried to register multiple domains with Moniker. It schedules the registrations as a job, and it completes a few minutes later. By contrast, Namecheap completes multiple domain registrations on the fly, quite quickly, one after the other (a few seconds for each).
3) The interface is pretty easy to use while also allowing you to specify all the details you would normally need to. It has a "quick MX" setting for the most-often set mail options.
Well, for one thing, it's not quite as deterministic as "I have celiac, and all my progeny will have it, too".
I'm learning more about it, but it seems there is a combination of genetic and environmental factors that determine whether one will become celiac. What exactly are those factors? Wheat too early/too late? High-gluten wheat as a baby? Scientists don't quite know yet.
Also, there was some research in Australia whereby the body will be inhibiting from wigging out when encountering gluten. Such research, of course, takes money.
Speaking as a customer of BigCorp X, where there's a battle between the big, bad meanies of IT and the hip, 20-somethings with their fashionable iWhatever du jour which they can't live without, and the 30, 40, and 50-somethings who are trying to mimic them:
I'd rather your corp have a locked-down corporate environment in which data security is respected and my credit card and other personal information (including purchase history) is safe. Or, as a vendor/partner, the confidential information I had shared with you.
I'll take the risk that some hipster isn't going to come up with an earth-shattering revelation about which color of gradient fill should be used on the company website because he was shackled to his desk instead of breathing free as a bird sprawled out on the office roof with his iPad.
Most breakins occur through the weakest link in security, which is exactly what uncontrolled used of these gadgets represent.
The reason is simply that it's good enough, and there's no compelling reason to change.
Why is the steering wheel on the left in the US?
Should new car companies like Tesla change it to the right just for the sake of it?
Assume it's better on the right (for some reason). It still wouldn't make sense to change, because people are used to the left, and that's good enough.
The GUI shortcuts are arguably better with Ctrl because Ctrl on most keyboards is at the corners, thereby making it easier to access.
Note: if all the buttons had been on the left from the beginning, and shortcuts with Alt, I would have said leave it as it is.
Also: Please do answer this-- are you using the Dvorak keyboard layout? If not, why not?
I might be misunderstanding, but it seems you're using a car analogy in favor of Gnome3, which is a little ironic.
In previous weekly discussions on Gno/buntu (Gnome3 and Unity), the car analogy has been used to ask why the need to change?
As you state, the accelerator is on the right, brake on the left, steering via the wheel. It's been that way for a long time. It would be stupid to make a change just for the sake of it, even though you might argue the new would would be objectively the same or even better.
So with a perfectly usable desktop interface which people have been using since 1995, what was the need to change? It would be like changing left-hand driver side to right-hand (like in England). Objectively, it's the same, maybe it's better, but what's the point? Other than to be like England (i.e., the Mac).
This was borne out in the article, where everybody instantly knew how to use KDE, because they've already been using it (the desktop/start menu metaphor) for 15 years.
Slashdot Mirror
For me, the problem is when "we" all agree that piracy is a problem.
Is it really?
Isn't Hollywood making record money? What's the problem, again?
Secondly, if there's no solution to a problem, there's no problem. Say there's a rudeness epidemic. Maybe, maybe not. But if it can't be solved other than by assigning each citizen a personal minder, there's no (practical) solution.
Similarly, if a "problem" can't be solved other than by turning the country into a police state or otherwise trampling freedoms hitherto thought inviolable, that's not really a solution, and hence, there's no (real) problem in the first place that needs to be solved.
Somebody once said the Constitution is whatever (a majority of) the Supreme Court says it is. So, by that standard, yes, you're right.
On the other hand, I was speaking normatively.
I.e., "I believe the 1st amendment amended the copyright clause, and we should promote this belief."
Supreme Court justices don't exist in a vacuum. They are influenced by the world around them, including the New York Times and New York Times Magazine. Once something spreads in a culture, it'll affect the Supreme Court too.
So, if you're for strong 1st amendment protections, spread this meme. (Also, the copyright laws allow for book-burning.)
Cry me a river on the copyright violation.
All throughout this campaign we've have news stories on TV where whey show Candidate XYZ's ad (in toto).
How's it OK to show all 30 seconds of an ad (100%), but not OK to show .5 out of 20 minutes (2.5%)?
The TV news couldn't exist for a day without violating somebody's copyright. (Think about it: when somebody gets up and holds a press conference, who holds the copyright to that? Hint-who holds the copyright to a live music performance?) Not that there's anything at all wrong with that.
Your last sentence threw a wrench in the works, otherwise I would have come on much harder:
> fair use for what purpose?
Well, basically for the main purpose for which the 1st amendment was meant: namely, political speech.
If there's any purpose at all to free speech as enshrined in the Bill of Rights, it's for political speech. Quoting a newsclip verbatim regarding one's political opponent seems to be at the very heart of what speech is supposed to be for--talking about politics. Think about it: you just fought a revolution against the Brits, and the new laws are going to ban political pamphleteering of the kinds that won the revolution?
Finally, the copyright clause is part of the original constitution. When an amendment passes, it amends all parts of the Constitution necessary for it to function. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_implied_repeal) The 1st amendment amends the original constitution. Ergo, the 1st amendment amends and (trumps) the copyright clause.
This is an important point, and I'd like to ask mods to mod this up, and spread it wide: the 1st amendment amends the copyright clause.
In case you haven't been listening to the debates, he's already stated that his ideal would be one thing, but given the reality of how people have paid into the Social Security and other systems, there needs to be an orderly transition. And he's said he wouldn't cut things off for people dependent on those programs, and (in his view) the only way to save them is to make deep cuts now elsewhere (such as overseas spending).
Regarding ending the Fed, that's another ideal, but as far as a policy proposal, all he wants to do is legalize the use of gold and silver as currency (by removing the tax on their transfer--you don't get hit with a sales tax when you give someone a $20 bill).
As for other stuff, there's plenty of things where a majority can be cobbled together for individual votes:
-Repeal of onerous surveillance laws. Dems vote for this stuff because they're afraid of the GOP calling them weaklings. If you have a GOP president calling for its repeal, suddenly, it's a whole new game.
-No bailouts: Given how hard Goldman Sachs had to twist arms and threaten to get the previous bailouts, I think it will be easy to get a no-bailouts majority.
-Border enforcement: He's in favor of vigorous border enforcement. I think he could get the votes for that.
-Stopping busts of medical marijuana stores: He doesn't need the Congress for that. Obama was already doing that before he changed tack and started busting them again.
In a situation in which he wins the election, that itself would be a manifestation of a political mandate, which many in Congress would bow to, the notorious go-with-the-crowd type that they are.
For example, after the election of Reagan (also deemed a wild extremist), he had a Democratic Congress to work with, but he still got his programs through because a majority of legislators saw which way the wind was blowing.
Same as how GW Bush got his stuff approved (including 2 wars, Patriot Act, and more).
He is polling a few points behind the President, and has been for a while in a lot of polls.
In case you haven't been paying attention, Congress hasn't passed a budget in how long?
Regarding the points you actually mentioned:
-teachers are paid out of local property taxes.
-police are paid by cities or states (highway patrol).
Although a sudden unavailability of subsidies for school meals would hurt, the current system whereby the feds take local money, bring it to Washington, take x% out to pay for the Dept. of Education's building and employees, and then dole it right back to the states is nutty.
Well, that also works in Gnome2/Ubuntu 10.04. (Alt+F2 and type "pres")
Are you talking about the notification rectangle with rounded corners and black background that appears in a corner of the screen in Ubuntu?
What's so annoying about that is that if you (intuitively) go towards it to hover over it or click on it to get more information (or to actually bring the program that generated the notice to the foreground), the notification disappears! Nuts!
Is there a way to get 2 panels with Cinnamon, like Gnome2?
I prefer that because it gives more space for programs in the bottom panel, and stuff (clocks, shortcuts, etc.) in the top panel.
Your first point may or may not be true according to the law.
But the second (regarding his house and cars) is totally irrelevant. Are you actually proposing that that he be prosecuted because he bought a big house?
And the 3rd point: that he had prior convictions. OK, so he was convicted of something before, now that (in itself) calls for another round of convictions?
>Do you think evolution works like an X-Men comic?
Ahem, there wouldn't happen to be a group of humans who have adapted to being accustomed to higher levels of sun and heat, would there?
Moderately bad scenario: Nordic peoples have to apply some sunscreen.
Worst case scenario: Nordic populations die off, to be replaced by Africans, of whom there are plenty.
Life goes on...
>Googles and Microsofts only bother to look at less than 1% of resume submissions.
Uhm, they have to look at a resume at once to decide if they want to "look" at it, right?
Or do they just randomly throw away 99 resumes out of a 100?
Increasingly, "democracies" are passing all sorts of stuff which is repugnant the tradition of liberty:
-Panopticon street cameras in England
-Patriot Act in the US
-Web censorship and the RIM affair in India
What's needed is an emphasis on "liberal democracies", democracies that promote (classical) liberal values.
Very interesting. Any links?
What about threatening to put people in cages with rapists? Does that qualify as making the threateners "vile-evildoers"? (The Obama administration is helping the British government find the whistleblower who leaked the Climategate emails so they can be sent to prison.)
It makes no sense to throw in the line about India being the "world's largest democracy".
All that that means is that India holds elections, and that it has a lot of people.
It doesn't mean that (as in other 3rd world democracies):
-India has a guarantee of freedom of speech like in the US
-India has constitutional protections for "life, liberty, and property"
-You can refuse to testify against yourself (an important protection against torture)
-The government doesn't censor (plenty of stories on RIM, etc., on Slashdot re: that)
The word you're looking for is "liberal democracy", i.e., a democracy in which an emphasis is placed on liberty.
What are you talking about? Good on you for having great health.
Meanwhile plenty of geeks suffer from computer-related health problems. The most common up to now has been carpal tunnel or repetitive stress syndrome.
The advent of touchscreens means people are bending their necks downward for extended periods. For many/most it may not be a problem.
For others, it can result in cervical spondylosis, a debilitating condition of the neck.
The reason for such articles is to encourage people to take preventive measures. One of the best is Workrave, a break reminder program for Win and Lin. Click to install. (Deb/Ub/Mint)
Obviously, I'd suppose you still needed a few lexicographers to come up with the system.
And to maintain it, right?
The problem seems to be when you've put 95% of lexicographers out of a job, who's going to train the next bunch, and will it be cost-effective at a university level to have a graduate program in such for 1 or 2 individuals?
Here are three reasons to use Namecheap:
1) Namecheap offers services beyond domain reg, but it doesn't throw it in your face constantly. I.e., you or a client can actually complete a registration without accidentally buying 3 other things.
2) Namecheap is quite fast. I tried to register multiple domains with Moniker. It schedules the registrations as a job, and it completes a few minutes later. By contrast, Namecheap completes multiple domain registrations on the fly, quite quickly, one after the other (a few seconds for each).
3) The interface is pretty easy to use while also allowing you to specify all the details you would normally need to. It has a "quick MX" setting for the most-often set mail options.
If it's too dark to work at 6:00 AM, why not start work at 7?
If you say your boss wouldn't let you, how do you know?
It seems really backward to fix scheduling problems at the level of the Congress.
Well, for one thing, it's not quite as deterministic as "I have celiac, and all my progeny will have it, too".
I'm learning more about it, but it seems there is a combination of genetic and environmental factors that determine whether one will become celiac. What exactly are those factors? Wheat too early/too late? High-gluten wheat as a baby? Scientists don't quite know yet.
Also, there was some research in Australia whereby the body will be inhibiting from wigging out when encountering gluten. Such research, of course, takes money.
Speaking as a customer of BigCorp X, where there's a battle between the big, bad meanies of IT and the hip, 20-somethings with their fashionable iWhatever du jour which they can't live without, and the 30, 40, and 50-somethings who are trying to mimic them:
I'd rather your corp have a locked-down corporate environment in which data security is respected and my credit card and other personal information (including purchase history) is safe. Or, as a vendor/partner, the confidential information I had shared with you.
I'll take the risk that some hipster isn't going to come up with an earth-shattering revelation about which color of gradient fill should be used on the company website because he was shackled to his desk instead of breathing free as a bird sprawled out on the office roof with his iPad.
Most breakins occur through the weakest link in security, which is exactly what uncontrolled used of these gadgets represent.
The reason is simply that it's good enough, and there's no compelling reason to change.
Why is the steering wheel on the left in the US?
Should new car companies like Tesla change it to the right just for the sake of it?
Assume it's better on the right (for some reason). It still wouldn't make sense to change, because people are used to the left, and that's good enough.
The GUI shortcuts are arguably better with Ctrl because Ctrl on most keyboards is at the corners, thereby making it easier to access.
Note: if all the buttons had been on the left from the beginning, and shortcuts with Alt, I would have said leave it as it is.
Also: Please do answer this-- are you using the Dvorak keyboard layout? If not, why not?
I might be misunderstanding, but it seems you're using a car analogy in favor of Gnome3, which is a little ironic.
In previous weekly discussions on Gno/buntu (Gnome3 and Unity), the car analogy has been used to ask why the need to change?
As you state, the accelerator is on the right, brake on the left, steering via the wheel. It's been that way for a long time. It would be stupid to make a change just for the sake of it, even though you might argue the new would would be objectively the same or even better.
So with a perfectly usable desktop interface which people have been using since 1995, what was the need to change? It would be like changing left-hand driver side to right-hand (like in England). Objectively, it's the same, maybe it's better, but what's the point? Other than to be like England (i.e., the Mac).
This was borne out in the article, where everybody instantly knew how to use KDE, because they've already been using it (the desktop/start menu metaphor) for 15 years.