It will be efficient because we've evolved writing over thousands of years to match our own capabilities.
I don't believe that. Language hasn't evolved in a vacuum--political and other external influences have had the greatest impact and whatever influence our capabilities and brain function have had are probably very minimal by comparison.
All the stuff about most people not knowing about robots.txt and all that are true. It would be crazy to expect all internet users to understand all of the is and outs of security. BUT anyone who chooses to publish to the web, nat the very least needs to understand rule number one is "publishing on the world wide web means by default the world can see it." If they don't want the world to see it, they can choose to either not post it or learn about security.
One thing I don't think I've seen mentioned yet though, is that everyone is assuming that people choose to post the data in question. While this is probably true to a large part, it is by no means always the case. Some of the data may have been stolen due in no part to the victims (hacked website, disgruntled employee at a bank, etc) was then posted.
I expected the article to sensationalize things and blame Google but the author didn't remotlely do this. He made it explicitly clear:
Of course, there's no problem here with Google. There's a problem with users and administrators putting sensitive data out where Google can find it.
However, I think it would be a good thing for Google to choose to block certain search features like blocking the number range feature for numbers that clearly are credit card numbers or turn off the ability to search for quicken files. They should be able to do it in such a way that they can make things more secure without taking away legitimate usage. Does this solve the problem? Most certainly not, as you say the problem is that private information is publicly available--Google only makes it easier to find which is only a symptom. The thing is--making the information easier for people to find and do bad things with doesn't do anything to fix the problem either. By all means, try to fix the real problem, but there's nothing wrong with addressing the symptoms too--so long as every is clear that they are just symptoms.
I was going to say that this is why they don't print the full credit card number on receipts anymore but a quick audit of my wallet shows that of the dozen or so receipts I had, 3 printed the full credit card number on the receipt. Bad bad bad. There's really no reason for that.
Standard disclaimer language aside, I think it's clear Disney sees children for exactly what they are (to them): a direct connection to their parents' pocketbooks.
"The idea of copyright law is that, after a time, every work comes back into the hands of the public, where it can be reused, recycled, made part of new creativity without having to pay a fee or call in the lawyers. That's a great thing, the real genius of copyright."
Of course this was the intent, and most certainly the theory of copyright is ingenius. However, the current implementation is awful and does nothing of the sort. The length of copyrights is no longer a "limited-term" by any real definition. I finally remember what it's like--it's like an asymptote in math. The term keeps getting closer and closer to forever, but it will never literally be forever so people claim it is "limited." As a result, any semblance of balance has vanished. Copyright owners now get all the benefits of the monopoly on copying a work and society gets none of benefits of it entering the public domain.
Exactly. A victory for JibJab because the settlement means they can use it. But also a victory for Ludlow because the settlemet is only with JibJab. So to correct a reply:
Well, for a start, it means that we can get 'This Land' into PG, where it will be freely available for everyone.
It does not mean that everyone can use it, only JibJab. If anyone else uses it, we might be sued to or have to also sue Ludlow and either win or settle as well. The settlement means no determination was made over whether it was public domain or not. If ever there was a case to push forward on principle and not settle, this seems like it would have been one.
I do think topic is to some extent, typical MS bashing--which I always enjoy even though objectively it's often unfair.
But about not being Microsoft's fault, well it most certainly is. Certainly not a progammers fault, but they're richest company in the world. If they want to do business in other countries, they need to pay some one to check crap like this out. Taking the US version & running it through bablefish (ok I'm sure they did more than that) won't cut it and they'll get what they deserve.
Finally I'd like to add a note on genetics: Why is it so well accepted that races differ in physical abilities yet not in other realms of achievement? For example see the prevalence of blacks in top level sprinting and basketball competition. Is this a social phenomenon, asians just don't want to grow up to be basketball players? (Hint: no. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000BD23 5-1F76-1C75-9B81809EC588EF21 as reference.) If this is true, and indeed it appears so (which doesn't bode well for me, a 5'7" asian with little hope of making it to the NBA;-) then why is it so outlandish to suggest that analogous differences appear in cognitive abilities?
Off and on, I've wondered this as well. I can only assume that almost no one dares bring it up because it's a lightning rod issue. World-class sprinting seems to be a pretty conclusive proof and a purely empirical one a that. I imagine there is exactly zero academic research on the topic because it would never get funding. I would imagine though, that whatever differences there are in cognitive abilities among various races are subtle enough that all the other factors: education, experience, work ethic and whatever else would dominate. Cognitive abilities are a vastly more broad and nebulous thing where the physical ability is relatively specific--running fast or jumping high, so in terms of limiting achievement, I would bet (and hope) it's pretty irrelavent.
I prefer flat rate tax over flat tax because I think the rich should pay more in actual dollars, but the same rate/percentage. The sticky point there being percentage of what? Income can be a rather subjective thing and there come the loopholes again. The sales tax is something that is rather attractive to me as well because the it's easiest to do with no loopholes. X% of every dollar you spend goes to the government. You want to buy more stuff? You pay more taxes. I'm not sure about things like bread or milk, staples, but my inclination would be to include it on absolutely everything including services and used items. In that manner, the precentage would be the lowest and barely felt on the price of staples. I've been rather shocked that the sales tax/VAT has actually come up recently. Initially I heard a report that Kerry was in favore of it was well which I was hoping would lead to a pissing match of "I'm for it more than him," with whichever putz wins the election being stuck with it as a campaign promise. But alas either Kerry changed his mind (which could be possible) or I heard wrong. And now it seems Bush has backed down too. Not like campaign promises mean anything anyway.
If it's truly up to US to do for OURSELVES, then I guess you'd be in favor of evaporating all those government subsidies and corporate tax breaks and eliminating all tax loopholes so that every pays a fair and full share?
Yes I most certainly would. I believe our current tax system is complete garbage, an example of the absolute worst kind of bureaucracy possible. It's also an example of the corruptive influence of money--the tax advisors/preparers and lawyers (hint many lawmakers were/are lawyers) stand to lose too much money if the tax process were simplified, and the complexity obliterates any transparency giving the lawmakers more power.
I mean, after all, in a true conservative, capitalist society, shouldn't the same principles apply across the board?
Careful there. Don't forget tax rates are progressive. While the rich certainly are good at ducking as much taxes as possible, we do try to tax them at a higher rate then the poor. If you want to talk about strict fairness, then everyone should pay the same percentage of their income.
Shouldn't corporate America be able to fend for itself as well?
In theory yes. But there's theory and then there's reality. In reality, I believe wholly that you can't tax corporations, you can only get them to help tax their customers. Taxes are just another expense for a corporation and they price their goods and services to cover their expenses. I personally think it's just unproductive to even bother chasing them anyway they're always one step ahead--admit failure and move on. And the larger problem is that it is easier for corporations to move somewhere else--another state, another country it's all relatively trivial and they'll take their jobs with them.
Should we the people be forced to shoulder the costs of their ability to practice business?
Should we? No of course not. But it really doesn't matter, we the people always will. It's a bitter pill to swallow, but pretending otherwise is pointless.
Or the costs of their inability/incompetence/criminality?
I'm all in favor real prison time for people like Ken Lay.
Never gonna happen. Sorry but the're is just too much money at steak and the people who stand to lose the money have so much cash and power that they will squash--if nothing else, the lesson from this year's Olympics is that everything can go jus fine without actually having people live at the event. And if there were any question, you need only look at how insane the "contract" you're agreeing to by buying and using the ticket. Everyone really should read their tickets some time. "All pictures, sounds and descriptions of this event are the property of the NFL, MLB, NBA or whatever." So not only does that mean no video or still cameras, but if you tell your buddy about the game you watched with your own f#cking eyes, they own that.
Which is part of the reason that as a huge sports fan, I'm watching more and more high school and small Division III college games and less and less bigtime sports.
When I initially read about the coverage and NBC using 5 channels for the coverage this year, I thought "well it's about time we get to seem some benefit of all the media consolidation." I had no idea how wrong I would be. Still not enough live events, the primetime coverage is so edited and packaged that it drives me nuts. I realize gymnastics is popular, but do we really need to see it every night? I'm pretty sure they're going to start replaying & repackaging yet more gymnastics or bios of the gymnasts now that they're completely done.
This isn't new, I wrote a little rant about this four years ago, making the exact point of the hypocrisy of the interview is onk but not a diary and print is ok but not online.
I think it could hold up in court--like a EULA, TOS or similar, if the athletes want participate in the Olympics then they must agree to whatever rules the IOC makes. Of course this absolutely make sme sick because people who've dedicated their lives to being the best in the world have absolutely no real choice.
On the plus side, regarding "even after the games" clause, I don't really think it would matter. With literally thousands of athletes, I can't imagine the IOC actually would police this. Then again, they are a morally corrupt, rich and greed group who I could imagine would have no problem spending millions paying some one to do this. And there's probably not much they could do about it anyway. For the thousands who don't win medals, there's not much bite behind their bark. I can't imagine the "montary damages" would be terribly easy to prove. Personally if I won a medal, I'd post photos & descriptions to a blog and would just love to see the poor son of a bitch who came to recover the medal. They'd have to pry it from my cold dead fingers.
In my mind as far as embarrassment, this goes so far beyond anything the US basketball team could have done. I mean it's absolutely shameful for the greatest compilation of athletes in the world from a huge variety of sports, an event that only happens a couple of times a decade, has such pathetic attendence. I'm sure part of it is that the ticket prices are a fortune so ulitmately it's proably a result of greed. Anyone involved in the organizing and promotion of this Olympics should be embarassed. At one point, during a men's volleyball team, I remember thinking that there were about 20 athletes between the two teams, and it only looked like there were maybe 30-40 people in the stands. Aren't the athlete's families even there? If I somehow managed to make the Onlympics, I could just about guarantee 100 family and friends would be there to see me.
The Terms of Service the website owners agree to when they sign up for hosting with the ISP says they can and the courts have to recognize valid contracts agreed to by two parties. I can't imagine too many ISPs (though I'm sure there are few out there) who don't have a clause in the TOS that says you can't spam.
Personally for me, just making my tv/cable box/dvr able to quickly pull up IMDB pages or info would be a killer ap. I don't want to surf persay but I'm always trying to remember an actor, director, etc. & what else I've seen them in or whatever and I either run to the computer & search IMDB or try to remember it later (and usually don't).
I was wondering about Alec Baldwin and why we should give a damn what anyone from the fantasy land distorted reality called Hollywood would think.
I'm also suprised that he or others didn't protest this for the perceived environmental impact--"think of the fish!" Not that there aren't plenty of well informed, intelligent environmentalists but there's alwasy seems to be a ton of them who are just freaking morons who protest anything involves the environment. And those people always seem to have no problems getting attention and generating outrage. Nuclear power research being completely killed as an example.
This is the point I've been trying to make for awhile. Everyone always thinks it's all about the fact that spam is so cheap that it only takes a few clicks thru or purchases out of millions for them to be profitable. If this were really the case, spam would probably be about gone already because between filters at the ISP and user level and the fact the in my life, I know exactly zero people who have bought something from spam. It's not about response rate--spammers get paid to send the spam and manage to convince greedy people that if only 1% of a million buy it they'll be rich. They also get paid by selling their lists of email addresses. Think about it--if you send out a million spams, you'll get X% back as undeliverable and can update you database. In this manner they can charge a "business" to send out their "targetted marketing message" and throw in a few thousand randomly generated addresses. The undeliverables get pulled, lather rince repeat. Turn around & sell the database. And when times are slow, just send a blank message or gibberish or whatever to keep testing for new addresses. This is why you get spam with no message sometimes.
I'm not quite sure if I'm being facetious or not but...if what Hollywood fears most is losing money then why is it that that movies so often officially lose money. Granted maybe it's about minimizing taxes or something and whether a film loses money doesn't mean the individuals or investors for that matter lose it.
I think if Hollywood was so afraid of losing money they would make more of the smaller films moderate casts and minimal expenses. I think Hollywood's fear of losing money pales in comparison to it's lust to make boatloads of it. That's why there's all the blockbusters with the big budgets, because if they are enormous sucesses, the money will flow and most are willing to take the risk of failure for the possibly of a huge success.
That said I think the biggest factor isn't money at all but power & ego and control. Sure money helps but it's the only way to get it. Why do the studios spend so much lobbying for the academy awards? They don't really make all that much more money for anyone, but it's all about the juice. Look at me! Look what I did!
If it makes you feel better, we do have some similar problems, though not nearly as serious with our Mac setup. Dual G4 Macs, a Rourke SAN and Media100. Rourke blames OS X & Media100, Media100 Blames OS X & Rourke, Apple blames Media100 & Rourke. Round and round we go.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't believe that. Language hasn't evolved in a vacuum--political and other external influences have had the greatest impact and whatever influence our capabilities and brain function have had are probably very minimal by comparison.
One thing I don't think I've seen mentioned yet though, is that everyone is assuming that people choose to post the data in question. While this is probably true to a large part, it is by no means always the case. Some of the data may have been stolen due in no part to the victims (hacked website, disgruntled employee at a bank, etc) was then posted.
I was going to say that this is why they don't print the full credit card number on receipts anymore but a quick audit of my wallet shows that of the dozen or so receipts I had, 3 printed the full credit card number on the receipt. Bad bad bad. There's really no reason for that.
Standard disclaimer language aside, I think it's clear Disney sees children for exactly what they are (to them): a direct connection to their parents' pocketbooks.
Well, for a start, it means that we can get 'This Land' into PG, where it will be freely available for everyone.
It does not mean that everyone can use it, only JibJab. If anyone else uses it, we might be sued to or have to also sue Ludlow and either win or settle as well. The settlement means no determination was made over whether it was public domain or not. If ever there was a case to push forward on principle and not settle, this seems like it would have been one.
But about not being Microsoft's fault, well it most certainly is. Certainly not a progammers fault, but they're richest company in the world. If they want to do business in other countries, they need to pay some one to check crap like this out. Taking the US version & running it through bablefish (ok I'm sure they did more than that) won't cut it and they'll get what they deserve.
Off and on, I've wondered this as well. I can only assume that almost no one dares bring it up because it's a lightning rod issue. World-class sprinting seems to be a pretty conclusive proof and a purely empirical one a that. I imagine there is exactly zero academic research on the topic because it would never get funding. I would imagine though, that whatever differences there are in cognitive abilities among various races are subtle enough that all the other factors: education, experience, work ethic and whatever else would dominate. Cognitive abilities are a vastly more broad and nebulous thing where the physical ability is relatively specific--running fast or jumping high, so in terms of limiting achievement, I would bet (and hope) it's pretty irrelavent.
If it's truly up to US to do for OURSELVES, then I guess you'd be in favor of evaporating all those government subsidies and corporate tax breaks and eliminating all tax loopholes so that every pays a fair and full share?
Yes I most certainly would. I believe our current tax system is complete garbage, an example of the absolute worst kind of bureaucracy possible. It's also an example of the corruptive influence of money--the tax advisors/preparers and lawyers (hint many lawmakers were/are lawyers) stand to lose too much money if the tax process were simplified, and the complexity obliterates any transparency giving the lawmakers more power.
I mean, after all, in a true conservative, capitalist society, shouldn't the same principles apply across the board?
Careful there. Don't forget tax rates are progressive. While the rich certainly are good at ducking as much taxes as possible, we do try to tax them at a higher rate then the poor. If you want to talk about strict fairness, then everyone should pay the same percentage of their income.
Shouldn't corporate America be able to fend for itself as well?
In theory yes. But there's theory and then there's reality. In reality, I believe wholly that you can't tax corporations, you can only get them to help tax their customers. Taxes are just another expense for a corporation and they price their goods and services to cover their expenses. I personally think it's just unproductive to even bother chasing them anyway they're always one step ahead--admit failure and move on. And the larger problem is that it is easier for corporations to move somewhere else--another state, another country it's all relatively trivial and they'll take their jobs with them.
Should we the people be forced to shoulder the costs of their ability to practice business?
Should we? No of course not. But it really doesn't matter, we the people always will. It's a bitter pill to swallow, but pretending otherwise is pointless.
Or the costs of their inability/incompetence/criminality?
I'm all in favor real prison time for people like Ken Lay.
Which is part of the reason that as a huge sports fan, I'm watching more and more high school and small Division III college games and less and less bigtime sports.
When I initially read about the coverage and NBC using 5 channels for the coverage this year, I thought "well it's about time we get to seem some benefit of all the media consolidation." I had no idea how wrong I would be. Still not enough live events, the primetime coverage is so edited and packaged that it drives me nuts. I realize gymnastics is popular, but do we really need to see it every night? I'm pretty sure they're going to start replaying & repackaging yet more gymnastics or bios of the gymnasts now that they're completely done.
This isn't new, I wrote a little rant about this four years ago, making the exact point of the hypocrisy of the interview is onk but not a diary and print is ok but not online.
On the plus side, regarding "even after the games" clause, I don't really think it would matter. With literally thousands of athletes, I can't imagine the IOC actually would police this. Then again, they are a morally corrupt, rich and greed group who I could imagine would have no problem spending millions paying some one to do this. And there's probably not much they could do about it anyway. For the thousands who don't win medals, there's not much bite behind their bark. I can't imagine the "montary damages" would be terribly easy to prove. Personally if I won a medal, I'd post photos & descriptions to a blog and would just love to see the poor son of a bitch who came to recover the medal. They'd have to pry it from my cold dead fingers.
In my mind as far as embarrassment, this goes so far beyond anything the US basketball team could have done. I mean it's absolutely shameful for the greatest compilation of athletes in the world from a huge variety of sports, an event that only happens a couple of times a decade, has such pathetic attendence. I'm sure part of it is that the ticket prices are a fortune so ulitmately it's proably a result of greed. Anyone involved in the organizing and promotion of this Olympics should be embarassed. At one point, during a men's volleyball team, I remember thinking that there were about 20 athletes between the two teams, and it only looked like there were maybe 30-40 people in the stands. Aren't the athlete's families even there? If I somehow managed to make the Onlympics, I could just about guarantee 100 family and friends would be there to see me.
The Terms of Service the website owners agree to when they sign up for hosting with the ISP says they can and the courts have to recognize valid contracts agreed to by two parties. I can't imagine too many ISPs (though I'm sure there are few out there) who don't have a clause in the TOS that says you can't spam.
Personally for me, just making my tv/cable box/dvr able to quickly pull up IMDB pages or info would be a killer ap. I don't want to surf persay but I'm always trying to remember an actor, director, etc. & what else I've seen them in or whatever and I either run to the computer & search IMDB or try to remember it later (and usually don't).
I'm also suprised that he or others didn't protest this for the perceived environmental impact--"think of the fish!" Not that there aren't plenty of well informed, intelligent environmentalists but there's alwasy seems to be a ton of them who are just freaking morons who protest anything involves the environment. And those people always seem to have no problems getting attention and generating outrage. Nuclear power research being completely killed as an example.
This is the point I've been trying to make for awhile. Everyone always thinks it's all about the fact that spam is so cheap that it only takes a few clicks thru or purchases out of millions for them to be profitable. If this were really the case, spam would probably be about gone already because between filters at the ISP and user level and the fact the in my life, I know exactly zero people who have bought something from spam. It's not about response rate--spammers get paid to send the spam and manage to convince greedy people that if only 1% of a million buy it they'll be rich. They also get paid by selling their lists of email addresses. Think about it--if you send out a million spams, you'll get X% back as undeliverable and can update you database. In this manner they can charge a "business" to send out their "targetted marketing message" and throw in a few thousand randomly generated addresses. The undeliverables get pulled, lather rince repeat. Turn around & sell the database. And when times are slow, just send a blank message or gibberish or whatever to keep testing for new addresses. This is why you get spam with no message sometimes.
c) I hate journalists that try to leave their mark on the world by afflicting the language.
Or maybe whose is bigger?
I think if Hollywood was so afraid of losing money they would make more of the smaller films moderate casts and minimal expenses. I think Hollywood's fear of losing money pales in comparison to it's lust to make boatloads of it. That's why there's all the blockbusters with the big budgets, because if they are enormous sucesses, the money will flow and most are willing to take the risk of failure for the possibly of a huge success.
That said I think the biggest factor isn't money at all but power & ego and control. Sure money helps but it's the only way to get it. Why do the studios spend so much lobbying for the academy awards? They don't really make all that much more money for anyone, but it's all about the juice. Look at me! Look what I did!
Consider yourself lucky. Apparently we have an "open door" policy around here that seems to only apply to the portals to hell.
If it makes you feel better, we do have some similar problems, though not nearly as serious with our Mac setup. Dual G4 Macs, a Rourke SAN and Media100. Rourke blames OS X & Media100, Media100 Blames OS X & Rourke, Apple blames Media100 & Rourke. Round and round we go.