This is unrelated to the original topic, but you need to report said safety violations to OSHA. As long as you continue to be employed by the company OSHA will investigate, and will find violations. Few people realize that the law requires weekly safety meetings for example. OSHA will not investigate if you have ceased employment.
Safety is not the issue, T2 aside, Nitrogen is significantly safer than any other fuel source currently on the books. It is totally inert, easy to store, and full emersion in the event of an accident is really no likely. The real question is efficiency. How much energy does it take to create, store and transport, and what is the power to weight ratio. It is the hidden costs of alternative energies that is the problem. If it requires three times as much energy to produce the same effect, even given the higher efficiency of macro energy production, it's not viable.
The reason for NDAs at the interview stage is the current trend to hire programmers on an independent contractor basis. If you are asked to sign a NDA at the interview stage, you are being hired for a specific project. This means you are looking at short term employment and limited benefits. This is not an interview, but a consultation. If a prospective employer requests a NDA, you should ask for a consultation fee.
You miss the point, an os written in a more structured language is likely to have less bugs. It's not about ease of use, it's about stability and compatibility
This is actually standard for most ISPs. People using LANs are expected to pay for LAN accounts. This doesn't mean that they will track you down, or disconnect you, but they encourage you to pay for what you're getting. Dial up accounts don't pay for themselves, and are just used as leverage when marketing other services.
This is a standard publishing contract. You always give limited copyright to a publisher or in this case a University, but that is not the same thing as giving up your copyright. Every person whose work is listed in this data base without their permission, has a legal obligation to sue them for copyright infringement.
The problem is, as usual, Jon is jumping on a bandwagon that left 50 years ago. The academic community has been under the thumb of the "military industrial complex" since the fifties, everybody vying for the coveted research grant.
As usual, this "paradigm shift" is accompanied by little or no public debate over the propriety of university research (often funded in part by taxpayers) becoming increasingly tailored to corporate clout. Congress isn't paying attention either; it's much too busy trying to pass laws requiring local libraries to keep Johnny off the Playboy Web site.
The reason that there is little public debate, is because this "paradigm shift" is mostly illusionary. Universities in the United States, have always been for profit organizations. Adding patents to the tuitions, alumni contributions and government research grants just isn't that big an issue. And don't confuse the University making money with the researchers making money. Yes they will continue to lie and cheat to get the lion share of research funds, but this is nothing new. Neither is the corporate encroachment anything new, 25 years ago, when I was a student at CSUN, the big issue was the "Foundation", the corporation that owned all the facilities (ie:book store, cafeteria) had interests and connections with the South African Apartheid.
The problem I have with post generation x activist, is that thy reflect the whole post generation x culture. No focus. They appear to have no clearly defined issues, goals or any intelligent solutions. If they do, they have certainly failed to get this across. Civil disobedience is all well and good, as long as you have issues that justify it, and as long as the civil disobedience brings attention to the issues. The actions of these protestors, are only bringing attention to the protestors. This is not only ineffectual, it is counter productive. I applaud them for wanting to get involved, but they need to get their act together.
I really hate it when a person takes a word out of context, and redefines it to further their own ends, or as in this case, sell a book. The term "libertarian" refers to the Libertarian Party, a political party dedicated to social Darwinism and laissez-faire economics, who are opposed to the concept of domestic government. It is usually bad to generalize about any group as large as the internet or engineering community, but to try to shove them all into a pigeon hole as small as a fringe political party, and then be surprised that they don't conform to the precepts of that pigeon hole is just stupid, and evidence of poor research and fuzzy thinking. Not all social Darwinists are libertarians, not all anarchists are libertarians, nor all laissez-faire economists. There also is no reason to believe that the concept of the rights of the individual, and communal cooperation are mutually exclusive. It is the basis of our constitution. On the other hand, libertarians, anarchist, the internet and engineering communities do live in a fantasy world. As long as their are people who seek power and personal wealth, there will be governments. Whether they are political in nature, or corporate, someone will make the decisions that effect the lives of the individual. The way I see it, with a political government, at least you get the illusion of a say. There is no such thing as a benevolent corporation.
I wonder why Apple would do such a thing which only, in the end, alienates their own customer base.
I keep saying this, but nobody listens. In truth the fault lies with the Apple share holders, who keep putting up with the policies of a control freak who appears set on putting his company out of business.
Good argument, but explain this, why do the only need $4.00 profit off vinyl, $6.00 profit off tapes, and still need $10.00 profit off CD's. Even a band who tanks, will sell a 1000 CD's, the record companies aren't hurting. The artist only get $.05 out of that $10.00, and all development, and marketing costs come out of the artist's share.
The problem with your argument is that at no time has Ziplock ever advertised their product as designed for the specific use of drug dealers, or the transportation of drugs. For a matter of fact, Ziplock has made no public statements at all promoting their product for use in the drug trade. On the other hand, Napster's stated and advertised primary use is for the sharing of copyrighted materials. This is why Napster is being sued, and not Microsoft or IBM, as the primary function of a computer is not the free exchange of copyrighted materials, and in a court case would be considered an abuse of the product.
The question is not whether Apple has a right, or whether it's ethical for Apple to go after NDA violations. Regardless of whether you feel NDAs are good or bad, Apple is committing marketing suicide by trying to block free promotion of their products. These leaks aren't releasing critical information that their competitors might use against them. We don't need to punish Apple, they are punishing themselves, eventually into non existence.
The web page is a freedom of speech issue, the t-shirt is a copyright issue. If you make a t-shirt of say your favorite bands logo, and sell that, you have broken the law. In fact the band is required by law to pursue you, or they loose the copyright for their logo.
This is where Metallica screwed up. If they had just given away the Napster t-shirt, there would have been no problem, and they would have been doing to Napster, what Napster is doing to them, but they tried to sell the t-shirt, which is a clear violation of Napster trademark and copyright, and had Napster not responded, they would have lost their trademark rights.
I can usually count on you writing something controversial, thought provoking, and wrong (intentionally so, I believe). This isn't even offensive, other than the quote "testosterone-poisoned guys with chips on their shoulders and too much time on their hands." , and even this is just the standard politically correct female response to anything they don't like or understand. In fact it fairly describes our founding fathers. Not that I'm saying the net, and computers in general aren't a male dominated society, but face it, most of us were the last one picked for the football team. Not a whole lot of macho here.
The only problem I have with the article is that you act as if this was something new. There has always been an technological/intellectual elite (though admittedly they are receiving unprecedented coverage by the media) and a political/power elite, who know little about each other, but depend on each other to secure their power base. And there has always been the vast majority who know little, and care less about either, and whose lives are controlled by both.
The real problem I see with this system is, after it makes its run through the courts, it will end up like home cd recorders, the RIAA will get a cut, and the artists will get nothing.
As a musician and a writer I believe very strongly in the Copyright system. All of my work is Copyrighted. On the other hand, I have been unable to get my music published, and very little of my writing has been published. I like to think that it's because I'm a talentless hack, but who knows.
I believe that the music industry needs to see the internet for what it is, a marketing tool. The internet is just like radio or television. Yes, people make tapes of videos, and of songs off the radio, and download MP3s off the internet, but without exposure to the music, there is no way to get them excited about it enough to buy the music.
And, yes, the industry takes advantage of the artist. Unless the artist is very business savvy, the industry gets the lion share of the profits. But, the industry does provide a service. It provides the dream. A hundred years ago, just as many people played music (percentage wise, obviously there were less people then), maybe more, but few performed publicly, fewer still performed for a living, and fewer still composed, and were well known. The life of a performer was not seen as a very desirable one, as performers made very little money and received very little fame. The recording industry changed all that. Mega stars are created through hype and marketing, not talent. It's the golden apple that has created untold thousands of garage bands seeking stardom. There has to be a balance, where the artists are treated fair without compromising the dream. Maybe we need a new Copyright law that dictates the terms of artist contracts, what the artist gets, and what the publisher gets.
OK, first the pluses; 1. Performing artists will replace recording artist. Recordings will be used to promote concerts, rather than concerts used to promote recording sales. This will mean a lot more live performances, though ticket prices will go up to pay for the elaborate productions (few of the elaborate production concerts actually pay for themselves). There would also be a shift from studio recordings to live recordings to save on expenses.
2. No more advertising. A goal in itself! Without branding, the concept of advertising, except on the local level, becomes absurd.
3. No more commercial television. See number 2
4. Global economic parity. Which of course is the end goal of the article's writer. Eventually, the elimination of branding and research, coupled with increased out sourcing, would drop developed nations to the same economic level as third world nations.
5. Lots of free software. Of course, since there is no branding, it'll take a while to get song or program you were looking for.
Now for the negatives (just the big ones, or I'd be here all day); 1. No more big budget films. I have no doubt that people would continue to make films for arts sake, but the budgets would be limited to voluntary contributions, I figure a cap of about $100,000, think "Blair Witch Project", or "Clerks". Laudable projects, but I'd miss "Star Wars" and "Toy Story".
2. No more Stephen Kings. I'm not saying Stephen King would go away, in fact I'm sure lots of Stephen Kings would appear, but with a couple hundred thousand books a day, both good and bad, (mostly bad) there would be little chance for the few gems to rise to the top of the morass, especially without any coherent marketing.
3. No quality control. Without branding, the only way to tell between one product and another is price.
4. No competition. Only those companies with the most resources will be able to produce and distribute products for the least amount of money.
5. Creative people will have to get real jobs. With only a limited number of government research jobs available, the majority of scientist, design engineers, artists, musicians, actors, directors, writers, programmers, inventers, and pretty much anybody else who does creative work, will have to get regular jobs in production.
6. Barter economy. That's right, without IP, printed money becomes worthless, and without branding, banking becomes foolhardy.
7. Stagnation. We need only look at the old Soviet Union to see the fruits of suppressed IP. I could go on, but I think you get the point.
while this lawsuit may set a huge legal precedent, it won't help the RIAA in the real world.
You ignore the power of legal precedence. If the Napster decision stands, then the service Napster provided is officially illegal. In future cases against Gnutella and its kin, the RIAA will only have to show that what they are doing is similar enough to the Napster decision, to fall under its jurisdiction. Future cases won't be about shutting the services down, they will be about money. I can envision the RIAA using the Napster decision to go after software manufacturers and end users for huge monetary settlements.
As to Google and Yahoo being held legally responsible for the content that they index, the French have already decided that, and no one seems particularly upset.
Nobody has voted on whether he or she wants to live in a world with only healthy, cheerful, smart and attractive inhabitants.
Perhaps because anyone who wants to live in a world with only miserable, diseased, stupid, ugly people would by definition be insane.
I should point out that in a world with diminishing limited resources, and runaway overpopulation, that I feel fertility clinics and sperm banks are just wrong. I also feel that it is morally wrong to reproduce if you are knowingly passing on severe genetic disorders. To say that it's wrong to test sperm banks for genetic disorders is equivalent to saying that it's wrong to test food for toxic contamination.
It is also important to remember that only in the beginning will it be a matter of removing contaminated samples, eventually they will be able to remove the genetic defects themselves.
First and foremost, I'd like to say that "Titan AE" was a good movie with bad marketing. One of the problems with the film was it was an attempt to merge serious Science Fiction with "Disney" style touchy feely characters, this kept it from being a great movie, but the animation was great, and the story worked. What the filmed lacked was a target audience, and the mega hype necessary to create the first weekend block busters the film industry appears to push these days. Coupled with the current trend to pull films from the theaters while the lion share of the ticket price goes to the studios in an attempt to maximize profits, the film never had a chance to build up a word of mouth following. I think this film will do really well in video sales when it is released.
Unfortunately, the big studios, like other large corporations, only think in short term profits. If something is not an immediate success, it's a failure. Several of these "failures" means time to cut back. I really don't think this really signifies anything. If the film does really well on video, they'll gear back up to make more, if not, they'll move to more profitable formulas, but in the long run animation will continue both 2d and 3d.
Slashdot Mirror
This is unrelated to the original topic, but you need to report said safety violations to OSHA. As long as you continue to be employed by the company OSHA will investigate, and will find violations. Few people realize that the law requires weekly safety meetings for example. OSHA will not investigate if you have ceased employment.
Safety is not the issue, T2 aside, Nitrogen is significantly safer than any other fuel source currently on the books. It is totally inert, easy to store, and full emersion in the event of an accident is really no likely. The real question is efficiency. How much energy does it take to create, store and transport, and what is the power to weight ratio. It is the hidden costs of alternative energies that is the problem. If it requires three times as much energy to produce the same effect, even given the higher efficiency of macro energy production, it's not viable.
The reason for NDAs at the interview stage is the current trend to hire programmers on an independent contractor basis. If you are asked to sign a NDA at the interview stage, you are being hired for a specific project. This means you are looking at short term employment and limited benefits. This is not an interview, but a consultation. If a prospective employer requests a NDA, you should ask for a consultation fee.
You miss the point, an os written in a more structured language is likely to have less bugs. It's not about ease of use, it's about stability and compatibility
Hasn't Jobs sued you yet?
If it rains, you might be.
This is actually standard for most ISPs. People using LANs are expected to pay for LAN accounts. This doesn't mean that they will track you down, or disconnect you, but they encourage you to pay for what you're getting. Dial up accounts don't pay for themselves, and are just used as leverage when marketing other services.
This is a standard publishing contract. You always give limited copyright to a publisher or in this case a University, but that is not the same thing as giving up your copyright. Every person whose work is listed in this data base without their permission, has a legal obligation to sue them for copyright infringement.
The problem is, as usual, Jon is jumping on a bandwagon that left 50 years ago. The academic community has been under the thumb of the "military industrial complex" since the fifties, everybody vying for the coveted research grant.
As usual, this "paradigm shift" is accompanied by little or no public debate over the propriety of university research (often funded in part by taxpayers) becoming increasingly tailored to corporate clout. Congress isn't paying attention either; it's much too busy trying to pass laws requiring local libraries to keep Johnny off the Playboy Web site.
The reason that there is little public debate, is because this "paradigm shift" is mostly illusionary. Universities in the United States, have always been for profit organizations. Adding patents to the tuitions, alumni contributions and government research grants just isn't that big an issue. And don't confuse the University making money with the researchers making money. Yes they will continue to lie and cheat to get the lion share of research funds, but this is nothing new. Neither is the corporate encroachment anything new, 25 years ago, when I was a student at CSUN, the big issue was the "Foundation", the corporation that owned all the facilities (ie:book store, cafeteria) had interests and connections with the South African Apartheid.
The problem I have with post generation x activist, is that thy reflect the whole post generation x culture. No focus. They appear to have no clearly defined issues, goals or any intelligent solutions. If they do, they have certainly failed to get this across. Civil disobedience is all well and good, as long as you have issues that justify it, and as long as the civil disobedience brings attention to the issues. The actions of these protestors, are only bringing attention to the protestors. This is not only ineffectual, it is counter productive. I applaud them for wanting to get involved, but they need to get their act together.
I really hate it when a person takes a word out of context, and redefines it to further their own ends, or as in this case, sell a book. The term "libertarian" refers to the Libertarian Party, a political party dedicated to social Darwinism and laissez-faire economics, who are opposed to the concept of domestic government. It is usually bad to generalize about any group as large as the internet or engineering community, but to try to shove them all into a pigeon hole as small as a fringe political party, and then be surprised that they don't conform to the precepts of that pigeon hole is just stupid, and evidence of poor research and fuzzy thinking. Not all social Darwinists are libertarians, not all anarchists are libertarians, nor all laissez-faire economists. There also is no reason to believe that the concept of the rights of the individual, and communal cooperation are mutually exclusive. It is the basis of our constitution. On the other hand, libertarians, anarchist, the internet and engineering communities do live in a fantasy world. As long as their are people who seek power and personal wealth, there will be governments. Whether they are political in nature, or corporate, someone will make the decisions that effect the lives of the individual. The way I see it, with a political government, at least you get the illusion of a say. There is no such thing as a benevolent corporation.
I wonder why Apple would do such a thing which only, in the end, alienates their own customer base.
I keep saying this, but nobody listens. In truth the fault lies with the Apple share holders, who keep putting up with the policies of a control freak who appears set on putting his company out of business.
Good argument, but explain this, why do the only need $4.00 profit off vinyl, $6.00 profit off tapes, and still need $10.00 profit off CD's. Even a band who tanks, will sell a 1000 CD's, the record companies aren't hurting. The artist only get $.05 out of that $10.00, and all development, and marketing costs come out of the artist's share.
The problem with your argument is that at no time has Ziplock ever advertised their product as designed for the specific use of drug dealers, or the transportation of drugs. For a matter of fact, Ziplock has made no public statements at all promoting their product for use in the drug trade. On the other hand, Napster's stated and advertised primary use is for the sharing of copyrighted materials. This is why Napster is being sued, and not Microsoft or IBM, as the primary function of a computer is not the free exchange of copyrighted materials, and in a court case would be considered an abuse of the product.
And for how long has it been illegal to use a Nextel cell phone in Philadelphia?
The question is not whether Apple has a right, or whether it's ethical for Apple to go after NDA violations. Regardless of whether you feel NDAs are good or bad, Apple is committing marketing suicide by trying to block free promotion of their products. These leaks aren't releasing critical information that their competitors might use against them. We don't need to punish Apple, they are punishing themselves, eventually into non existence.
The web page is a freedom of speech issue, the t-shirt is a copyright issue. If you make a t-shirt of say your favorite bands logo, and sell that, you have broken the law. In fact the band is required by law to pursue you, or they loose the copyright for their logo.
This is where Metallica screwed up. If they had just given away the Napster t-shirt, there would have been no problem, and they would have been doing to Napster, what Napster is doing to them, but they tried to sell the t-shirt, which is a clear violation of Napster trademark and copyright, and had Napster not responded, they would have lost their trademark rights.
I work on a NT network, I know it won't work.
I can usually count on you writing something controversial, thought provoking, and wrong (intentionally so, I believe). This isn't even offensive, other than the quote "testosterone-poisoned guys with chips on their shoulders and too much time on their hands." , and even this is just the standard politically correct female response to anything they don't like or understand. In fact it fairly describes our founding fathers. Not that I'm saying the net, and computers in general aren't a male dominated society, but face it, most of us were the last one picked for the football team. Not a whole lot of macho here.
The only problem I have with the article is that you act as if this was something new. There has always been an technological/intellectual elite (though admittedly they are receiving unprecedented coverage by the media) and a political/power elite, who know little about each other, but depend on each other to secure their power base. And there has always been the vast majority who know little, and care less about either, and whose lives are controlled by both.
The real problem I see with this system is, after it makes its run through the courts, it will end up like home cd recorders, the RIAA will get a cut, and the artists will get nothing.
As a musician and a writer I believe very strongly in the Copyright system. All of my work is Copyrighted. On the other hand, I have been unable to get my music published, and very little of my writing has been published. I like to think that it's because I'm a talentless hack, but who knows.
I believe that the music industry needs to see the internet for what it is, a marketing tool. The internet is just like radio or television. Yes, people make tapes of videos, and of songs off the radio, and download MP3s off the internet, but without exposure to the music, there is no way to get them excited about it enough to buy the music.
And, yes, the industry takes advantage of the artist. Unless the artist is very business savvy, the industry gets the lion share of the profits. But, the industry does provide a service. It provides the dream. A hundred years ago, just as many people played music (percentage wise, obviously there were less people then), maybe more, but few performed publicly, fewer still performed for a living, and fewer still composed, and were well known. The life of a performer was not seen as a very desirable one, as performers made very little money and received very little fame. The recording industry changed all that. Mega stars are created through hype and marketing, not talent. It's the golden apple that has created untold thousands of garage bands seeking stardom. There has to be a balance, where the artists are treated fair without compromising the dream. Maybe we need a new Copyright law that dictates the terms of artist contracts, what the artist gets, and what the publisher gets.
OK, first the pluses;
1. Performing artists will replace recording artist. Recordings will be used to promote concerts, rather than concerts used to promote recording sales. This will mean a lot more live performances, though ticket prices will go up to pay for the elaborate productions (few of the elaborate production concerts actually pay for themselves). There would also be a shift from studio recordings to live recordings to save on expenses.
2. No more advertising. A goal in itself! Without branding, the concept of advertising, except on the local level, becomes absurd.
3. No more commercial television. See number 2
4. Global economic parity. Which of course is the end goal of the article's writer. Eventually, the elimination of branding and research, coupled with increased out sourcing, would drop developed nations to the same economic level as third world nations.
5. Lots of free software. Of course, since there is no branding, it'll take a while to get song or program you were looking for.
Now for the negatives (just the big ones, or I'd be here all day);
1. No more big budget films. I have no doubt that people would continue to make films for arts sake, but the budgets would be limited to voluntary contributions, I figure a cap of about $100,000, think "Blair Witch Project", or "Clerks". Laudable projects, but I'd miss "Star Wars" and "Toy Story".
2. No more Stephen Kings. I'm not saying Stephen King would go away, in fact I'm sure lots of Stephen Kings would appear, but with a couple hundred thousand books a day, both good and bad, (mostly bad) there would be little chance for the few gems to rise to the top of the morass, especially without any coherent marketing.
3. No quality control. Without branding, the only way to tell between one product and another is price.
4. No competition. Only those companies with the most resources will be able to produce and distribute products for the least amount of money.
5. Creative people will have to get real jobs. With only a limited number of government research jobs available, the majority of scientist, design engineers, artists, musicians, actors, directors, writers, programmers, inventers, and pretty much anybody else who does creative work, will have to get regular jobs in production.
6. Barter economy. That's right, without IP, printed money becomes worthless, and without branding, banking becomes foolhardy.
7. Stagnation. We need only look at the old Soviet Union to see the fruits of suppressed IP. I could go on, but I think you get the point.
while this lawsuit may set a huge legal precedent, it won't help the RIAA in the real world.
You ignore the power of legal precedence. If the Napster decision stands, then the service Napster provided is officially illegal. In future cases against Gnutella and its kin, the RIAA will only have to show that what they are doing is similar enough to the Napster decision, to fall under its jurisdiction. Future cases won't be about shutting the services down, they will be about money. I can envision the RIAA using the Napster decision to go after software manufacturers and end users for huge monetary settlements.
As to Google and Yahoo being held legally responsible for the content that they index, the French have already decided that, and no one seems particularly upset.
Nobody has voted on whether he or she wants to live in a world with only healthy, cheerful, smart and attractive inhabitants.
Perhaps because anyone who wants to live in a world with only miserable, diseased, stupid, ugly people would by definition be insane.
I should point out that in a world with diminishing limited resources, and runaway overpopulation, that I feel fertility clinics and sperm banks are just wrong. I also feel that it is morally wrong to reproduce if you are knowingly passing on severe genetic disorders. To say that it's wrong to test sperm banks for genetic disorders is equivalent to saying that it's wrong to test food for toxic contamination.
It is also important to remember that only in the beginning will it be a matter of removing contaminated samples, eventually they will be able to remove the genetic defects themselves.
First and foremost, I'd like to say that "Titan AE" was a good movie with bad marketing. One of the problems with the film was it was an attempt to merge serious Science Fiction with "Disney" style touchy feely characters, this kept it from being a great movie, but the animation was great, and the story worked. What the filmed lacked was a target audience, and the mega hype necessary to create the first weekend block busters the film industry appears to push these days. Coupled with the current trend to pull films from the theaters while the lion share of the ticket price goes to the studios in an attempt to maximize profits, the film never had a chance to build up a word of mouth following. I think this film will do really well in video sales when it is released.
Unfortunately, the big studios, like other large corporations, only think in short term profits. If something is not an immediate success, it's a failure. Several of these "failures" means time to cut back. I really don't think this really signifies anything. If the film does really well on video, they'll gear back up to make more, if not, they'll move to more profitable formulas, but in the long run animation will continue both 2d and 3d.