My son also exhibits extreme empathy and concern for others and is very concerned with things being fair and not hurting people's feelings. Being autistic he doesn't always pick up the social cues to know when he's hurting someone else's feelings but when he notices, it very much bothers him. Same with animals, he might not realize that he's hurting the cat by the way he's holding it but if he realizes someone is hurting an animal (like when I clean fish), it upsets him greatly.
My son (and I) are the same way. Every year, a museum near us has a butterfly house, and every year my son will go into it for a few seconds only. It's not that he's scared of the butterflies. It's that he's scared he might hurt one. They are flying everywhere and some land on the floor so you need to be careful where you walk/move. To my son, it's like you've laid out a minefield in front of him except a butterfly gets killed if he "steps on a mine." His (understandable) reaction is to want to leave the room as quickly as possible so that he won't hurt anything.
Of course, feeling empathy and being able to express it are two different things. I'll often feel extreme empathy towards someone, but won't be able to find the words to let the other person know how I feel. More than once, this has led my wife to exclaim in frustration that I'm being insensitive or don't care about what she's going through. I do care and don't mean to seem insensitive. It's just that what's going on in my head doesn't translate well to what's coming out of my mouth. Typing stuff up is easier because you can take a few minutes and revise your response. People don't expect an immediate reply. (Plus, as much as I like to denigrate emojis, it can be easier to say "I feel sad for what's going on with you" with a crying emoji than to find the exact words to express your internal feelings. Whoever invents real-life face-to-face conversation emojis will be a hero to people on the spectrum everywhere!)
I think part of the problem with the autistic umbrella is that many people treat it as a single set of symptoms (afraid of novel situations, no empathy) but from all the autistic people I know, it's very nuanced and can vary greatly from person to person.
This is the key with Autism. The saying I've often heard is "If you've met one person with Autism, you've met one person with Autism." My son and I are very similar - so much so that I joke that he's my mini-me. Still, he deals with things that I've never had to deal with and takes other things in stride when I struggled with them. For example, he dives head first into social situations even if he doesn't fully understand how he's being inappropriate. I was always more socially-timid, afraid that I'd make a misstep and embarrass myself.
Can you be convicted for "Oops"? Probably not. Can the government make your life a living hell as well as telling everyone that you might be secretly working with ISIS and sabotaging the government's investigations followed by a very quiet "looks like we were wrong" 20 months later after the damage has been done and everyone thinks of you as a terrorist? Definitely.
I can't speak to how Common Core was implemented in other states, though I've heard from parents complaining about it nation-wide. In New York, though, the implementation involved scripts for the teachers to read dictating everything they needed to say and do. (Because politicians seem to think that all kids learn in the same way.) Teachers weren't allowed to veer from the scripts. And just to make sure that everyone stuck to the plan, the high stakes tests were tied to teacher jobs. If kids don't do as well on the tests as the state says they should do, the teacher can be fired.
The person who oversaw this flawed roll-out and who kept doubling down on it when parent complains skyrocketed? John King who was just confirmed as Secretary of Education. So now he can spread his experience in wrecking havoc with education on a nationwide scale!
As Darinbob points out, teachers are having their ability to teach removed from them. In NY, they are given scripts (EngageNY) that dictates what will be taught, when, using what methods, and for how long. If a child learns better in another manner or needs more or less time, the teacher is NOT free to do this. The reasoning for this is a narrative that has been built up by politicians and companies in the "education market" that teachers are the problem and that the politicians/companies need to tell teachers what to do or they'll never teach the kids right. (Some politicians even said that special needs kids just need to "try harder" on the tests and they would get the same scores. As if conditions like dyslexia just vanish when you're pushed harder.)
Some teachers are flaunting the new rules and trying to actually educate their kids, but the state keeps piling more and more requirements on teachers to "make sure they are teaching right." From "educational sessions" that they are required to attend to push Common Core to high stakes testing whose results are tied to their jobs. The end goal is to get rid of teachers because why do you need someone with specialized training when you can hire someone for minimum wage to read from a script.
Also, people say that they're not voting as a form of protest. The problem with that is that it's a protest that doesn't send a message. Vote for a third party candidate (even if it's someone with no chance of winning) and you've just made a "vocal" statement. If enough people do this, the major parties will take notice.
I have a pretty easy choice. I'm a Sanders supporter. If he gets the nomination, I'll vote for him. If Hillary gets the nomination, I'll vote for Jill Stein (third party candidate who matches my views closer than Hillary does). I live in New York and I can guarantee you that my state will go to the Democratic nominee no matter who that is (or who the GOP nominee is). My vote - be it for Dem, GOP, or third party - isn't really going to sway anything so it doesn't seem like a "waste" to me to vote third party. (Not that I think a third party vote is ever a waste, but I can see why someone might vote for "the lesser of two evils" if they live in a swing state.)
It's only going to get worse. I find this to be true with every subsequent administration.
Party A: The Party B administration goes too far when doing X! Party A (post-election): Our Party A administration is perfectly justified in doing X and Y! Party B: The Party A administration goes too far when doing X and Y! Party B (post-election): Our Party B administration is perfectly justified in doing X and Y and Z! {repeat ad infinitum}
The "Common Core" addition method of dashes, boxes, and bigger boxes takes 100 times longer to do than simple addition, but simple addition will get a kid marked WRONG and the school threatening the parents with legal action if they interfere with the Government mandated system.
I hate this. Not least of which is the lack of scalability. If one's are dots, tens are boxes, and hundreds are cubes, what are thousands? Ten thousands? Millions? When an elementary school kid needs to draw a seven-dimension-hyper-cube to solve his homework, it's a sign that we've needlessly over-complicated things.
My third grader has nightly crying sessions over his math homework. He struggles with basic concepts like multiplication and division. My seventh grader, though, got his beginning math done before Common Core took over and loves math. My wife and I are very active opposing Common Core and high stakes testing. My kids opt out of all of the big standardized tests, Some may claim we're teaching them "if something's hard don't do it," but I say we're teaching them "if someone tells you to do X and you think the reasons for X are horribly wrong, then don't do X just because an authority told you to do so."
Growing up, you learn the rule "Two wrongs don't make a right." In politics, though, the rule is "If the opposing side does something you find repugnant, call them out on it... and then do that when you're in power... and then call them out on it again when they're back in power."
I guarantee that there are Republicans who were opposed to the Democrats doing this in 2007, who are in favor of doing the same thing now, and who will be against it again if the Democrats do the same thing down the line. (And vice versa.)
Is there any doubt why so many people hate our political system when a "horrible action by Party X" becomes "Constitutionally valid action by Party Y?"
(For clarity, I'm calling out the Democrats for doing this in 2007 as well as the Republicans doing it now.)
So the Senate should hold a hearing for Garland and the GOP members can try to justify not confirming him. What they are afraid of, though, is that a) by even considering someone from "The Enemy Party", they will be kicked out of their seats during their next re-election campaigns and b) by holding a hearing on Garland, popular opinion will be in favor of approving his nomination which will make it harder for GOP members to maintain their opposition.
They don't need to rubber stamp the nominee or even confirm him. However, by not even considering ANY nominees, they aren't giving "advice and consent." They are actively withholding their advice and consent to run out the clock on Obama's Presidency with the hope that a Republican is elected President next. If Hillary or Bernie is elected President next, would the Senate be justified in not considering any nominees for any slots for 4 more years?
Turning it around, if a Republican were elected President, but the Senate went to the Democrats, would the Democrats be justified in saying that they'd hold no hearings until someone from their party was elected President?
Forgot to mention in my first reply: This isn't leaving the seat empty for "a few more months." The person who wins the election in November won't be able to make a nomination right away as they don't have that ability as the President-Elect. They will need to be sworn in first. Even if our next President makes his/her nomination on Day 1, we'll be waiting until Friday, January 20th 2017 for the nomination. So this means the vacancy will be open for ten more months, or over 11 months in total. (Longer, depending on the length of the confirmation process.)
My big question is: Let's assume that, despite fights to get a hearing for Garland, the Senate is successful in holding off until the next President. What will a Republican controlled Senate do if the Democratic nominee wins the election? Will they open fair hearings immediately for the first person that Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders nominates? Or will they find another reason to stall for 4 years? Perhaps calling the election "too close" or saying that somehow the "people's will wasn't REALLY heard" and thus justifying waiting until yet another election takes place?
Exactly this. My wife served on a jury once and she described the defense attorney as sounding completely incompetent. After the verdict was rendered (guilty), the judge made it a point to tell the jury that this attorney wasn't really bumbling - he just had no case whatsoever to rely on. Even the best attorneys can't fabricate cases out of thin air. They might be able to bluff better or worse than others, but eventually their bluff-case would fall apart.
Apple may or may not have better lawyers, but they definitely have the better case.
I believe they already do something like this. If you are making a purchase that Amazon deems suspect (mainly, in my experience, due to shipping orders to someplace new), you need to enter in your full credit card information again and not just use the stored card number. It can be annoying sometimes when it happens, but I still like the feature. I'd rather be annoyed every so often than log on one day to find out that "I" maxed out my credit card buying electronics and having them sent to some address I've never seen before.
If someone gets their hands on a suitable picture or video of me (really not hard to get a photo or video of the average person) and can use that, I'm shit outta luck.
Exactly this. We keep telling everyone not to share their passwords. What's one of the big things people love sharing? Photos of themselves! When you make someone's face their password, you've just turned every selfie they've ever sent into a shared password. How long would it take to compile those "password shares" into something that could fool Amazon's system?
I recently tried an app MSQRD which maps someone else's face onto yours. It works surprisingly well: changing your face into a gorilla or Tony Stark or Barack Obama. You can move your mouth, tilt your head, etc and it keeps working. Now imagine if someone were to make something like that but using all those selfies that someone posted and using the result to fool Amazon's app into thinking that's what you really looked like.
Passwords have their flaws, but those can be mitigated by additional layers of security (e.g. two factor authentication). Facial recognition is one of those things that sounds good in theory, but falls apart on closer observation.
I wouldn't mind bundled apps so much if they could be uninstalled. My phone came with NFL Mobile because Verizon was likely paid money to put that on all of their phones. I don't like football, though, so I disabled it. It's still taking up 750KB, though. Why not let me just delete it if I don't like it/need it at all? I know I could root the phone and then delete it, but you shouldn't need root access to do this.
From the paper ( http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?reload=true&arnumber=7407333&contentType=Early+Access+Articles linked to in the summary ):
We present a simple statistical model to predict the maximum pulling force available from robot teams. The expected performance is a function of interactions between each robot and the ground (e.g. whether running or walking). We confirm the model with experiments involving impulsive bristlebots, small walking and running hexapods, and 17 gram Tugs that employ adhesion instead of friction. With attention to load sharing, each Tug can operate at its individual limit so that a team of six pulls with forces exceeding 200 N.
So it looks like the 6 robots can pull with 200 Newtons of force
also the people should have the right to read any agreement (or bill) for a period of no less than 90 days before it is voted on
I'd agree with this with one provision added: I'm sure there will be emergencies where "wait 90 days for everyone to read the bill" would not be an option. So there can be Emergency Bill Passage which doesn't require the 90 day wait. However, there would be two added provisions: 1) The text of the emergency bill - along with all open Congress discussions about it - must be uploaded within a week and 2) The bill should expire in 180 days unless an extension is voted on - the text of which would be available for everyone to read at least 90 days before the vote.
Could this be abused? Sure. However, if a program is constantly being supported by emergency votes twice a year, then it would be like a giant neon sign telling people to closely examine this program and its implications.
Agreed, but I don't think there would be a rush to extend copyright to APIs if copyright only lasted 14 years (plus a one-time paid 14 year renewal) and had small fees for non-commercial infringement. They might try shifting their arguments to trademark or patents instead, but they'd likely be less successful there.
That's definitely a problem. Someone's work shouldn't be simply enlarged by an "artist" who calls the resulting piece an "original artwork" when all he did was make it bigger. However, if the roman_mir had his way and copyright was fully abolished, then those comic book artists would have zero recourse. People could take their artwork and immediately republish it not only as a museum art piece, but as another comic book under the same name. The comic book artist would see people buying his works but since they were published by someone else, he wouldn't get any money for them at all.
No, it wouldn't. Noise cancellation phones do not work well in the voice band, and since the train is a noise environment, people tend to TALK VERY LOUDLY.
Really? Because I have a pair of bluetooth headphones that, while not noise cancelling, tend to block out voices rather well when I'm playing music. I had to stop using them because I couldn't hear when people in my office were calling my name.
Oh, and could you tell us your address? I have a couple of ampules of mercaptane that I want to dispose of, it's a bit stinky but you can always wear noseplugs.
If the question here was people coming to your home and talking loudly on their phones, you might have a point. I wouldn't want anyone dumping smelly chemicals in my house any more than I'd want a crowd of people to invade my house and yell on their cellphones. However, when you're out and about you need to realize that the public situation is different than your own house. You don't get to make the rules for others to follow in a public setting. Society, as a whole, decides what is allowed and what isn't allowed. You can argue that X should be allowed and Y shouldn't be, but if society as a whole decides otherwise, there are really no grounds to find fault in people not observing your rules in public.
For example: It has been decided in many areas that breastfeeding in public is allowed. So women who are feeding their babies might feel free to expose themselves in the process of feeding their infant. Now, some people might not like that sight and might decide that it's evil for a woman to expose her breast in public for any reason. If they think this, they are welcome to argue against this practice (just as proponents are welcome to argue for it), but they can't yell at a breastfeeding mother, rip the infant away from her, and physically force her to cover up. That would (depending on the actions) could constitute assault.
Bringing it back to the article's subject: The guy on the subway has the right to argue to his state legislators that cell phone use on the subway should be illegal. He can write blog posts, letters to the editor, and even hand out flyers on the street corner trying to drum up support for a ban on subway cell phone use. What he can't do, however, is physically prevent people from using their cell phones just because HE has declared that they will be off-limits. He doesn't have the authority to make that sort of declaration. In fact, the law explicitly says that this type of action is illegal - something he knows because he's been convicted of doing this before.
I have read what they wanted. The court ordered Apple to write software to a) remotely disable the "10 PIN tries and the phone is erased" feature and b) give the FBI the ability to make PIN attempts from a simulated USB keyboard (so they could automate PIN attempts). I just don't believe that it will stop here. If this is allowed and the next iPhone makes this impossible, the courts will just extend the request a little more and a little more. There seems to be an attitude in the FBI that all companies should work full time on making the FBI's job easy and if they don't then they are "supporting terrorists." The FBI will push the courts to expand what the "standard request" calls for, will justify it under the "fighting terrorism" banner, and will get the court to rule in their favor.
Actually, there is every problem with this. Let's take the Harry Potter books, for example. Rewind to when the first book was released (1997). The first movie was released in 2001 - only 4 years later. What would have happened if copyright wasn't an issue? Warner Brothers Pictures could have produced and released the movies without paying JK Rowling one cent. In fact, who would pay the author anything for any work if they didn't have to?
Stepping away from adaptations, one of the big problems, historically, was book knockoffs. Someone would publish a book and suddenly fifty different publishing companies would flood the market with fifty different versions of that book. Only one would actually give the author some revenue - the others just profited off someone else's work without giving back anything. In this scenario, it becomes hard for an author to make any money even with publishing their book (again, ignoring any movie rights, etc) since consumers could just as easily find the knock-off versions for sale and buy those. A book that sold a million copies (across all versions) might only give the author royalties based on 20,000 copies.
Do you think that artists shouldn't have any right to seek profits from their works even for a limited time without others taking their works and using them? Do you think, if such a system were implemented, that big companies wouldn't immediately appropriate any and all works done by smaller artists without compensating the smaller artists at all?
Slashdot Mirror
My son (and I) are the same way. Every year, a museum near us has a butterfly house, and every year my son will go into it for a few seconds only. It's not that he's scared of the butterflies. It's that he's scared he might hurt one. They are flying everywhere and some land on the floor so you need to be careful where you walk/move. To my son, it's like you've laid out a minefield in front of him except a butterfly gets killed if he "steps on a mine." His (understandable) reaction is to want to leave the room as quickly as possible so that he won't hurt anything.
Of course, feeling empathy and being able to express it are two different things. I'll often feel extreme empathy towards someone, but won't be able to find the words to let the other person know how I feel. More than once, this has led my wife to exclaim in frustration that I'm being insensitive or don't care about what she's going through. I do care and don't mean to seem insensitive. It's just that what's going on in my head doesn't translate well to what's coming out of my mouth. Typing stuff up is easier because you can take a few minutes and revise your response. People don't expect an immediate reply. (Plus, as much as I like to denigrate emojis, it can be easier to say "I feel sad for what's going on with you" with a crying emoji than to find the exact words to express your internal feelings. Whoever invents real-life face-to-face conversation emojis will be a hero to people on the spectrum everywhere!)
This is the key with Autism. The saying I've often heard is "If you've met one person with Autism, you've met one person with Autism." My son and I are very similar - so much so that I joke that he's my mini-me. Still, he deals with things that I've never had to deal with and takes other things in stride when I struggled with them. For example, he dives head first into social situations even if he doesn't fully understand how he's being inappropriate. I was always more socially-timid, afraid that I'd make a misstep and embarrass myself.
Can you be convicted for "Oops"? Probably not. Can the government make your life a living hell as well as telling everyone that you might be secretly working with ISIS and sabotaging the government's investigations followed by a very quiet "looks like we were wrong" 20 months later after the damage has been done and everyone thinks of you as a terrorist? Definitely.
I can't speak to how Common Core was implemented in other states, though I've heard from parents complaining about it nation-wide. In New York, though, the implementation involved scripts for the teachers to read dictating everything they needed to say and do. (Because politicians seem to think that all kids learn in the same way.) Teachers weren't allowed to veer from the scripts. And just to make sure that everyone stuck to the plan, the high stakes tests were tied to teacher jobs. If kids don't do as well on the tests as the state says they should do, the teacher can be fired.
The person who oversaw this flawed roll-out and who kept doubling down on it when parent complains skyrocketed? John King who was just confirmed as Secretary of Education. So now he can spread his experience in wrecking havoc with education on a nationwide scale!
As Darinbob points out, teachers are having their ability to teach removed from them. In NY, they are given scripts (EngageNY) that dictates what will be taught, when, using what methods, and for how long. If a child learns better in another manner or needs more or less time, the teacher is NOT free to do this. The reasoning for this is a narrative that has been built up by politicians and companies in the "education market" that teachers are the problem and that the politicians/companies need to tell teachers what to do or they'll never teach the kids right. (Some politicians even said that special needs kids just need to "try harder" on the tests and they would get the same scores. As if conditions like dyslexia just vanish when you're pushed harder.)
Some teachers are flaunting the new rules and trying to actually educate their kids, but the state keeps piling more and more requirements on teachers to "make sure they are teaching right." From "educational sessions" that they are required to attend to push Common Core to high stakes testing whose results are tied to their jobs. The end goal is to get rid of teachers because why do you need someone with specialized training when you can hire someone for minimum wage to read from a script.
Even before those district attorneys chimed in, did anyone really believe it was for this one phone and only this one phone - no precedent set?
Also, people say that they're not voting as a form of protest. The problem with that is that it's a protest that doesn't send a message. Vote for a third party candidate (even if it's someone with no chance of winning) and you've just made a "vocal" statement. If enough people do this, the major parties will take notice.
I have a pretty easy choice. I'm a Sanders supporter. If he gets the nomination, I'll vote for him. If Hillary gets the nomination, I'll vote for Jill Stein (third party candidate who matches my views closer than Hillary does). I live in New York and I can guarantee you that my state will go to the Democratic nominee no matter who that is (or who the GOP nominee is). My vote - be it for Dem, GOP, or third party - isn't really going to sway anything so it doesn't seem like a "waste" to me to vote third party. (Not that I think a third party vote is ever a waste, but I can see why someone might vote for "the lesser of two evils" if they live in a swing state.)
Party A: The Party B administration goes too far when doing X!
Party A (post-election): Our Party A administration is perfectly justified in doing X and Y!
Party B: The Party A administration goes too far when doing X and Y!
Party B (post-election): Our Party B administration is perfectly justified in doing X and Y and Z!
{repeat ad infinitum}
I hate this. Not least of which is the lack of scalability. If one's are dots, tens are boxes, and hundreds are cubes, what are thousands? Ten thousands? Millions? When an elementary school kid needs to draw a seven-dimension-hyper-cube to solve his homework, it's a sign that we've needlessly over-complicated things.
My third grader has nightly crying sessions over his math homework. He struggles with basic concepts like multiplication and division. My seventh grader, though, got his beginning math done before Common Core took over and loves math. My wife and I are very active opposing Common Core and high stakes testing. My kids opt out of all of the big standardized tests, Some may claim we're teaching them "if something's hard don't do it," but I say we're teaching them "if someone tells you to do X and you think the reasons for X are horribly wrong, then don't do X just because an authority told you to do so."
Growing up, you learn the rule "Two wrongs don't make a right." In politics, though, the rule is "If the opposing side does something you find repugnant, call them out on it... and then do that when you're in power... and then call them out on it again when they're back in power."
I guarantee that there are Republicans who were opposed to the Democrats doing this in 2007, who are in favor of doing the same thing now, and who will be against it again if the Democrats do the same thing down the line. (And vice versa.)
Is there any doubt why so many people hate our political system when a "horrible action by Party X" becomes "Constitutionally valid action by Party Y?"
(For clarity, I'm calling out the Democrats for doing this in 2007 as well as the Republicans doing it now.)
So the Senate should hold a hearing for Garland and the GOP members can try to justify not confirming him. What they are afraid of, though, is that a) by even considering someone from "The Enemy Party", they will be kicked out of their seats during their next re-election campaigns and b) by holding a hearing on Garland, popular opinion will be in favor of approving his nomination which will make it harder for GOP members to maintain their opposition.
They don't need to rubber stamp the nominee or even confirm him. However, by not even considering ANY nominees, they aren't giving "advice and consent." They are actively withholding their advice and consent to run out the clock on Obama's Presidency with the hope that a Republican is elected President next. If Hillary or Bernie is elected President next, would the Senate be justified in not considering any nominees for any slots for 4 more years?
Turning it around, if a Republican were elected President, but the Senate went to the Democrats, would the Democrats be justified in saying that they'd hold no hearings until someone from their party was elected President?
Forgot to mention in my first reply: This isn't leaving the seat empty for "a few more months." The person who wins the election in November won't be able to make a nomination right away as they don't have that ability as the President-Elect. They will need to be sworn in first. Even if our next President makes his/her nomination on Day 1, we'll be waiting until Friday, January 20th 2017 for the nomination. So this means the vacancy will be open for ten more months, or over 11 months in total. (Longer, depending on the length of the confirmation process.)
My big question is: Let's assume that, despite fights to get a hearing for Garland, the Senate is successful in holding off until the next President. What will a Republican controlled Senate do if the Democratic nominee wins the election? Will they open fair hearings immediately for the first person that Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders nominates? Or will they find another reason to stall for 4 years? Perhaps calling the election "too close" or saying that somehow the "people's will wasn't REALLY heard" and thus justifying waiting until yet another election takes place?
Exactly this. My wife served on a jury once and she described the defense attorney as sounding completely incompetent. After the verdict was rendered (guilty), the judge made it a point to tell the jury that this attorney wasn't really bumbling - he just had no case whatsoever to rely on. Even the best attorneys can't fabricate cases out of thin air. They might be able to bluff better or worse than others, but eventually their bluff-case would fall apart.
Apple may or may not have better lawyers, but they definitely have the better case.
I believe they already do something like this. If you are making a purchase that Amazon deems suspect (mainly, in my experience, due to shipping orders to someplace new), you need to enter in your full credit card information again and not just use the stored card number. It can be annoying sometimes when it happens, but I still like the feature. I'd rather be annoyed every so often than log on one day to find out that "I" maxed out my credit card buying electronics and having them sent to some address I've never seen before.
Exactly this. We keep telling everyone not to share their passwords. What's one of the big things people love sharing? Photos of themselves! When you make someone's face their password, you've just turned every selfie they've ever sent into a shared password. How long would it take to compile those "password shares" into something that could fool Amazon's system?
I recently tried an app MSQRD which maps someone else's face onto yours. It works surprisingly well: changing your face into a gorilla or Tony Stark or Barack Obama. You can move your mouth, tilt your head, etc and it keeps working. Now imagine if someone were to make something like that but using all those selfies that someone posted and using the result to fool Amazon's app into thinking that's what you really looked like.
Passwords have their flaws, but those can be mitigated by additional layers of security (e.g. two factor authentication). Facial recognition is one of those things that sounds good in theory, but falls apart on closer observation.
I wouldn't mind bundled apps so much if they could be uninstalled. My phone came with NFL Mobile because Verizon was likely paid money to put that on all of their phones. I don't like football, though, so I disabled it. It's still taking up 750KB, though. Why not let me just delete it if I don't like it/need it at all? I know I could root the phone and then delete it, but you shouldn't need root access to do this.
From the paper ( http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?reload=true&arnumber=7407333&contentType=Early+Access+Articles linked to in the summary ):
So it looks like the 6 robots can pull with 200 Newtons of force
I'd agree with this with one provision added: I'm sure there will be emergencies where "wait 90 days for everyone to read the bill" would not be an option. So there can be Emergency Bill Passage which doesn't require the 90 day wait. However, there would be two added provisions: 1) The text of the emergency bill - along with all open Congress discussions about it - must be uploaded within a week and 2) The bill should expire in 180 days unless an extension is voted on - the text of which would be available for everyone to read at least 90 days before the vote.
Could this be abused? Sure. However, if a program is constantly being supported by emergency votes twice a year, then it would be like a giant neon sign telling people to closely examine this program and its implications.
Agreed, but I don't think there would be a rush to extend copyright to APIs if copyright only lasted 14 years (plus a one-time paid 14 year renewal) and had small fees for non-commercial infringement. They might try shifting their arguments to trademark or patents instead, but they'd likely be less successful there.
That's definitely a problem. Someone's work shouldn't be simply enlarged by an "artist" who calls the resulting piece an "original artwork" when all he did was make it bigger. However, if the roman_mir had his way and copyright was fully abolished, then those comic book artists would have zero recourse. People could take their artwork and immediately republish it not only as a museum art piece, but as another comic book under the same name. The comic book artist would see people buying his works but since they were published by someone else, he wouldn't get any money for them at all.
Really? Because I have a pair of bluetooth headphones that, while not noise cancelling, tend to block out voices rather well when I'm playing music. I had to stop using them because I couldn't hear when people in my office were calling my name.
If the question here was people coming to your home and talking loudly on their phones, you might have a point. I wouldn't want anyone dumping smelly chemicals in my house any more than I'd want a crowd of people to invade my house and yell on their cellphones. However, when you're out and about you need to realize that the public situation is different than your own house. You don't get to make the rules for others to follow in a public setting. Society, as a whole, decides what is allowed and what isn't allowed. You can argue that X should be allowed and Y shouldn't be, but if society as a whole decides otherwise, there are really no grounds to find fault in people not observing your rules in public.
For example: It has been decided in many areas that breastfeeding in public is allowed. So women who are feeding their babies might feel free to expose themselves in the process of feeding their infant. Now, some people might not like that sight and might decide that it's evil for a woman to expose her breast in public for any reason. If they think this, they are welcome to argue against this practice (just as proponents are welcome to argue for it), but they can't yell at a breastfeeding mother, rip the infant away from her, and physically force her to cover up. That would (depending on the actions) could constitute assault.
Bringing it back to the article's subject: The guy on the subway has the right to argue to his state legislators that cell phone use on the subway should be illegal. He can write blog posts, letters to the editor, and even hand out flyers on the street corner trying to drum up support for a ban on subway cell phone use. What he can't do, however, is physically prevent people from using their cell phones just because HE has declared that they will be off-limits. He doesn't have the authority to make that sort of declaration. In fact, the law explicitly says that this type of action is illegal - something he knows because he's been convicted of doing this before.
I have read what they wanted. The court ordered Apple to write software to a) remotely disable the "10 PIN tries and the phone is erased" feature and b) give the FBI the ability to make PIN attempts from a simulated USB keyboard (so they could automate PIN attempts). I just don't believe that it will stop here. If this is allowed and the next iPhone makes this impossible, the courts will just extend the request a little more and a little more. There seems to be an attitude in the FBI that all companies should work full time on making the FBI's job easy and if they don't then they are "supporting terrorists." The FBI will push the courts to expand what the "standard request" calls for, will justify it under the "fighting terrorism" banner, and will get the court to rule in their favor.
The line in the sand needs to be drawn here.
Actually, there is every problem with this. Let's take the Harry Potter books, for example. Rewind to when the first book was released (1997). The first movie was released in 2001 - only 4 years later. What would have happened if copyright wasn't an issue? Warner Brothers Pictures could have produced and released the movies without paying JK Rowling one cent. In fact, who would pay the author anything for any work if they didn't have to?
Stepping away from adaptations, one of the big problems, historically, was book knockoffs. Someone would publish a book and suddenly fifty different publishing companies would flood the market with fifty different versions of that book. Only one would actually give the author some revenue - the others just profited off someone else's work without giving back anything. In this scenario, it becomes hard for an author to make any money even with publishing their book (again, ignoring any movie rights, etc) since consumers could just as easily find the knock-off versions for sale and buy those. A book that sold a million copies (across all versions) might only give the author royalties based on 20,000 copies.
Do you think that artists shouldn't have any right to seek profits from their works even for a limited time without others taking their works and using them? Do you think, if such a system were implemented, that big companies wouldn't immediately appropriate any and all works done by smaller artists without compensating the smaller artists at all?