They say, "One important aspect regarding the standardization of HD Photo is Microsoft's commitment to make its patents that are required to implement the specification available without charge."
"Alright, fair enough," I think, but then I wonder: "So, what's the application process like, and what are the licensing requirements?"
Might they say something like, "Oh, it's available free of charge, but you can't use it in an OpenSource / FreeSoftware project, because that's uncontrolled, there's no telling what liabilities we'll be exposed to, for letting you implement this,... (etc etc etc, filler nonsense here.)"..?
Google has recently said it would bid on the 700MHz spectrum only if the FCC guarantees certain open-access principles, including open access for companies wanting to buy wireless capacity wholesale. Does this mean that Google won't bid on spectrum if the rules aren't adopted?
Sacca: To be clear, what we said was not exactly that. What we said was that there had been some concerns that somehow imposing these openness principles on the spectrum might diminish its value at auction. And we wanted to reassure the FCC that embracing a path of full openness in the interest of users and the interest of consumers would not reduce the total revenue of the auction. And we wanted to put our money where our mouth is, and we are putting our money where our principles are. So we committed to spending a minimum of $4.6 billion in the auction, if they adopted all four principles.
So it's not out of the question that Google would participate in the auction, even if the FCC doesn't adopt all four principles?
Sacca: We are deeply committed to changing this industry for the benefit of end users.
When I was 12, I'd hang out in the school library reading books on programming.
The programming section of the library was right next to the UFO section of the library, so I got quite a bit of exposure to the cook section, as well. I remember seeing one book, "The Irradiation of America," or something like that. I opened it up, saw all the predictions about how we'd all be dead by now, due to the TV and radio signals flying around.
I asked myself, "What educational value could the library possibly see, in getting this book for us kids to read?"
I knew that, and I wasn't brilliant. I think I learned it from my old 200-in-1 kit manual, or early lessons in "how to use your ohmmeter." I remember being instructed to draw a line with pencil, and then connect the ends at different lengths across the line. It recommended striping the line multiple times, as well, and to check the difference.
The GPL is an interesting experiment in using a legal loophole as the foundation for a distribution agreement. This case provides further evidence that the concept works as well in practice as it does in legal theory.
I've read about a lot of failures, when people just give money, or send in teachers, and so on.
I think it is wise to try a diversity of methods, and see what works, especially when traditional failures are being repeated over and over. If this doesn't work, "oh well" -- it won't be the first time someone has failed in an expensive effort to improve the lives of the impoverished. But if it succeeds, it will be (as far I know) one of the first successes.
You're worried about him seeing porn, but shouldn't you really be more worried about him seeing dogs? I mean, you say he's actually raped and killed them.
Not-to-mention mothers-- the mere sight of a mother anywhere could be the stimulus that triggers him to go bananas.
Don't you think we ought to ban mothers, as well? Or at least, perhaps, you know... A shawl or two? That ought to supress any feelings he might have.
...hoping for the best knowing full well with a few years he will act on said impulse...
So, if it's a foregone conclusion, what do you think suppressing and jailing the BDSM community will do for everyone?
I'm excited to hear this, but -- wouldn't the Citizendium be more appropriate, given that the experts could actually be recognized as experts, and the work could go towards a recognized polished page?
OMG I have to cry; Someone's just accused Charles Stross of not only looking through the world through a narrow straw, but ignorance in looking to future technology...
Seriously, give some respect, where respect is due: After Vernor Vinge, Charles Stross practically wrote the book on the Singularity.
All state level judges and legislative officers must abide by the constitution. The federal government is the supreme law of the land.
You are right, but the supreme law that "Congress shall make no law" is perfectly respected, even when State governments pass laws limiting free speech.
State governments are not branches of the Federal government. The congress of a given state government is not, (as far as I understand,) an extension of the federal government.
So, by the 1st amendment (taken alone,) state governments are not restricted by the 1st amendment.
Your analysis of "Congress shall..." makes no sense. Are you trying to say that our legal system which has had state laws overturned repeatedly by FEDERAL courts is doing it all wrong? Under your interpretation of that section, the federal government has no right to tell a state that a law it made is unconstitutional. The fact is that congress in that sense means any government legislative body.
No; Our legal system is right, but it's right because of further amendments to the constitution- not the first, taken alone.
Where I understand things get complicated, is the 14th amendment, which is where state laws (I am coming to understand) start to have their laws overturned by federal courts.
But before the 14th amendment, that was not the case, and the states were not barred by the 1st amendment from censoring.
As it should be. My point was that a friend's freedom of speech to provide unwelcome public identification would likely bring my freedom of association into play, assuming the person in question wasn't willing to remove my real name from Flickr. Or, in this case, disassociation.
Well,...
You're joking, right.;)
Your making a pun, but you're not seriously suggesting that there's a relevant contradiction between the freedom of association (freedom to hang out with people, or even to NOT hang out with people, for that matter,) and the freedom of speech here...
You're just making a joke on the word "association." (right?)
Just in case you're *not,* -- The freedom of association is about *who you hang out with,* not "what people associate you with." People are free to associate you with whatever, as long as they're not libelous or slanderous. If you actually WERE at the bar at 3:00AM on Sunday with So-and-So though, they're free to say that, as long as it's true, no matter *how* you'd like people to think of you. Nothing there prevents you from going back to the bar again, your freedom of association is not hindered.
I DO mind, however, if a simple search for my real name can present the searcher with a look into my private life because some "friend" feels it necessary to catalogue the names of everyone in their photos.
The article proposes a registry of people who want to be excluded from automatic (machine) tagging, based on face recognition software; It's not proposing that we limit your friends' free speech rights.
IE, "This is a picture of Sunburnt, who is user 890890 on Slashdot," would still be legal, as far as I understand the article's efforts.
I don't remember He-Man and Thundercat sermons, but I do remember something of GI Joe sermons. There'd be a section at the end, where they'd say, very directly, (This is what's right, this is what's wrong, "And knowing is half the battle.")... and I assume He-Man and Thundercat sermons were similar?
No; The Barbie movies don't work like that. The moral messages are integrated into the movie themselves. Like most any movie that adults watch.
There's a lot of role modeling: Princess Anneliese loves to study science, but she never says anything like, "You should study science!" Rather, it's just her favorite thing to do, and it's mostly background. Of the 12 dancing princesses, there's a daughter who loves to collect bugs, a daughter who loves to read all the time, a pair that love to do oddball things, and so on. This is not to the exclusion of traditional female role models -- singing, sewing, and so on. But it's all woven together, they're all co-present. What is not present in any of the modeling, is a lack of courage, or inability to take action. Taking initiative, putting yourself out there, not just emotionally but physically as well, striving, exertion, it's all there. These are role models for pro-active kids.
There's also a lot of explaining. In Princess and the Pauper, you'll see how class works; One of the main characters is an indentured servant, and she explains how that "works," and what it means. I don't remember seeing anything half as complicated in the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles stories that I love(d) as a kid.
As for "moral," (as opposed to cultural,) there's a lot of struggle, sacrifice, and duty. Commitment to duty is very high in all of these stories, as well as sacrifice, though the story makes it clear that the characters have other things they'd think would be more fun or pleasurable. Ultimately, though, these characters realize that there's something more important to them, that they want, and they do what it takes to get there, even though it doesn't benefit them personally.
From a philosophical analytical perspective, these are "Virtue Ethic" stories, rather then, say, studies of intentions, argument from consequences, or absolute moral rules. These stories advocate (by demonstration of internal debates, and then choices made, rather than lecture,) for the cultivation of virtues (honesty, courage, fairness, pride, intelligence,) and living a full life, with beauty, pleasure, and fun. So I classify this as "Nichomachean." I'm only a lay philosopher, but this is what I see, and this is how I call it.
They're actually good, and, you might get a kick out of watching them. (Serious.) I've lent one of the movies to a couple who doesn't (well, didn't) have kids, and they returned it with the note, "Surprisingly good!" (None of my other friends will watch though. No surprises there..!)
My spirits are lifted after seeing them, and that's enough for me.
If kids think they're being lectured at, they'll turn off. (their ears, not the TV)
Quite.
But the kids do not turn off. Rather, they enact the scenes and the struggles and the arguments in the movies. It's quite clear to me that these movies are effective, and that that is good.
"Although Catherine Bosley received attention because of her public career, the lesson of the story is applicable to anyone: when employers or others have easy access to our most personal information, they may not like what they see."
-- TFA
I'm trying to figure out, "What is it about this quotation that's bothering me?"
There's something that bugs me about this whole thing; Like we're ashamed of who we are, or like we're trying to keep ourselves safe from all the judgmental people out there, or like we don't have the courage to tell people, "Hey, this is how I have a good time, and you just have to deal with it."
I can't quite put my finger on it...
I think it has something to do with my ideas about how social progress is made. I think that, when, as a people, we're hiding and squirreling away the realities in our lives, from "the public," I think we're doing a disservice to the world. When people catch our private lives, and we have to say, "Well, you know what? Screw you all- THIS IS OKAY, and here's why" -- we find ourselves unwitting social activists.
We may have spent all our lives hating social activists, and bitterly spitting, saying, "Just keep it private," but now, something is exposed, and we have to start talking to people.
I think that's something of how progress is made, in society. I think a genuinely tolerant and compassionate society is not made of a bunch of people putting blinders over their eyes.
All laws are initially introduced in congress, either the house or the senate.
No; State laws are not introduced in Congress. They're introduced by whatever procedures the state governments have created for themselves. That's probably a Congress, but it's not the US Congress.
Are you trying to be a smartass or are you seriously asking that?
I know that we in the USA are rightly protective of our right to Free Speech. But "the 1st Amendment," as far as I can tell, doesn't protect us, save from laws passed by Congress. I mean, it's pretty clear: "Congress shall make no law..."
I am learning here that the 14th amendment has something to do with how Free Speech is protected by the Constitution, even over state laws. I don't understand how yet, but that seems to be what most people here are saying.
I hadn't realized, before this conversation, how important the 14th Amendment was.
I don't see totally how that 14th amendment means that 1st amendment protections filter down to the states, but I suppose I can look at the court decisions to understand how that interpretation happened.
Slashdot Mirror
You sound like you know what you're talking about;
I wish I could mod you up.
nntr
Well, here's a thought --
... (etc etc etc, filler nonsense here.)" ..?
They say, "One important aspect regarding the standardization of HD Photo is Microsoft's commitment to make its patents that are required to implement the specification available without charge."
"Alright, fair enough," I think, but then I wonder: "So, what's the application process like, and what are the licensing requirements?"
Might they say something like, "Oh, it's available free of charge, but you can't use it in an OpenSource / FreeSoftware project, because that's uncontrolled, there's no telling what liabilities we'll be exposed to, for letting you implement this,
Maybe that's "the trick" here?
Only if you aren't paying attention--
Read the top of this page in this interview:
I wish there were just a standard form contract, (or a handful of standard form contracts,) so that each website didn't have a unique contract.
How, exactly, is using your body without your mind any different from the average person?
In that it can require zero attention.
You just say, "Body, begin exercise routine X."
Then you go and do whatever work or play you want to do on the Internet.
Come "back" an hour later, and your body has been through every piece of gym equipment in the room.
When I was 12, I'd hang out in the school library reading books on programming.
The programming section of the library was right next to the UFO section of the library, so I got quite a bit of exposure to the cook section, as well. I remember seeing one book, "The Irradiation of America," or something like that. I opened it up, saw all the predictions about how we'd all be dead by now, due to the TV and radio signals flying around.
I asked myself, "What educational value could the library possibly see, in getting this book for us kids to read?"
Now I know.
Not to spoil the awe, but:
I knew that, and I wasn't brilliant. I think I learned it from my old 200-in-1 kit manual, or early lessons in "how to use your ohmmeter." I remember being instructed to draw a line with pencil, and then connect the ends at different lengths across the line. It recommended striping the line multiple times, as well, and to check the difference.
What do you mean by, "legal loophole?"
I've read about a lot of failures, when people just give money, or send in teachers, and so on.
I think it is wise to try a diversity of methods, and see what works, especially when traditional failures are being repeated over and over. If this doesn't work, "oh well" -- it won't be the first time someone has failed in an expensive effort to improve the lives of the impoverished. But if it succeeds, it will be (as far I know) one of the first successes.
I think the idea is that if kids learn how to code, they'll get far more benefit than getting a handout.
Not-to-mention mothers-- the mere sight of a mother anywhere could be the stimulus that triggers him to go bananas.
Don't you think we ought to ban mothers, as well? Or at least, perhaps, you know... A shawl or two? That ought to supress any feelings he might have.
So, if it's a foregone conclusion, what do you think suppressing and jailing the BDSM community will do for everyone?
I'm excited to hear this, but -- wouldn't the Citizendium be more appropriate, given that the experts could actually be recognized as experts, and the work could go towards a recognized polished page?
OMG I have to cry; Someone's just accused Charles Stross of not only looking through the world through a narrow straw, but ignorance in looking to future technology...
Seriously, give some respect, where respect is due: After Vernor Vinge, Charles Stross practically wrote the book on the Singularity.
Have you ever read Stross?
He's not exactly what we would call a stranger to the concept of the Singularity...
If I've skimmed TFA correctly, what he's saying is that it's Post-Humans that are going to go afield; Not what we today call "humans."
And there are plenty of things that are obvious, even before they have been done the first time.
Think up possible applications of general AI...
Oh wait! It's not real, yet? Then I guess the first to implement any particular use, should get the seal of non-obviousness, no?
You are right, but the supreme law that "Congress shall make no law" is perfectly respected, even when State governments pass laws limiting free speech.
State governments are not branches of the Federal government. The congress of a given state government is not, (as far as I understand,) an extension of the federal government.
So, by the 1st amendment (taken alone,) state governments are not restricted by the 1st amendment.
No; Our legal system is right, but it's right because of further amendments to the constitution- not the first, taken alone.
Where I understand things get complicated, is the 14th amendment, which is where state laws (I am coming to understand) start to have their laws overturned by federal courts.
But before the 14th amendment, that was not the case, and the states were not barred by the 1st amendment from censoring.
OK, but the predictions about what the CMBR would like were dead on.
Heh! Another of our family favorites. {;)}=
We're all Foglio fans here.
Well,
You're joking, right.
Your making a pun, but you're not seriously suggesting that there's a relevant contradiction between the freedom of association (freedom to hang out with people, or even to NOT hang out with people, for that matter,) and the freedom of speech here...
You're just making a joke on the word "association." (right?)
Just in case you're *not,* -- The freedom of association is about *who you hang out with,* not "what people associate you with." People are free to associate you with whatever, as long as they're not libelous or slanderous. If you actually WERE at the bar at 3:00AM on Sunday with So-and-So though, they're free to say that, as long as it's true, no matter *how* you'd like people to think of you. Nothing there prevents you from going back to the bar again, your freedom of association is not hindered.
The article proposes a registry of people who want to be excluded from automatic (machine) tagging, based on face recognition software; It's not proposing that we limit your friends' free speech rights.
IE, "This is a picture of Sunburnt, who is user 890890 on Slashdot," would still be legal, as far as I understand the article's efforts.
No; The Barbie movies don't work like that. The moral messages are integrated into the movie themselves. Like most any movie that adults watch.
There's a lot of role modeling: Princess Anneliese loves to study science, but she never says anything like, "You should study science!" Rather, it's just her favorite thing to do, and it's mostly background. Of the 12 dancing princesses, there's a daughter who loves to collect bugs, a daughter who loves to read all the time, a pair that love to do oddball things, and so on. This is not to the exclusion of traditional female role models -- singing, sewing, and so on. But it's all woven together, they're all co-present. What is not present in any of the modeling, is a lack of courage, or inability to take action. Taking initiative, putting yourself out there, not just emotionally but physically as well, striving, exertion, it's all there. These are role models for pro-active kids.
There's also a lot of explaining. In Princess and the Pauper, you'll see how class works; One of the main characters is an indentured servant, and she explains how that "works," and what it means. I don't remember seeing anything half as complicated in the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles stories that I love(d) as a kid.
As for "moral," (as opposed to cultural,) there's a lot of struggle, sacrifice, and duty. Commitment to duty is very high in all of these stories, as well as sacrifice, though the story makes it clear that the characters have other things they'd think would be more fun or pleasurable. Ultimately, though, these characters realize that there's something more important to them, that they want, and they do what it takes to get there, even though it doesn't benefit them personally.
From a philosophical analytical perspective, these are "Virtue Ethic" stories, rather then, say, studies of intentions, argument from consequences, or absolute moral rules. These stories advocate (by demonstration of internal debates, and then choices made, rather than lecture,) for the cultivation of virtues (honesty, courage, fairness, pride, intelligence,) and living a full life, with beauty, pleasure, and fun. So I classify this as "Nichomachean." I'm only a lay philosopher, but this is what I see, and this is how I call it.
They're actually good, and, you might get a kick out of watching them. (Serious.) I've lent one of the movies to a couple who doesn't (well, didn't) have kids, and they returned it with the note, "Surprisingly good!" (None of my other friends will watch though. No surprises there..!)
My spirits are lifted after seeing them, and that's enough for me.
Quite.
But the kids do not turn off. Rather, they enact the scenes and the struggles and the arguments in the movies. It's quite clear to me that these movies are effective, and that that is good.
I'm trying to figure out, "What is it about this quotation that's bothering me?"
There's something that bugs me about this whole thing; Like we're ashamed of who we are, or like we're trying to keep ourselves safe from all the judgmental people out there, or like we don't have the courage to tell people, "Hey, this is how I have a good time, and you just have to deal with it."
I can't quite put my finger on it...
I think it has something to do with my ideas about how social progress is made. I think that, when, as a people, we're hiding and squirreling away the realities in our lives, from "the public," I think we're doing a disservice to the world. When people catch our private lives, and we have to say, "Well, you know what? Screw you all- THIS IS OKAY, and here's why" -- we find ourselves unwitting social activists.
We may have spent all our lives hating social activists, and bitterly spitting, saying, "Just keep it private," but now, something is exposed, and we have to start talking to people.
I think that's something of how progress is made, in society. I think a genuinely tolerant and compassionate society is not made of a bunch of people putting blinders over their eyes.
No; State laws are not introduced in Congress. They're introduced by whatever procedures the state governments have created for themselves. That's probably a Congress, but it's not the US Congress.
I know that we in the USA are rightly protective of our right to Free Speech. But "the 1st Amendment," as far as I can tell, doesn't protect us, save from laws passed by Congress. I mean, it's pretty clear: "Congress shall make no law..."
I am learning here that the 14th amendment has something to do with how Free Speech is protected by the Constitution, even over state laws. I don't understand how yet, but that seems to be what most people here are saying.
What are "the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States?"
Thank you;
I hadn't realized, before this conversation, how important the 14th Amendment was.
I don't see totally how that 14th amendment means that 1st amendment protections filter down to the states, but I suppose I can look at the court decisions to understand how that interpretation happened.
This has been very educational.