I think arguing about whether or not someone should be given a second chance is not helpful.
My big question is: If you did this misdeed 15 years ago, what have you done in the past 15 years to distinguish yourself as a reputable and trustworthy individual. The issue isn't whether or not time heals old wounds, but how well you spend your time re-establishing your value to others.
Isn't this the age old argument between technicians and scientists? Before computers people argued why engineers with bachelors degrees were more qualified than technicians who learned the same technical material.
Compensation and position is often linked to hiring and pay standards within companies. Many companies base pay on level of education independent of the actual value the individual provides. I am guessing that these standards are developed based on industry statistics that demonstrate a relationship between education and performance. This is likely why certain schools are in higher demand than others.
Yes, there are exceptions and I imagine that many companies have other criteria for compensating individuals who demonstrate performance, but companies usually develop pay standards based on experience.
I disagree with your supposition. The government is not setting management policy. The government is trying to prevent carriers from making network management policy that could be used to affect public policy.
The "government" gives carriers a lot of leeway by protecting them from liability for the content they carry. Once you let them make traffic management decisions, then you open a can of worms that challenge this policy. It is precisely these policy issues that gives the FCC the right to venture into this kind of regulation.
I am perfectly happy to let Comcast have free reign over network content policy, provided I can sue the shit out of them when they interfere with my content. The same is true for AT&T and other carriers who are driving the opposition to network neutrality.
I read an article recently in my alumni magazine about a collaboration between Intel and Carnegie Mellon to develop microscopic or miniature robots that use magnetic or static charges to attract and repel each other to propel a collection of them. The changes in charges and magnetic states also allows them to shift from a globular to a solid state. The article sounded similar to borg nanoprobes. From the article, it appears that they started doing this 5 years ago and have made significant progress.
Anti trust is hard to prove and expensive to pursue. It is a last resort in handling a market that is poorly managed. Regulating is easy and efficient.
We spent 30 years fighting commercial pollution using the court system and we got nowhere. As soon as set up regulations that fined the hell out of violators, we began to see progress. Cabinets get to implement administrative law that is enforceable with fines, otherwise the only recourse is a long drawn out court case.
Several years ago Sony released a rootkit with their CDs that cause major problems for PC users. I haven't bought a Sony product since. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
In theory what you say is true. In reality, the landfills are littered with discarded metal PC cases. Just because it CAN be reused, doesn't mean that it is.
well... even in the hey day of tobacco popularity, scientific evidence against smoking was fairly high and the relationship between smoking and cancer was supported by lots of evidence. The industry money was able to convince individuals otherwise, mostly because nicotine is so addictive that people were willing to accept any evidence to the contrary.
The same may be true for EM radiation. We would expect to see evidence to support the supposition independent of who was troubled by the facts.The lack of any supporting evidence between EM and cancer probably squashing any conspiracy theories.
It's probably a good idea for reasons of liability and quality control, but IMHO it IS admitting the failure of the Wikipedia model. I suspect this is just the beginning of greater editorial control. Eventually, the editorial bottlenecks will slow its progress until is asymptotically approaches the cumbersomeness of Encyclopaedia Britannica.
But it all depends on what you do with it. My guess is that AOL will fall into the same trap as Fox, CNN, and other "news" agencies who focus on easy sensationalist money are the cost of facts and credibility.
I am speculating here, that AOL will go after their niche markets using the same "entertainment" rating system that the others do. Good for the masses, but not for a news junkie like me.
I believe they can succeed. I question whether or not it really matters to the world of news.
whoa whoa there. News is biased and uninformative because news agencies provide what people want to hear independent of the actual fact. Entertainment sells, and those pesky facts just gets in the way.
I understand your point, but you picked a bad example. Domestic workers tend to make more money at low skill jobs. It is difficult to find someone trustworthy who will clean for less than $35 / hour.
A better comparison would be hotel house keeping staff. I suspect there is a large difference between what hotels pay in Europe versus the US.
In my jurisdiction (Cambridge, MA) the law is that you can bike on the sidewalk if you're traveling at a walker's pace.
Not entirely true:
Bicycles may not be ridden on a sidewalk in the Harvard Sq. and Central Sq. business districts, as well as some newly created banned areas:
* Inman Sq.
* Huron Village
* Mass. Ave., from Wendell St. and Shepard St. to Russell St. and Cogswel
* Somerville Ave (entirely)
Outside of these areas, there isn't a lot of motivation for riding on the sidewalk. The big exception is Memorial Drive where sidewalks are essentially shared bike/pedestrian lanes.
There is a lot of anger and the MPAA and RIAA, and much of it stems from their tactics to protect their dwindling market and the price they charge for the poor quality products they offer (read this as shit).
The industry seems to be driven by bean counters and lawyers instead of artists and creative producers. They lack inspiration in what they produce and the business models they put forth. DRM is an uncreative technical answer to what seems to be a changing market. All aspects of the changing market and the Industry's inability to change with it has been discussed here on these very pages.
The big question on my mind is: is it fair to single out individuals when they are merely representative of a common practice? If one or two individuals break the law, then it is a crime. If everyone breaks the law, then it isn't it a question of public policy? At what point does dissonance stop being an individual crime and start being a revolution? How effective is it to stop a revolution when the majority of people are against you?
Putting that all aside, the current changes in the entertainment industry is not much different to the changes we have been experiencing in the computer, networking, and cell phone industries. It is a real pain in the ass when you can no longer extract 60% to 80% margins on your products. Even Microsoft is feeling this pinch. The way other industries deal with this problem is to find new ways of providing value to their customers. Nokia and Apple are focusing on the services surrounding their phones. Google is making money from advertising, and IBM has changed from a hardware vendor to a services company.
I know it is not completely a fair comparison because of copyright law,, but when your product starts becoming a commodity, how do you respond? If I were running the entertainment industry, I would concentrate on new ways to make money rather than pissing off my remaining customers. It is not surprising to me that the only big change in the music industry came from Steve Jobs with his IPOD and ITunes and not from the lackluster entertainment execs. The big labels and entertainment giants are the same lazy behemoths as was the auto industry.
Here is an interesting thought. Why doesn't someone on Slashdot come up with a creative way for the RIAA or MPAA to make lots of money given the current market trends? We could make it a contest. The winner gets a big cut in the profits. Just remember, if you do come up with a winning idea, I want my finders fee:-)
I agree that it is not good to stifle competition, but your statement shows a fundamental misunderstanding about how markets work. Cheaper, faster, and better does not necessarily result in a more successful product. More effective advertising often makes an inferior product more successful.
Allowing Google to put trademark keywords up for sale enables companies with greater funding to use another's trademarks to sell their own products.
There is a difference between referencing a trademark in your advertisement and using that trademark to sell your product. For example, it is acceptable to say my shoes are better than Nikes, but it is not acceptable for me to sell my shoes under Nikes name. IMHO, allowing Google to redirect trademark searches to a competitors site is a trademark violation.
I think Mr Nielson should demonstrate his mask proof login technique to the masses at slashdot. I would like to see an actual real live use case, such as him logging into his Fidelity or Schwab account. I am not quite sure I understand the concept and a demo would go a long way. Perhaps a post of the video on you tube would be better.
Slashdot Mirror
I am not sure what to make of the claim. Can you really copyright your name. I would think that this is trademarking not copyrighting.
I think arguing about whether or not someone should be given a second chance is not helpful.
My big question is: If you did this misdeed 15 years ago, what have you done in the past 15 years to distinguish yourself as a reputable and trustworthy individual. The issue isn't whether or not time heals old wounds, but how well you spend your time re-establishing your value to others.
Isn't this the age old argument between technicians and scientists? Before computers people argued why engineers with bachelors degrees were more qualified than technicians who learned the same technical material.
Compensation and position is often linked to hiring and pay standards within companies. Many companies base pay on level of education independent of the actual value the individual provides. I am guessing that these standards are developed based on industry statistics that demonstrate a relationship between education and performance. This is likely why certain schools are in higher demand than others.
Yes, there are exceptions and I imagine that many companies have other criteria for compensating individuals who demonstrate performance, but companies usually develop pay standards based on experience.
His head is stuck somewhere, but I suspect it is not in the sand.
I don't know. Accepting Sarah Palin as a running mate seems pretty clueless.
I disagree with your supposition. The government is not setting management policy. The government is trying to prevent carriers from making network management policy that could be used to affect public policy.
The "government" gives carriers a lot of leeway by protecting them from liability for the content they carry. Once you let them make traffic management decisions, then you open a can of worms that challenge this policy. It is precisely these policy issues that gives the FCC the right to venture into this kind of regulation.
I am perfectly happy to let Comcast have free reign over network content policy, provided I can sue the shit out of them when they interfere with my content. The same is true for AT&T and other carriers who are driving the opposition to network neutrality.
I read an article recently in my alumni magazine about a collaboration between Intel and Carnegie Mellon to develop microscopic or miniature robots that use magnetic or static charges to attract and repel each other to propel a collection of them. The changes in charges and magnetic states also allows them to shift from a globular to a solid state. The article sounded similar to borg nanoprobes. From the article, it appears that they started doing this 5 years ago and have made significant progress.
I wonder if the iRobot technology is similar?
maybe you should learn the difference between to and too.
Anti trust is hard to prove and expensive to pursue. It is a last resort in handling a market that is poorly managed. Regulating is easy and efficient.
We spent 30 years fighting commercial pollution using the court system and we got nowhere. As soon as set up regulations that fined the hell out of violators, we began to see progress. Cabinets get to implement administrative law that is enforceable with fines, otherwise the only recourse is a long drawn out court case.
Several years ago Sony released a rootkit with their CDs that cause major problems for PC users. I haven't bought a Sony product since. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Are you sure its not Mentos and Diet Coke?
In theory what you say is true. In reality, the landfills are littered with discarded metal PC cases. Just because it CAN be reused, doesn't mean that it is.
well ... even in the hey day of tobacco popularity, scientific evidence against smoking was fairly high and the relationship between smoking and cancer was supported by lots of evidence. The industry money was able to convince individuals otherwise, mostly because nicotine is so addictive that people were willing to accept any evidence to the contrary.
The same may be true for EM radiation. We would expect to see evidence to support the supposition independent of who was troubled by the facts.The lack of any supporting evidence between EM and cancer probably squashing any conspiracy theories.
It's probably a good idea for reasons of liability and quality control, but IMHO it IS admitting the failure of the Wikipedia model. I suspect this is just the beginning of greater editorial control. Eventually, the editorial bottlenecks will slow its progress until is asymptotically approaches the cumbersomeness of Encyclopaedia Britannica.
But it all depends on what you do with it. My guess is that AOL will fall into the same trap as Fox, CNN, and other "news" agencies who focus on easy sensationalist money are the cost of facts and credibility.
I am speculating here, that AOL will go after their niche markets using the same "entertainment" rating system that the others do. Good for the masses, but not for a news junkie like me.
I believe they can succeed. I question whether or not it really matters to the world of news.
whoa whoa there. News is biased and uninformative because news agencies provide what people want to hear independent of the actual fact. Entertainment sells, and those pesky facts just gets in the way.
I understand your point, but you picked a bad example. Domestic workers tend to make more money at low skill jobs. It is difficult to find someone trustworthy who will clean for less than $35 / hour.
A better comparison would be hotel house keeping staff. I suspect there is a large difference between what hotels pay in Europe versus the US.
In my jurisdiction (Cambridge, MA) the law is that you can bike on the sidewalk if you're traveling at a walker's pace.
Not entirely true:
Bicycles may not be ridden on a sidewalk in the Harvard Sq. and Central Sq. business districts, as well as some newly created banned areas:
* Inman Sq.
* Huron Village
* Mass. Ave., from Wendell St. and Shepard St. to Russell St. and Cogswel
* Somerville Ave (entirely)
Outside of these areas, there isn't a lot of motivation for riding on the sidewalk. The big exception is Memorial Drive where sidewalks are essentially shared bike/pedestrian lanes.
There is a lot of anger and the MPAA and RIAA, and much of it stems from their tactics to protect their dwindling market and the price they charge for the poor quality products they offer (read this as shit).
The industry seems to be driven by bean counters and lawyers instead of artists and creative producers. They lack inspiration in what they produce and the business models they put forth. DRM is an uncreative technical answer to what seems to be a changing market. All aspects of the changing market and the Industry's inability to change with it has been discussed here on these very pages.
The big question on my mind is: is it fair to single out individuals when they are merely representative of a common practice? If one or two individuals break the law, then it is a crime. If everyone breaks the law, then it isn't it a question of public policy? At what point does dissonance stop being an individual crime and start being a revolution? How effective is it to stop a revolution when the majority of people are against you?
Putting that all aside, the current changes in the entertainment industry is not much different to the changes we have been experiencing in the computer, networking, and cell phone industries. It is a real pain in the ass when you can no longer extract 60% to 80% margins on your products. Even Microsoft is feeling this pinch. The way other industries deal with this problem is to find new ways of providing value to their customers. Nokia and Apple are focusing on the services surrounding their phones. Google is making money from advertising, and IBM has changed from a hardware vendor to a services company.
I know it is not completely a fair comparison because of copyright law,, but when your product starts becoming a commodity, how do you respond? If I were running the entertainment industry, I would concentrate on new ways to make money rather than pissing off my remaining customers. It is not surprising to me that the only big change in the music industry came from Steve Jobs with his IPOD and ITunes and not from the lackluster entertainment execs. The big labels and entertainment giants are the same lazy behemoths as was the auto industry.
Here is an interesting thought. Why doesn't someone on Slashdot come up with a creative way for the RIAA or MPAA to make lots of money given the current market trends? We could make it a contest. The winner gets a big cut in the profits. Just remember, if you do come up with a winning idea, I want my finders fee :-)
I'm allergic to stupid and annoying people with silly medical claims, but I'm not moving to an desert Island to avoid them.
If evolution is making women more attractive, does creation have the inverse effect?
Maybe you could backup your claims with a reference? Otherwise, you leave the rest of us in the dark.
I agree that it is not good to stifle competition, but your statement shows a fundamental misunderstanding about how markets work. Cheaper, faster, and better does not necessarily result in a more successful product. More effective advertising often makes an inferior product more successful.
Allowing Google to put trademark keywords up for sale enables companies with greater funding to use another's trademarks to sell their own products.
There is a difference between referencing a trademark in your advertisement and using that trademark to sell your product. For example, it is acceptable to say my shoes are better than Nikes, but it is not acceptable for me to sell my shoes under Nikes name. IMHO, allowing Google to redirect trademark searches to a competitors site is a trademark violation.
take a look at the new animation framework, state machine, and the declarative UI if you want to see good reasons why they are making the switch.
I think Mr Nielson should demonstrate his mask proof login technique to the masses at slashdot. I would like to see an actual real live use case, such as him logging into his Fidelity or Schwab account. I am not quite sure I understand the concept and a demo would go a long way. Perhaps a post of the video on you tube would be better.