in ithaca, the people tried to LOBBY to prevent Walmart from moving in, buying out a small area of stores, and taking over that land to build their store.
last i heard, the people lost, the stores' rental contracts were cancelled, and the buildings were demolished.
whether or not you can teach yourself a skill from a book is entirely dependent upon what kind of learner you are - auditory or visual or both. visual learners have no problem learning from a book; auditory learners *do,* and need someone with whom they can work in detail, and ask questions.
i think training, whether informally coordinated or gained in a classroom, can be invaluable for some people and a waste of time for others. therefore, judging anyone for their style of learning is pointless.
for the poll: in my company, training in new technologies is done in an office conference room by someone professional from an outside company, and people sign up. that way my company has only one business expense and they get as many people trained as desire it.
i hope you mean getting technical support from Verizon, because they're the ones who have been horrid IME (in my experience). maybe it's just my reseller, but i've always received excellent service for my Covad DSL and negligent service from NYNEX -> Bell Atlantic -> Verizon.
actually, an MBA really doesn't give you a good overview of how to do truly effective project management. as a technical PM (yes i know - boo hiss) i can say that the MBAs in the PM world don't do so well. they almost universally believe in the sales theory of project implementation: "if it makes us money immediately, it's a priority - doesn't matter if it costs us more in resource time to build it than what we're being paid for it."
it seems to me that the most important function of an MBA is to allow you to get behind the mindsets of the people in executive positions, so that you know exactly how to present that expensive PO which is so vital for the stability of your systems. *saying* it is vital for the stability of your systems doesn't seem to work very well.
Re:Ridiculous? Maybe so, but it doesn't make it ri
on
Who Owns Your Culture?
·
· Score: 4
but where does *education of children* fit into this discussion of intellectual property? lego has done something good, in my opinion - they've created something at least *vaguely* culturally accurate to portray a Maori or Polynesian group. children who play with these legos won't think of Polynesian cultures as the grand 'other'... this is quite unlike Hollywood, or other groups that mangle culture to fit whatever story they're doing.
"let's sue gracenote for stealing the information that we have all given them to create their db in the first place... "
"Ummm.. you GAVE them that information, they can do whatever they want with it."
it wasn't our information to 'give' - we were volunteering our time to *load* it. and i personally think we should slam them for thinking the information we provided is proprietary to them.
i don't find it to be a badge of honor. it's simply a fact. and of course i'd be different now if i didn't grow up with it. i can't say i'd be BETTER, though. my depression turned out to be traumatic rather than clinical, but the doctors didn't know that at the time and diagnosed me as clinical.
therefore, if i had been given drugs, there are any number of incredibly bad side effects or other problems that could have occurred. and since children's brain chemistry changes more drastically than adults when they are between the ages of 5 - 16, there are scads of other ethical issues that arise from using adult-tested drugs on children.
the difference is that writers sign contracts with the people who are *distributing* their work - first american rights, first international rights, etc. freelance writers aren't going after the people who copy articles and post them on their (smaller) websites. my understanding is that they're going after publishers who have violated the letter of their original contract with them. it's not analogous to the end reader copying it - it is the equivalent of musicians suing their labels because they violated whatever contract they signed.
the wrong antidep can cause people to act out their murderous impulses instead of reining them in. people have sued makers of drugs like zoloft and prozac for 'causing' their relatives to launch over the deep end and kill members of their family, etc
testing is VERY important. this is brain chemistry we're talking about, and medicine still hasn't figured out all the implications of what we do to that little bundle of grey matter.
You never hear about a Reverand's son or a child of a devoutly religious family shooting up a school.
no, but you do hear about them taunting/beating up/raping their peers. (ask me how i know.)
i'll ignore the obvious 'freedom of religion' argument here and go for a little reality. while i feel that there is nothing inherently wrong with touting "traditional (insert religion here) morality" as a need for children, it really does nothing. it might keep kids from killing, but think of it this way - the most christian people in my school were the most cruel to me, and the hindi and agnostic kids were the most tolerant of me.
coincidence? maybe, maybe not. either way, if i had gone over the deep end, those traditional christian morals would not have saved me.
you might very well be right, but a two parent loving family can't always exist. i had a single parent loving family. my parent was VERY dedicated to me...but resources were limited.
i was a senior when the movie "Heathers" came out. it acted out a fantasy i had had all along - blow up my whole damn school. why the whole school? because there's no torture like being ignored by all your peers - literally an *entire school* - for months. why? because there were rumors that i was gay.
my parent couldn't help me with that kind of torment. school was a requirement, and a single parent cannot home school their child. i had little choice. if i were inclined to be more physical with my anger, i *might* have killed. i consider myself lucky that i wasn't. i did flirt with thoughts of suicide instead...once again, i consider myself lucky that i didn't do it.
but i certainly thought about both options. i would have been a saint not to.
I agree with your point about languages getting more high level, but I don't think your point about teenagers programming is valid.
i think you might have missed his point. you're right that high school kids do have greater access to computers, but when i was in high school there was no way you would be taught programming unless you had a good background in mathematics - beyond what they normally taught in high school. the reason why i didn't try to learn any programming languages besides basic was because in my day, advanced levels of calculus were required to get you past the starting gate.
now there's very little mathematics or engineering requirement to programming. i think that was his point.
copyright-protected linux tv?
on
Linux TV
·
· Score: 2
since the TV is billed as a "high resolution HDTV-ready monitor with a built-in conventional TV tuner," i'm sure we'll hear about some sort of HDTV copy prevention built into it. seems like an interesting little ploy, to me - i don't care if the internet appliance *is* linux, i'm not going anywhere near HDTV until i know it has no inherent/embedded copy prevention.
there are two other problems with working as a contractor - having to acquire an accountant to make sure you doesn't owe an insane amount of money at the end of the year, and having to get decent health insurance to cover yourself and the family.
years ago, i was a contractor as well, and i lost a great deal of money while trying to obtain appropriate insurance coverage for myself - and paid out my savings when paying taxes. so be careful before you jump that fence...
if someone started making handhelds with linux, linux users would start programming for handhelds.
it makes perfect sense. once the toy is there, people will start making software and games that they want and then start distributing, the same way it happens now.
i have serious doubts that they have any intention of using this patent against Linux OS theming. after all, check out other patents they have, such as the one listed in here, given to them back in 99, which they could have done something with and did not. M$ then patents something somewhat similar with this, which ALSO can be read as a threat, and both apple and M$ have scads of patents for little functions within their OSes which are also in widespread use.
i don't think the patent is either concise enough or broad enough for them to use it against something like Linux, nor do i think they really have any inclination to do so.
there's no need to find a credible partner function for illegal music copying because it's not trying to be a corporate standard - leastways, not if the RIAA can help it;)
i'm not accepting or rejecting the idea that copyright infringment is bad. i really think it's dependent on a lot of ethical attitudes that are personal. but i think the issue is that the big corps are trying to sell the public at large their blank media with built in protection because of the actions of a cross section of people. that, to me, is just outright wrong.
according to the current legal interpretation of:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" (fourth amendment)
this means that what we do in our own homes cannot be monitored, affected, or interfered with unless there is a federally-based legal reason. that is how they define the right to privacy.
according to the interpretation of:
"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (fourteenth amendment)
this guarantees no state OR non-federal body can establish a law that would infringe upon that right to privacy (among other rights), including monitoring what we do with our home computers.
now, one could argue that once we purchase something and bring it into our home, we are responsible for knowing how it works. however, if there are no reasonable alternatives, we have some possible legal recourse.
Come on, stop and think: *intellectual property*? What kind of capitalistic, corporate oxymoron is that?
that oxymoron means that what i create is mine, and no one else can make a profit off of it without giving me credit. my stories, my art, my articles, my music - they all need to exist with my name attached to them.
that's really all it means. corporations simply abuse it, and have their workers sign away their rights to it because they're using corporate facilities to have their brainstorms.
wow, and here privacy is one of them there constitutionally protected rights here in the USA, and copyright is not. are you outside of the US, or just don't care about what is and isn't truly "protected?"
somehow i'm really skeptical of the statement that the DOD thought that the reports came from typical focus group research. they're not THAT dumb...am i the only one who thinks that this info might not be exactly what's going on?
i was playing D&D for years in junior high and high school, and i was playing with only girls! it took me quite a few years after that to finally have a boyfriend - fancy that;)
from the cnet article: "It is a compromise between what an end user expects to be able to do and the content providers' wish to protect their material," he said. "We are not trying to take away users' rights or capabilities."
i don't see how either statement can be true. protecting copyright by restricting the usage of blank media DIRECTLY interferes with what an end user expects to be able to do with said blank media. and hiding it under a blanket like "the plan isn't JUST about copy protection, but also about enhancing security" is an obvious and sad marketing effort to try to find some credibile partner function for copy protection.
now, i know the average consumer isn't the best educated person in the world, but do they really expect computer users to fall for this plan?
Slashdot Mirror
gee, it's funny you say that.
in ithaca, the people tried to LOBBY to prevent Walmart from moving in, buying out a small area of stores, and taking over that land to build their store.
last i heard, the people lost, the stores' rental contracts were cancelled, and the buildings were demolished.
whether or not you can teach yourself a skill from a book is entirely dependent upon what kind of learner you are - auditory or visual or both. visual learners have no problem learning from a book; auditory learners *do,* and need someone with whom they can work in detail, and ask questions.
i think training, whether informally coordinated or gained in a classroom, can be invaluable for some people and a waste of time for others. therefore, judging anyone for their style of learning is pointless.
for the poll: in my company, training in new technologies is done in an office conference room by someone professional from an outside company, and people sign up. that way my company has only one business expense and they get as many people trained as desire it.
i hope you mean getting technical support from Verizon, because they're the ones who have been horrid IME (in my experience). maybe it's just my reseller, but i've always received excellent service for my Covad DSL and negligent service from NYNEX -> Bell Atlantic -> Verizon.
actually, an MBA really doesn't give you a good overview of how to do truly effective project management. as a technical PM (yes i know - boo hiss) i can say that the MBAs in the PM world don't do so well. they almost universally believe in the sales theory of project implementation: "if it makes us money immediately, it's a priority - doesn't matter if it costs us more in resource time to build it than what we're being paid for it."
it seems to me that the most important function of an MBA is to allow you to get behind the mindsets of the people in executive positions, so that you know exactly how to present that expensive PO which is so vital for the stability of your systems. *saying* it is vital for the stability of your systems doesn't seem to work very well.
but where does *education of children* fit into this discussion of intellectual property? lego has done something good, in my opinion - they've created something at least *vaguely* culturally accurate to portray a Maori or Polynesian group. children who play with these legos won't think of Polynesian cultures as the grand 'other'... this is quite unlike Hollywood, or other groups that mangle culture to fit whatever story they're doing.
then you might run into problems if it conflicts with the bogus info on Napster ;)
it wasn't our information to 'give' - we were volunteering our time to *load* it. and i personally think we should slam them for thinking the information we provided is proprietary to them.
i don't find it to be a badge of honor. it's simply a fact. and of course i'd be different now if i didn't grow up with it. i can't say i'd be BETTER, though. my depression turned out to be traumatic rather than clinical, but the doctors didn't know that at the time and diagnosed me as clinical.
therefore, if i had been given drugs, there are any number of incredibly bad side effects or other problems that could have occurred. and since children's brain chemistry changes more drastically than adults when they are between the ages of 5 - 16, there are scads of other ethical issues that arise from using adult-tested drugs on children.
i was one. it still doesn't change my mind.
the difference is that writers sign contracts with the people who are *distributing* their work - first american rights, first international rights, etc. freelance writers aren't going after the people who copy articles and post them on their (smaller) websites. my understanding is that they're going after publishers who have violated the letter of their original contract with them. it's not analogous to the end reader copying it - it is the equivalent of musicians suing their labels because they violated whatever contract they signed.
the wrong antidep can cause people to act out their murderous impulses instead of reining them in. people have sued makers of drugs like zoloft and prozac for 'causing' their relatives to launch over the deep end and kill members of their family, etc
testing is VERY important. this is brain chemistry we're talking about, and medicine still hasn't figured out all the implications of what we do to that little bundle of grey matter.
You never hear about a Reverand's son or a child of a devoutly religious family shooting up a school.
no, but you do hear about them taunting/beating up/raping their peers. (ask me how i know.)
i'll ignore the obvious 'freedom of religion' argument here and go for a little reality. while i feel that there is nothing inherently wrong with touting "traditional (insert religion here) morality" as a need for children, it really does nothing. it might keep kids from killing, but think of it this way - the most christian people in my school were the most cruel to me, and the hindi and agnostic kids were the most tolerant of me.
coincidence? maybe, maybe not. either way, if i had gone over the deep end, those traditional christian morals would not have saved me.
you might very well be right, but a two parent loving family can't always exist. i had a single parent loving family. my parent was VERY dedicated to me...but resources were limited.
i was a senior when the movie "Heathers" came out. it acted out a fantasy i had had all along - blow up my whole damn school. why the whole school? because there's no torture like being ignored by all your peers - literally an *entire school* - for months. why? because there were rumors that i was gay.
my parent couldn't help me with that kind of torment. school was a requirement, and a single parent cannot home school their child. i had little choice. if i were inclined to be more physical with my anger, i *might* have killed. i consider myself lucky that i wasn't. i did flirt with thoughts of suicide instead...once again, i consider myself lucky that i didn't do it.
but i certainly thought about both options. i would have been a saint not to.
I agree with your point about languages getting more high level, but I don't think your point about teenagers programming is valid.
i think you might have missed his point. you're right that high school kids do have greater access to computers, but when i was in high school there was no way you would be taught programming unless you had a good background in mathematics - beyond what they normally taught in high school. the reason why i didn't try to learn any programming languages besides basic was because in my day, advanced levels of calculus were required to get you past the starting gate.
now there's very little mathematics or engineering requirement to programming. i think that was his point.
since the TV is billed as a "high resolution HDTV-ready monitor with a built-in conventional TV tuner," i'm sure we'll hear about some sort of HDTV copy prevention built into it. seems like an interesting little ploy, to me - i don't care if the internet appliance *is* linux, i'm not going anywhere near HDTV until i know it has no inherent/embedded copy prevention.
there are two other problems with working as a contractor - having to acquire an accountant to make sure you doesn't owe an insane amount of money at the end of the year, and having to get decent health insurance to cover yourself and the family.
years ago, i was a contractor as well, and i lost a great deal of money while trying to obtain appropriate insurance coverage for myself - and paid out my savings when paying taxes. so be careful before you jump that fence...
if someone started making handhelds with linux, linux users would start programming for handhelds.
it makes perfect sense. once the toy is there, people will start making software and games that they want and then start distributing, the same way it happens now.
i don't think the patent is either concise enough or broad enough for them to use it against something like Linux, nor do i think they really have any inclination to do so.
there's no need to find a credible partner function for illegal music copying because it's not trying to be a corporate standard - leastways, not if the RIAA can help it ;)
i'm not accepting or rejecting the idea that copyright infringment is bad. i really think it's dependent on a lot of ethical attitudes that are personal. but i think the issue is that the big corps are trying to sell the public at large their blank media with built in protection because of the actions of a cross section of people. that, to me, is just outright wrong.
according to the current legal interpretation of:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" (fourth amendment)
this means that what we do in our own homes cannot be monitored, affected, or interfered with unless there is a federally-based legal reason. that is how they define the right to privacy.
according to the interpretation of:
"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (fourteenth amendment)
this guarantees no state OR non-federal body can establish a law that would infringe upon that right to privacy (among other rights), including monitoring what we do with our home computers.
now, one could argue that once we purchase something and bring it into our home, we are responsible for knowing how it works. however, if there are no reasonable alternatives, we have some possible legal recourse.
Come on, stop and think: *intellectual property*? What kind of capitalistic, corporate oxymoron is that?
that oxymoron means that what i create is mine, and no one else can make a profit off of it without giving me credit. my stories, my art, my articles, my music - they all need to exist with my name attached to them.
that's really all it means. corporations simply abuse it, and have their workers sign away their rights to it because they're using corporate facilities to have their brainstorms.
"even if it means giving up a bit of my privacy."
wow, and here privacy is one of them there constitutionally protected rights here in the USA, and copyright is not. are you outside of the US, or just don't care about what is and isn't truly "protected?"
somehow i'm really skeptical of the statement that the DOD thought that the reports came from typical focus group research. they're not THAT dumb...am i the only one who thinks that this info might not be exactly what's going on?
~lupa, always suspicious of the DOD
i was playing D&D for years in junior high and high school, and i was playing with only girls! it took me quite a few years after that to finally have a boyfriend - fancy that ;)
from the cnet article: "It is a compromise between what an end user expects to be able to do and the content providers' wish to protect their material," he said. "We are not trying to take away users' rights or capabilities."
i don't see how either statement can be true. protecting copyright by restricting the usage of blank media DIRECTLY interferes with what an end user expects to be able to do with said blank media. and hiding it under a blanket like "the plan isn't JUST about copy protection, but also about enhancing security" is an obvious and sad marketing effort to try to find some credibile partner function for copy protection.
now, i know the average consumer isn't the best educated person in the world, but do they really expect computer users to fall for this plan?