Some states in the USA used to have similar laws when automobiles first became available. I believe New Hampshire had such a law in the early 20th century. Tennesee, perhaps a bit more of a sexist state,
had a similar law that only applied when a woman was driving.
In Ginsburg's majority opinion, she specifically drew a line between patent caselaw and and copyright caselaw. IANAL, but from what I gather from Ginsburg's opinion is that the Court is trying to stop lawyers from using precedent from patent case law and apply them to copyright case law, and vice versa.
Whether your post is a troll or not is besides the point for now.:) Plenty of jobs were considered "men's jobs" that women simply wouldn't be able to do well until suddenly women started entering the field in droves and it became seen as "women's work." Teaching is a prime example of this, which in an earlier era was exclusively the province of men. Also, whereas earlier women were barred from med school (in part because women were considered too weak to handle any type of higher education), now medical school classes are almost 50/50 male/female.
In some cases, their may well be differences in male and female brains that play themselves out in tangible ways (something I'll leave the brain-scientists and evolutionary psychologists to talk more about), but time after time after time when a career is simply explained as "not appropriate for the female brain", they've been proved incorrect and, in fact, sometimes turned the career into a woman-dominated field.
I suspect that the IT field is just a "labor of love" that has too many alternatives to attract people who weren't into it from early on. It's not _that_ lucrative so that it would attract the best and the brightest from all groups. It's simply something you're really interested in and willing to do despite the middling pay and bad work environment, or you're not in love with it, and you will be able to find plenty of other jobs with similar pay and as good or better lifestyle.
On the other hand, my suspicion would be that medicine, law, high-demand PhD level sciences (such as biology, as opposed to physics), and investment banking provide enough social and financial rewards that women will be attracted to the field in larger number. In these cases it will be more likely that the women will be more likely to _become_ interested in the field later because the rewards are there.
Well, mostly I was thinking of graduate/PhD work when it came to working closely with professors who might be located at a "2nd-tier school." The issue of good professors/mediocre students is most pronounced in the NYC-metro area in which top scholars want to be near New York City and therefore end up taking whatever position they can get. Thus, the faculties at Seton Hall, Fordham, and SUNY-Stony Brook tend to get a lot of top people (and apparently Pace, too... who knew?).
You can make an argument that working with professors matters at the undergrad level, and it does, but it's your PhD program where the quality of the professor who supervises you determines your entire destiny. Besides, at 18 I didn't have much of an idea what specific professors I wanted to work with. Applying to graduate school was a different matteer, though.
First of all, it's a waste of money to "pay" for a PhD. Only enter a PhD program if they give you a fellowship and a stipend. It's not cost-effective otherwise, and your money would be better spent paying for med school or law school.
That said, the experience I had as an undergrad working with professors is what helped my PhD chances immensely. But the most important thing is having a good mentor. Some professors who are "top in their fields" might be located at schools whose undergraduates student bodies are considered mediocre. However, if you churn out really good research with a good advisor, it doesn't matter, even if the school might have been considered "second-tier" when you were 18 years old.
Why negative attacks don't work for MSoft
on
Halloween VII
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
The essence of the document was that MS's attacks on the viral nature of the GPL weren't working and that they'd do better to extol the virtues of their own product.
Notice that, for the most part, the exact opposite strategy works for Linux advocates.
This is because Microsoft, as the dominant player, has to justify it's own existence again and again, whereas Linux as the (initial) underdg, had nothing to lose by tearing down its rival. After all, as a multi-billion $$$ company, everyone knows that Microsoft can financially dominate the PR world to badmouth its competitors.
Does this spell the end of "Linux is Bad/The GPL is unAmerican" propaganda from Microsoft? That coul dbe a disaster, because then we wouldn't have anything to flame about on slashdot anymore!:)
Olsen's argument in favor of retroactive copyright extensions is telling in terms of who's side he's on.
The justices repeatedly hammered home the point that retroactive copyright extensions do not aid in the "creation of creative works" because works from, say, 30 years ago that benefit from an extension have already been created, so the law does not incent the old author if his copyright has been retroactively extended. (in fact, just the opposite... the old author is allowed to rest on his laurels given that he has another 30 years of royalties coming in, rather than write something new)
Olsen replies that the beneficiaries are the publishers and movie-distributors who gain and incentive to make more money from publishing given the retroactive extension... he's arguing that large businesses (not individual creators/inventors) are the ones who will benefit by congress's granting of monopoly power by retroactively extending copyrights.
What I don't understand is why noone made the argument that releasing works into the public domain will _encourage_ dissemination of works that were formerly copyrighted, because there will no longer be an hurdles to dissemination. The technology argument is a strong one-- that by applying copyright extensions retroactively, we _prevent_ the wide dissemination of information in an age where anyone can publish cheaply. We no longer need to provide extensions for large publishers because anyone can publish public domain works cheaply.
And, of course, the WSJ has never been shy about pointing out problems regarding predatory marketing pratices. An unbiased source it's not.
What the WSJ showed was an increasing market for coffee combined with and increasing percentage of that market being owned by Starbucks.
One can argue whether or not Starbucks is creating that larger market (and simultaneous gobbling up a larger and larger portion of that market) or "riding" the increased demand to the top.
Ha! Hey, as someone who lives in a state where you can only buy liquor from an expensive, inaccessible state-store system, you have no right to speak about NJ's silly laws.:)
This is the same state that doesn't allow you to pump your own gasoline (all the stations are full-service- only) and doesn't allow anyone to get a driver's license until they're 17.
The legislators haven't been shy about making sure that people are adequately protected from things they don't need protection from.
I know how she feels. I went into my local shopping centre the other day, trying to locate some blank betamax tapes
You could, however, buy a top selling CD, like the soundtrack to Oh Brother, Where Art Thou? which boosted bluegrass music to the top of the charts. You won't find the "Bluegrass" station on the radio, however.
Furthermore, the entire point of the public radio airwaves is not so radio conglomerates can put out their most profitable "product," but rather to provide a wide range of options and choices to the local audience. That's why the radio situation stinks.
What's the incentive to be secretive?
on
Open Source... Mining?
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
If a mine has exclusive rights to mine in the area it has surveyed, what is the incentive to hide the geological data? After all, any additional information that outsiders provide based on the data will either help the mine or at worst help a neighboring mine. In neither scenario will the first mine be hurt if anyone else sees their data. So I don't see how the culture of secrecy became so ingrained.
Re:The problem is not a failure of the market
on
Homogenized Music
·
· Score: 1
Instead of complaining, choose one of the alternatives: listen to satellite radio, internet radio, listen to CD's (the real ones, not those phony pseudo-CD's), etc.
That defeats the purpose of radio. Radio is there so that people of all demographics in the local community can be catered to, not just the 18-34 demographic being sent some tolerable programming for mass consumption for the benefit of national advertisers. Radio is supposed to be there to allow us to have local broadcast programming without being forced to resort to alternatives. It does mean that "someone" is going to be choosing the programming, but it is supposed to be a chooser who is local-- especially since radio is a short-range local medium.
The question is whether the airwaves are a "community resource" or whether they belong to companies trying to serve up a demographic to advertisers.
I can use all of these alternatives (at my expense, of course), but that doesn't change the fact that the airwaves were regulated specifically so that they would cater to my community specifically, and not to national advertisers.
Re:The problem is not a failure of the market
on
Homogenized Music
·
· Score: 1
Believe me, the ad executives are!
No, the ad executives are concerned with the demographics of listeners, particularly those within the 18-34 listening demographic. Programs that can reliably hold onto a portion of this demographic are much more valuable than a program that attracts a huge audience in the 35-54 range. This, of course, defeats the purpose of the "public airwaves"-- they are supposed to be a public resource for people of all interests and age demographics to be catered to, not just a small, economically valuable one.
This may not be economically viable in the "long term" (and heck, ClearChannel is hemoraging money), but it is what all the ad executives believe while they destroy our radio programming infrastructure, so it is what they chase after. You're committing the classic fallacy of assuming that just because a person has "executive" in a title implies they're pursuing policies that make logical sense.
I haven't listened to music on the radio since high school. Why? Well I can decide what I want to listen to for myself.
Actually, the reason why you haven't listened to music on the radio, lately, is probably because you don't drive very much. Those who spend an hour a day in their cars do listen to the radio-- either to get news or to otherwise keep themselves entertained. And when you are stuck in a car and can't stand the fact that the radio has too many ads and few songs you want to listen to, then it really, really gets you upset! Yeah, I hardly listened to the radio much, either-- but then I started dating someone who lives 25 miles away. Suddenly, I was stuck dealing with the local radio situation. And it stinks.
Very true, if you want crappy hours, high stress, and bureaucratic exasperation, you might as well become a doctor and get paid really good money for it.
I think that's what people aren't realizing-- the opportunity cost of becoming a sysadmin is really high. Yes, it pay decently, but for all that responsibility and bad hours, you could go into another profession and make _much_ more money.
I got a lot out of my college years because I worked during the semester and summers, so I got a lot of experience in different areas of CS and discovered what I was good at and what I liked.
Ah, therein lies the flaw of ideological loyalty to pure capitalism-- in such an intensely capitalist society, given the option between making more money and adherence to the anti-tax/pure capitalism ideology, the agents in the group will choose to make more money. Lenin really nailed it when he said that a capitalist will sell you the rope you'll hang him with.
Given the choice between ranting VAT taxes and selling stuff, the companies are going to choose to sell stuff-- after all, it's their job to sell stuff, not act as representatives of the Ayn Rand admiration society (we leave that to the college students).
THey're looking for an application for the detection of emotion in users. Plenty of people have come up with the idea that a computer should be able to detect when the user is frustrated and refine the interface for the user.
This neglects the fact that the user should not get frustrated in the first place!
The Democrats have had one-party rule in California for too long
This is a load of crap. California has had a slew of Republican governors, and up until recently, the state was quite conservative, given the voting power of the central valley and orange county. California even voted for republican presidents several times in a row. It's only over the past 10 years that California has become more liberal after the decimation of the defense industry in the state and a large drive for latino immigrants to become citizens. The Republicans buried themselves as they lost all the state-wide offices to the democrats.
Georgia Tech is a different from other top tech schools like Caltech, MIT, or Carnegie Mellon in thay Georgia Tech is a public university. Therefore, GTech is required to accept a lot of students from in state who normally probably wouldn't have been accepted to any of the "top schools" (and this is not to impugn the quality of a GTech education, only some of its students). Therefore, the faculty feels the need to provide the "weeding out" process that the admissions office was unable/unwilling to acommplish.
That's why they have these ridiculous policies-- they _purposely_ want to get some of the students to leave the department under the guise of academic honesty issues.
You are right, John Ashcroft did not oppose Ronnie White because of his race. However, he did not oppose him because of his death penalty position-- Ronnie White supported the death penalty in many cases-- in fact, his record on the death penalty would be similar to Ashcroft's record on blacks on the bench.... What John Ashcroft did was specifically distort lie about Ronnie White's position on the death penalty to keep him out of that position because of another, unrelated political dispute.
Here's a better idea: You and all those friends of yours get
together and create/buy a network.
In fact, the idea of "you and all those friends" getting together and pooling resources to build infrastructure is exactly what a local government
is. Fascinating, no?
A world where everything is shared sounds like research. Are you trying to undermine research? Research is a way of life... Release your results with your name on them, and publish your references, the "thank you notes of academia."
Here in America, employees are their own product and must engage in their own marketting of themselves. What the employer is doing in the abovementioned example is literally _stealing_ the identities of the employees to prevent their existence from being known. The employer is simply hiding something that does not belong to him-- the faces and identities of the employees. It is little different than an employer's decree that employees may not list what they did for the employer on their resumes.
Slashdot Mirror
Some states in the USA used to have similar laws when automobiles first became available. I believe New Hampshire had such a law in the early 20th century. Tennesee, perhaps a bit more of a sexist state, had a similar law that only applied when a woman was driving.
In Ginsburg's majority opinion, she specifically drew a line between patent caselaw and and copyright caselaw. IANAL, but from what I gather from Ginsburg's opinion is that the Court is trying to stop lawyers from using precedent from patent case law and apply them to copyright case law, and vice versa.
Whether your post is a troll or not is besides the point for now. :) Plenty of jobs were considered "men's jobs" that women simply wouldn't be able to do well until suddenly women started entering the field in droves and it became seen as "women's work." Teaching is a prime example of this, which in an earlier era was exclusively the province of men. Also, whereas earlier women were barred from med school (in part because women were considered too weak to handle any type of higher education), now medical school classes are almost 50/50 male/female.
In some cases, their may well be differences in male and female brains that play themselves out in tangible ways (something I'll leave the brain-scientists and evolutionary psychologists to talk more about), but time after time after time when a career is simply explained as "not appropriate for the female brain", they've been proved incorrect and, in fact, sometimes turned the career into a woman-dominated field.
I suspect that the IT field is just a "labor of love" that has too many alternatives to attract people who weren't into it from early on. It's not _that_ lucrative so that it would attract the best and the brightest from all groups. It's simply something you're really interested in and willing to do despite the middling pay and bad work environment, or you're not in love with it, and you will be able to find plenty of other jobs with similar pay and as good or better lifestyle.
On the other hand, my suspicion would be that medicine, law, high-demand PhD level sciences (such as biology, as opposed to physics), and investment banking provide enough social and financial rewards that women will be attracted to the field in larger number. In these cases it will be more likely that the women will be more likely to _become_ interested in the field later because the rewards are there.
Well, mostly I was thinking of graduate/PhD work when it came to working closely with professors who might be located at a "2nd-tier school." The issue of good professors/mediocre students is most pronounced in the NYC-metro area in which top scholars want to be near New York City and therefore end up taking whatever position they can get. Thus, the faculties at Seton Hall, Fordham, and SUNY-Stony Brook tend to get a lot of top people (and apparently Pace, too... who knew?).
You can make an argument that working with professors matters at the undergrad level, and it does, but it's your PhD program where the quality of the professor who supervises you determines your entire destiny. Besides, at 18 I didn't have much of an idea what specific professors I wanted to work with. Applying to graduate school was a different matteer, though.
First of all, it's a waste of money to "pay" for a PhD. Only enter a PhD program if they give you a fellowship and a stipend. It's not cost-effective otherwise, and your money would be better spent paying for med school or law school.
That said, the experience I had as an undergrad working with professors is what helped my PhD chances immensely. But the most important thing is having a good mentor. Some professors who are "top in their fields" might be located at schools whose undergraduates student bodies are considered mediocre. However, if you churn out really good research with a good advisor, it doesn't matter, even if the school might have been considered "second-tier" when you were 18 years old.
The essence of the document was that MS's attacks on the viral nature of the GPL weren't working and that they'd do better to extol the virtues of their own product.
:)
Notice that, for the most part, the exact opposite strategy works for Linux advocates.
This is because Microsoft, as the dominant player, has to justify it's own existence again and again, whereas Linux as the (initial) underdg, had nothing to lose by tearing down its rival. After all, as a multi-billion $$$ company, everyone knows that Microsoft can financially dominate the PR world to badmouth its competitors.
Does this spell the end of "Linux is Bad/The GPL is unAmerican" propaganda from Microsoft? That coul dbe a disaster, because then we wouldn't have anything to flame about on slashdot anymore!
Olsen's argument in favor of retroactive copyright extensions is telling in terms of who's side he's on.
The justices repeatedly hammered home the point that retroactive copyright extensions do not aid in the "creation of creative works" because works from, say, 30 years ago that benefit from an extension have already been created, so the law does not incent the old author if his copyright has been retroactively extended. (in fact, just the opposite... the old author is allowed to rest on his laurels given that he has another 30 years of royalties coming in, rather than write something new)
Olsen replies that the beneficiaries are the publishers and movie-distributors who gain and incentive to make more money from publishing given the retroactive extension... he's arguing that large businesses (not individual creators/inventors) are the ones who will benefit by congress's granting of monopoly power by retroactively extending copyrights.
What I don't understand is why noone made the argument that releasing works into the public domain will _encourage_ dissemination of works that were formerly copyrighted, because there will no longer be an hurdles to dissemination. The technology argument is a strong one-- that by applying copyright extensions retroactively, we _prevent_ the wide dissemination of information in an age where anyone can publish cheaply. We no longer need to provide extensions for large publishers because anyone can publish public domain works cheaply.
And, of course, the WSJ has never been shy about pointing out problems regarding predatory marketing pratices. An unbiased source it's not.
What the WSJ showed was an increasing market for coffee combined with and increasing percentage of that market being owned by Starbucks.
One can argue whether or not Starbucks is creating that larger market (and simultaneous gobbling up a larger and larger portion of that market) or "riding" the increased demand to the top.
Ha! Hey, as someone who lives in a state where you can only buy liquor from an expensive, inaccessible state-store system, you have no right to speak about NJ's silly laws. :)
This is the same state that doesn't allow you to pump your own gasoline (all the stations are full-service- only) and doesn't allow anyone to get a driver's license until they're 17.
The legislators haven't been shy about making sure that people are adequately protected from things they don't need protection from.
I know how she feels. I went into my local shopping centre the other day, trying to locate some blank betamax tapes
You could, however, buy a top selling CD, like the soundtrack to Oh Brother, Where Art Thou? which boosted bluegrass music to the top of the charts. You won't find the "Bluegrass" station on the radio, however.
Furthermore, the entire point of the public radio airwaves is not so radio conglomerates can put out their most profitable "product," but rather to provide a wide range of options and choices to the local audience. That's why the radio situation stinks.
If a mine has exclusive rights to mine in the area it has surveyed, what is the incentive to hide the geological data? After all, any additional information that outsiders provide based on the data will either help the mine or at worst help a neighboring mine. In neither scenario will the first mine be hurt if anyone else sees their data. So I don't see how the culture of secrecy became so ingrained.
Instead of complaining, choose one of the alternatives: listen to satellite radio, internet radio, listen to CD's (the real ones, not those phony pseudo-CD's), etc.
That defeats the purpose of radio. Radio is there so that people of all demographics in the local community can be catered to, not just the 18-34 demographic being sent some tolerable programming for mass consumption for the benefit of national advertisers. Radio is supposed to be there to allow us to have local broadcast programming without being forced to resort to alternatives. It does mean that "someone" is going to be choosing the programming, but it is supposed to be a chooser who is local-- especially since radio is a short-range local medium.
The question is whether the airwaves are a "community resource" or whether they belong to companies trying to serve up a demographic to advertisers.
I can use all of these alternatives (at my expense, of course), but that doesn't change the fact that the airwaves were regulated specifically so that they would cater to my community specifically, and not to national advertisers.
Believe me, the ad executives are!
No, the ad executives are concerned with the demographics of listeners, particularly those within the 18-34 listening demographic. Programs that can reliably hold onto a portion of this demographic are much more valuable than a program that attracts a huge audience in the 35-54 range. This, of course, defeats the purpose of the "public airwaves"-- they are supposed to be a public resource for people of all interests and age demographics to be catered to, not just a small, economically valuable one.
This may not be economically viable in the "long term" (and heck, ClearChannel is hemoraging money), but it is what all the ad executives believe while they destroy our radio programming infrastructure, so it is what they chase after. You're committing the classic fallacy of assuming that just because a person has "executive" in a title implies they're pursuing policies that make logical sense.
I haven't listened to music on the radio since high school. Why? Well I can decide what I want to listen to for myself.
Actually, the reason why you haven't listened to music on the radio, lately, is probably because you don't drive very much. Those who spend an hour a day in their cars do listen to the radio-- either to get news or to otherwise keep themselves entertained. And when you are stuck in a car and can't stand the fact that the radio has too many ads and few songs you want to listen to, then it really, really gets you upset! Yeah, I hardly listened to the radio much, either-- but then I started dating someone who lives 25 miles away. Suddenly, I was stuck dealing with the local radio situation. And it stinks.
Because, as Episode I so amply demonstrated, an entire android army can be disabled by destroying the central command center.
Very true, if you want crappy hours, high stress, and bureaucratic exasperation, you might as well become a doctor and get paid really good money for it.
I think that's what people aren't realizing-- the opportunity cost of becoming a sysadmin is really high. Yes, it pay decently, but for all that responsibility and bad hours, you could go into another profession and make _much_ more money.
I got a lot out of my college years because I worked during the semester and summers, so I got a lot of experience in different areas of CS and discovered what I was good at and what I liked.
Ah, therein lies the flaw of ideological loyalty to pure capitalism-- in such an intensely capitalist society, given the option between making more money and adherence to the anti-tax/pure capitalism ideology, the agents in the group will choose to make more money. Lenin really nailed it when he said that a capitalist will sell you the rope you'll hang him with.
Given the choice between ranting VAT taxes and selling stuff, the companies are going to choose to sell stuff-- after all, it's their job to sell stuff, not act as representatives of the Ayn Rand admiration society (we leave that to the college students).
THey're looking for an application for the detection of emotion in users. Plenty of people have come up with the idea that a computer should be able to detect when the user is frustrated and refine the interface for the user.
This neglects the fact that the user should not get frustrated in the first place!
The Democrats have had one-party rule in California for too long
This is a load of crap. California has had a slew of Republican governors, and up until recently, the state was quite conservative, given the voting power of the central valley and orange county. California even voted for republican presidents several times in a row. It's only over the past 10 years that California has become more liberal after the decimation of the defense industry in the state and a large drive for latino immigrants to become citizens. The Republicans buried themselves as they lost all the state-wide offices to the democrats.
Georgia Tech is a different from other top tech schools like Caltech, MIT, or Carnegie Mellon in thay Georgia Tech is a public university. Therefore, GTech is required to accept a lot of students from in state who normally probably wouldn't have been accepted to any of the "top schools" (and this is not to impugn the quality of a GTech education, only some of its students). Therefore, the faculty feels the need to provide the "weeding out" process that the admissions office was unable/unwilling to acommplish.
That's why they have these ridiculous policies-- they _purposely_ want to get some of the students to leave the department under the guise of academic honesty issues.
You are right, John Ashcroft did not oppose Ronnie White because of his race. However, he did not oppose him because of his death penalty position-- Ronnie White supported the death penalty in many cases-- in fact, his record on the death penalty would be similar to Ashcroft's record on blacks on the bench.... What John Ashcroft did was specifically distort lie about Ronnie White's position on the death penalty to keep him out of that position because of another, unrelated political dispute.
-Dean
Here's a better idea: You and all those friends of yours get together and create/buy a network.
In fact, the idea of "you and all those friends" getting together and pooling resources to build infrastructure is exactly what a local government is. Fascinating, no?
A world where everything is shared sounds like research. Are you trying to undermine research? Research is a way of life... Release your results with your name on them, and publish your references, the "thank you notes of academia."
-Dean
Here in America, employees are their own product and must engage in their own marketting of themselves. What the employer is doing in the abovementioned example is literally _stealing_ the identities of the employees to prevent their existence from being known. The employer is simply hiding something that does not belong to him-- the faces and identities of the employees. It is little different than an employer's decree that employees may not list what they did for the employer on their resumes.
-Dean