Were the courts to accept this misguided view of copyright law, it could mean that anyone who has had a shared files folder, even for a moment, that contained copyrighted files in it, would be guilty of copyright infringement, even though the copies in the folder were legally obtained, and even though no illegal copies had ever been made of them.
I think this is a case for due diligence. I am not a lawyer, and I'm not speculating on how this will turn out, but "due diligence" is the concept that if there is a reasonable action that can prevent harm from coming to others, and you do not take that action, then you are guilty of negligence. It is usually only used in fiduciary relationships, like the doctor-patient or lawyer-client arrangements, but it makes sense in this context.
If you put copyrighted material on a publicly available website, ftp server, or fileshare, and do nothing to prevent the public from making illegal copies, then you are helping the pirates commit a crime.
To me, the only question is, is it reasonable given the amount of time a server has been running to assume that piracy has occurred? In your example of a home file server which has only contained copyrighted material for a matter of seconds, then you could easily make an argument that this is a de minimus infraction of the law. In the case of a server that has been running for months, any reasonable human being can assume that this is a case of copyright infringement...To do otherwise would be like broadcasting a pirated copy of "underworld: evolution" on broadcast television and assuming that it's perfectly legal because we can't prove anybody watched it.
Also, don't forget that copyright infringement does not require customers. If I make and try to sell a recording of myself yodelling while a Kenny G album plays in the background, then that is copyright infringement*. It doesn't matter if nobody ever bought a copy of the cd. The fact that I am trying to rip off his work is good enough for the law.
* I could probably get away with it if I called it "parody".
From TA, they sold 6 millions shares, but they still own 30 millions. so they still have an interest in Doing Good (stock-price wise)
Project management courses often describe income as a hygene issue. For those of you who are not familiar with this particular use of the word, a hygene issue is something that people tend to expect a certain amount of, but beyond that point, it stops being a good motivator.
This is why people at Walmart are working for just over minimum wage and being called "associates". The pretentious title is supposed to make them feel appreciated (and I'm sure that those who consider themselves "associates" or "partners" are much happier than those who see the title as a cynical attempt to make them feel good about being underpaid)
Anyway, the point is that after making the first billion dollars, most employees are not thinking about all the things they could save up for if they just had a billion more. Some of them may be using their net worth as a way of keeping "score", but in all other respects, the money is probably not that much of a motivator.
Re:Good luck to Steve J...
on
Disney Buys Pixar
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Nobody deserves a few billion bucks more than he does, the way I figure it. If he manages to pull Disney out of their spiral of mediocrity, he'll have earned every penny...
And he's going to do that by handing them a better company and allowing them to show their logo at the beginning of each film?
Is US economy so money-centric despite its capitalistic nature?
That statement seems to imply a world view completely different from what we see here in america...I have only worked in the office of one american business, but there, the emphasis was cost-savings. It's all about spending less money, and recording the immediate value you just brought to the company. Justifying one's decisions by stating that your actions will reduce expendatures in a difficult to measure way, at some hazy point in the future is contrary to how the place is run.
From the article:
"Jobs reasons that since iTunes and the iPod use the vertical integration model that Microsoft could use the same tactic to finally relegate the iPod to the technical trash bin. In theory, the system would work as follows: Microsoft would bundle a music playing program with every PC that, of course, pointed to an iTunes like music store. The model would be completed when people buy a Microsoft produced digital audio player. Consumers, being the lazy slugs they are, would take the path of least resistance. Inevitably, iPod marginalization would ensue."
Did Microsoft get in trouble for this sort of anti-competitive bundling before? If so, are they really stupid enough to try it again on such a large scale?
IANA Lawyer, but...Yes...they got out of it by claiming that the web browser which they had recently purchased and bundled with the OS had actually been integrated into the OS. They then "proved" it by having one of their people remove the web browser from the OS and showing that it runs slower without internet explorer.
So, under that precedent, all microsoft has to do is create a line of code that does the equivilant of
if (!file.open("\program files\microsoft\screwYouAppleLovingSOBs\MsTunes") { exception.raise("Error: Competetion Detected"); system.exit; }
Of course it's been so long since I wrote code...Bill Gates will email a cookie to the first person who finds the error in this code.
Face it. Apple is not appealing to the cyber-elite. I don't know how they compare with Windows users, but there is no IQ test on the order form.
Maybe I shouldn't have said that they aren't appealing to tech people, since, they use a BSD kernel for OS-X. My point is that they do often try to appeal to what the original poster described as "inexperienced users".
No, Apple is targeting people who want to get their work done without having to deal with computer administration. Sadly, you seem "experienced" in the sense that you assume one MUST have to deal with a lot of administration in order to get anything done. Which is probably why you're confusing inexperience with "I want to get my work done and then go do something else".
No...I'm confusing the slow, inarticulate speech patterns normally used by stoned teenagers with "I want to get stoned"...You can't honestly watch the commercial with the slow-witted teenager and think "she's a businesswoman looking for the most efficient solution"?
"Remember, Mac OS X is often targetted towards more inexperienced users"
Uh, says you. I know exactly what I'm doing, and I think MacOS X is pretty rockin'.
Wasn't it apple that made all those commercials with stoned teenagers saying "I plugged in my camera...and it went "buzz"...i was like...bummer...ummm...apple just...i don't know...it just...uh...what's the word...works!"
Face it. Apple is not appealing to the cyber-elite. I don't know how they compare with Windows users, but there is no IQ test on the order form.
... what kind of person takes their Sony CDs to work in order to play them on PCs on a military network. Kinda bizarre that that's even possible.
I am not a military personnel, but when the story broke about how that the military needs arabic translators, but keeps firing the ones it has for being gay, there were a few public interest stories about the working conditions. I've gotten the impression that there are plenty of military buildings that are just odd-looking offices. People go in, do their paperwork, and clock out (figuratively, if not literally) at 5pm.
I think I remember hearing that the majority of the military is support. Of course that can include the people who are in god-knows-where running water purification systems and maintaining missile defense systems, but it may also include translators, recruiters, and who knows, maybe military hospital personnel.
Apples hardware is no different then Dells or any other pc manufacturer. They all buy their hardware from 3rd party manufactures
Even if it is crappy hardware, making software work on one, well-known, piece of crappy hardware is much easier than making software work on every piece of crappy hardware on the market.:)
Proving that iPod users are either scrupulously honest or more paranoid they'll get sued by RIAA than owners of lesser music players."
Sounds like flamebait to me. Calling every other music player "lesser." Yeah, no other music player holds up to an iPod.
I'm slightly off subject, but have you noticed that general purpose items are now advertising themselves as "iPod" items? For example, my town's local department store had an item that transmits "iPod" signals to your car radio. If you pay close attention to the packaging, they seem like they're almost trying to hide the fact that it works on any device with a standard headphone port.
But that's not the same - we're talking about basically one Windows product with its associated unique vulnerabilities, but when we talk about Linux distros, we talk about several different ones that have the *same* vulnerability counted multiple times because it exists in multiple distros. Just one look at the CERT list and you will see all the duplicates in there. And then of course, even if you remove the dupli0cates, you are still left with vulnerabilities that were only present in one distribution, but got counted against "Linux/Unix" although 99% of the distros were never affected.
It would be much more effective if they would either take representative systems and count the bugs. For example, they might come up with common functionality such as "web server" "database" or "remote file server" and count the number of vulnerabilities in (using "web server" as an example)
Windows 2003 Server with IIS
Red Hat with apache (included for its popularity)
NET BSD with apache (included because it is security themed)
One of the more popular commercial UNIX systems, such as AIX (chosen because it is a high-end commercial system, that is __EXPECTED__, in some circles, to be better than windows or linux)
if they really want to be fair they should sell either an external HD-DVD and Blue-ray player, or make the external support both formats.
Or, if they were truly interested in making the X-Box a better system, they could do the following:
The original X-box controller port is a usb port, with one extra wire that is only used by the light gun. They went out of their way to make that proprietary, for business reasons. I would still like to be able to use an X-Box controller on my PC
They could either make the external drive usb-based, and set aside a small amount of space, either on the memory cards, in flash memory, or wherever, so that add-on manufacturers can create their own X-box drives, and have a place for the device drivers
But, business is business, and they will do what they can get away with
But the kings of hatred wont do that.
I thought the Kings of hatred worked for talk radio. You know, just a suggestion...Microsoft may be a large business, with questionable ethics and methods...In short, they __may__ be so focused on the bottom line (making as much money as possible) that they'll do anything to reach that goal, but calling them the "Kings of Hatred" reflects poorly on the person using the phrase.
First of all, the "Kings of..." phrase shows a larger-than-life negative portrayal of people who are human beings. In effect, it shows that you know little about them, and instead, portray them as batman villans, or living charicatures.
The second reason I suggest using a different term is because hatred implies that it's about hurting others. It implies that either they want to harm the public for no reason, or that they are bigots. I apologize if i seem heavy-handed, but there is a world of difference between uncompetitive business practices and hate-crimes.
You can't make the assertion that we first came out of a certain continent or location.
Why not? The theory of evolution doesn't state that everything evolves into a dude in every possible location. In fact, as another poster has pointed out, it is commonly believed that a primary catalyst for evolution is that part of a population is seperated from the rest of the population, for several generations.
If all you atheist geeks believe we evolved then it would be impossible to find the habitat location of our single-celled ancestors.
Not all atheists are geeks. I once knew an aethiest who had a really cool tattoo of a dragon eating a cow. That guy was cool!
Even if we're looking at the starting location of humans, what does it mean to be human? When did we start becoming humans? Our ape ancestors considered human?
Well, the ability to breed with humans is a somewhat reliable indicator. The exception being my mother who had her tubes tied, after I was born. I suppose she's still human...
The poing i'm making is how do these archeologists know the location where we first arose if we are continuously evolving.
We have tons of data points showing homo sapiens evolved in Africa. So many of the missing links like Lucy and other members of the homo tree have all been found in Africa.
Please tell me that "homo tree" is not a scientific term...I would make a joke about it, but, well that's too obvious...
IANAL, but for those of you who are, maybe you can help me...
This sounds like the opposite of a class action lawsuit. How is it that this is considered one case, instead of 25 different suits against 25 different people?
Part of the reason I am interested is because I have an interest in class-action lawsuits. Sure, they end up making small fortunes for the lawyers, and result in the wronged party receiving a coupon good for five dollars off their next defective product, but it is the only recourse the little guy has when the stakes are lower than lawyer's fees (like an iomega customer wanting his one hundred and fifty bucks back). I'm just curious how the law works when one company wants to sue several people who are not conspiring together, but who have simply committed the same tort.
Well, that's tricky. Basically, the strategy works for whoever is biggest (e.g. Microsoft succeeded in it because it is a monopoly). For this to work, a bunch of other hardware makers would have to rally behind Pioneer, so that instead of people saying "Pioneer makes crappy Blu-Ray players" it'll be "$MPAA_MEMBER makes crappy discs that say they're Blu-Ray, but don't actually work in any Blu-Ray player." And the other hardware makers certainly should do this, because it's in their own best interest (e.g. this delay certainly isn't helping them, you know).
You know, I think you've got a point, there. The problem is that a player is no good without media. It doesn't matter if it's a betaMax vcr, a SegaCD, or a blue-ray Disc player...It will never be successful until blockbuster video has a significant fraction of its shelf space dedicated to that media. This means that Pioneer must bow down to the MPAA, because, without their movies, Pioneer's player is nearly useless.
I just wish the MPAA would come to their senses and realize the truth of how this will come out
They release an encryption standard, thinking that it can't be broken, and that their control of the standard gives them control of the hardware industry
Someone (we'll call him hackerX) breaks the encryption standard
HackerX get's arrested under the DMCA, or whatever his home country chooses to call that law
HackerX's code is hosted on a million other foreign websites, as well as bit torrent
The MPAA continues contributing (also known as bribing) ungodly amounts of money into a campaign to get media taxes, censorship, and, who knows, maybe extradition of the foreign web hosts? Of course, the campaign will never work, because, even if you rename the media tax as the freedom-patriot-jesus option, and describe censorship as "the right to be free of unwanted exchanges", people will still know what it is and consider it highly unamerican.
The point being, that it doesn't matter if the standard is released today, or a year from today, it still won't solve their problem.
The only question is, will they manage to get the encryption embedded into the player, so that a mod-chip is required to break the encryption...
Maybe if Pioneer sold enough of them, there'd be such an uproar when the DRM'd players come out that they'd be rejected completely by consumers. Or, at least, it would wake up more people to the dangers of DRM.
No, it would just make people think pioneer makes crappy products.
It's like the way Microsoft's embrace and extend policy worked. They refused to comply with the "official" html, and the "official" java standards, but if someone else's browser/Virtual Machine/etc didn't work with Microsoft-compliant code, then people didn't say "dammit, this crappy web page doesn't comply with the W3C standard"...They said "dammit, this crappy web browser can't read this web page"
Who is with me in asking for an amendment limiting all laws to one topic, 200 words or less, and only can pass with a signature of the President and a signature of a random person with a 3rd grade education who agrees that even they understand the law?
I Am Not A Lawyer, but...
That's an interesting idea, but here are some counter arguments:
If the president has to sign something saying he doesn't understand the law, then that gives him a more powerful veto (and trust me, this, like filibustering, will be abused, if it CAN be abused)
If someone with a third grade education must sign the bill, then who? I guarantee you that, for a small fraction of the money lobbiests spend getting bills passed, we can find someone willing to say they understand anything. Sure, if really tested, they may need a few months of intense tutoring, but this can be worked around.
Would the 200 word restriction also cover defititions? For example, if I were to write a law saying "It is legal to reverse engineer software." Then, it may take quite a few words to define reverse engineering, in an accurate manner. And then, you may have to define software, so that the courts can tell if embedded software counts. My point is that more simplistic laws __may__ do more of a disservice than a service.
Interesting proposal, though...I feel that any contracts implicit in a store-bought item must either be placed on the outside of the box (in a legible font, with attention drawn to it), or they must be sold in a manner more similar to the way cell-phones are sold (with a salesman who will go over the contract with you).
Of course, there is no reasonable way that a company can fit a seven page contract on the outer packaging, have it be legible, and also draw people's attention to the product, and not the contract. That's the point!
The reason I say one of these two options should be used is because the current system depends on users agreeing to a contract that they never read, and will not follow, unless forced to do so, by powerful entities. This is a perversion of how contract law is supposed to work.
FYI, for other anarchocapitalists out there, my solution is true moderated arbitration mechanisms in a free market, not the law or the courts.
I'm not even going to touch that. It's a new idea to me, but, since you seem to support it, let me ask you some questions:
In the case of large businesses, who chooses the moderator? What if the two refuse to choose? For example, if I own Microsoft and I decide that the only arbitrator I trust is my mentally retarded nephew who thinks I'm always right, but you won't agree to that?
This is obvious, after that last post, but what is to stop large industries from creating a database of paid-off or ideologically sycophantic arbitrators, so that simply finding a fair arbitrator would be a grueling process?
Wouldn't this create an inconsistent, and, no pun intended, arbitrary legal system? One arbitrator says that action A is legal under some circumstances, and another says the exact opposite. This may occasionally happen under our legal system (in the cases of reverses, or when two judges from to different districts handle similar cases), but, ultimately, what gets decided in court becomes a precident, which means that what was illegal the first time it was tried will most likely be illegal the second time it is tried. That can't be said about arbitrators.
Would arbitrators be proffessionals who make their living off of arbitration (meaning that they know what they're doing, but, for business reasons will have an incentive to suck up to the more frequently sued), or would they be everyday people (meaning that they don't understand law, or philosophy, or fairness, and they see this as being like jury duty)?
First of all, since I'm "defending the fundies", let me state my opinion.
I'm an athiest, and feel that creationism, and intelligent design are assumptions, not theories, hypotheses, or anything else that scientists should encourage. I also feel that the religious right is trying to push their views into the classroom by any means.
Now, that that's out of the way, this professor was not an inocent victim. He stated that his reason for giving his class a name referring to creatinism and intelligent design as "mythology" was to give the fundamentalists a "nice slap in their big fat face". The article doesn't say what his other emails said about catholicism and christianity in general, but it paints a picture of a man who is not using the socratic method, who isn't confronting these people with painful truths, or asking them to consider other views, but who is simply trying to piss people off because he doesn't like something about them.
Also, this man is still teaching. He didn't resign as a teacher. He resigned from his position as the chairman of the Department of Religious Studies, and cancelled the class. Now let me rephrase this:
The head of the department of religious studies was prejudiced against the predominant religion in our culture, and he, a man who obviously doesn't like creationism or intelligent design, is teaching a class on the subject. That's like hiring an antisemite to teach a class on Jewish philosophy.
Now, if he had been forced to resign from teaching, then I might have a problem...And, I can't condone the beating he received, but I can't help but feel that that is the risk you take when you show an open prejudice against the majority of your neighbors.
Why is it that, during an election, most major corporations donate money to both candidates, with no fear of either side being offended, but they can't do something similar here? Why can't they donate money both to the Darwin exhibit and to something of lasting religious significance, like a religious history exhibit for a museum or other public building? In this case, it can be explained as a fundamental respect for both the sciences, and for the diverse religious beliefs of americans.
As a side note, the supreme court has ruled that religious exhibits on federally owned property are perfectly legal as long as they don't discriminate or show favoratism, making this a perfectly legal "victory" brought to you by corporation xyz
Except that the Vatican has a long history of compromising key articles of faith to keep the peace. A compromising faith is the folly of much of catholicism, sadly.
Really? Really? Really? It seems to me that catholocism is one of the more conservative branches of Christianity, what, with their refusal to allow birth control, nonacceptance of homosexual priests, strict stances on abortion and war, and their view of divorce.
Nothing personal against the religion, but I never saw them as the happy-go-lucky, anything goes branch of Christianity.
You know, all that stuff about there being no death before Adam & Eve was a big mistake. And of course man can't really be made in God's image since the present day is just a step in a big long evolutionary path. Never mind that Genesis mentions creation in six days while going to great pains to define 'day' as the period of the suns position in the sky, just in case anyone misunderstands what a 'day' might mean. Not to mention the fossil record.
Don't forget the way that the book of genesis begins with one story of creation, and then immediately segways into a retelling with a slightly different order of events. How can the book be taken 100% literally if the first chapter can't go five pages without contradicting itself?
It's this watering down of basic Christianity that has allowed the really dangerous belief systems to infiltrate (PC-veilied Pantheism in the US and pacific, and Islam in Europe, Africa and the former Soviet countries).
So, Bin Laden interprets the Bible too loosely, which makes him like Americans who reinterpret religion so that it doesn't contradict the way they live their lives? Well, I did see a group of liberals screaming "allah" while driving a beat-up Volkswagon into a building once. Maybe you got a point there
Think the dark ages were bad? Wait till you see what's around the corner.
I promise you, the next Dark age will begin in middle america, led by some right-wing fundamentalist who's pissed off that "the rest of the world is depriving him of his right to have his religion forced on the rest of the world"
They're only redefining science for themselves. Thus they will live by their fantasy definition, while the rest of the world progresses.
This may be the best thing to happen for everyone else. Once Kansas becomes the victim of a self-imposed economic failure, even most religious fundamentalists will realize that factual science is a necessity.
You know, if politicians can redefine science, then they'll probably redefine "economic failure"...for a little while, and then, eventually, blame it on some random liberal policy, like public school systems, not enough tax cuts, etc...
What if I start preaching there is a paralel universe with no connection at all with ours where laws of physics are slightly different and FTL travel is possible and what not... In this disconnected universe people just like us, more advanced than us follow certain rules that you may or may not find reasonable to follow in their or our universe.
That's fine,of course, but you shouldn't let me force it on you as a truth you must agree on, much less let me take from you valueable teaching resources (like time, monney..) in order to teach you this as truth, and you shouldn't let me use this fine example of a succesful life in a parralel universe as a mean to dictate you how you should behave...
It sounds like we're both in agreement. My point was that I don't know from a religious perspective, how one could assume that everything that has been disproven is symbolic, that everything that ever will be disproven already has, and everything else is to be taken literally...I also don't feel that evolution contradicts the bible, it simply adds a new dimension that couldn't have been explained, unless Moses had had a sharp mind, fierce dedication, and enough stone tablets to explain genetics.
Then there's the other way some of your sentences could have been interpreted. Each side sees this as the other side's way of forcing their views upon other people's children. I feel that it is legitimate in the case of science, for the teacher to describe evolution as a commonly held theory in the scientific community, and I feel that it would be appropriate to explain why that the theory of evolution is considered more "scientific" than the hypothesis of Intelligent Design (and why one is considered a theory and the other a hypothesis), but, having gone to a state university, I have found that the teachers there are very concious about respecting the beliefs of others. (My girlfriend went to a private institution where the downside to them using their private status to try to push religion on the students is that the teachers are often liberal, and they have just as little respect for the students as the people who run the school.)
The first is education - the crap that is called "science education" in the schools in this country is raising idiots. They are taught to regurgitate "facts", and the definition of "fact" has changed from "what is provable" to "what we tell you". Critical thinking is discouraged, experimentation has no lab budget, and standards are dropping wildly.
In their defense, most of what is taught in schools either is not theoretical science (with evolution being the exception), or it is theories that are very likely, such as the theory that the earth revolves around the sun. So, while the foundation of science is the asking of questions, when a science teacher states that the earth revolves around the sun, should he or she expect twenty children to raise their hands and argue the contrary? Should the teacher end every lesson by saying something like "who would like to argue a different view of how photosynthesis works?"
Slashdot Mirror
I think this is a case for due diligence. I am not a lawyer, and I'm not speculating on how this will turn out, but "due diligence" is the concept that if there is a reasonable action that can prevent harm from coming to others, and you do not take that action, then you are guilty of negligence. It is usually only used in fiduciary relationships, like the doctor-patient or lawyer-client arrangements, but it makes sense in this context.
If you put copyrighted material on a publicly available website, ftp server, or fileshare, and do nothing to prevent the public from making illegal copies, then you are helping the pirates commit a crime.
To me, the only question is, is it reasonable given the amount of time a server has been running to assume that piracy has occurred? In your example of a home file server which has only contained copyrighted material for a matter of seconds, then you could easily make an argument that this is a de minimus infraction of the law. In the case of a server that has been running for months, any reasonable human being can assume that this is a case of copyright infringement...To do otherwise would be like broadcasting a pirated copy of "underworld: evolution" on broadcast television and assuming that it's perfectly legal because we can't prove anybody watched it.
Also, don't forget that copyright infringement does not require customers. If I make and try to sell a recording of myself yodelling while a Kenny G album plays in the background, then that is copyright infringement*. It doesn't matter if nobody ever bought a copy of the cd. The fact that I am trying to rip off his work is good enough for the law.
* I could probably get away with it if I called it "parody".
From TA, they sold 6 millions shares, but they still own 30 millions. so they still have an interest in Doing Good (stock-price wise)
Project management courses often describe income as a hygene issue. For those of you who are not familiar with this particular use of the word, a hygene issue is something that people tend to expect a certain amount of, but beyond that point, it stops being a good motivator.
This is why people at Walmart are working for just over minimum wage and being called "associates". The pretentious title is supposed to make them feel appreciated (and I'm sure that those who consider themselves "associates" or "partners" are much happier than those who see the title as a cynical attempt to make them feel good about being underpaid)
Anyway, the point is that after making the first billion dollars, most employees are not thinking about all the things they could save up for if they just had a billion more. Some of them may be using their net worth as a way of keeping "score", but in all other respects, the money is probably not that much of a motivator.
Nobody deserves a few billion bucks more than he does, the way I figure it. If he manages to pull Disney out of their spiral of mediocrity, he'll have earned every penny...
And he's going to do that by handing them a better company and allowing them to show their logo at the beginning of each film?
That statement seems to imply a world view completely different from what we see here in america ...I have only worked in the office of one american business, but there, the emphasis was cost-savings. It's all about spending less money, and recording the immediate value you just brought to the company. Justifying one's decisions by stating that your actions will reduce expendatures in a difficult to measure way, at some hazy point in the future is contrary to how the place is run.
IANA Lawyer, but...Yes...they got out of it by claiming that the web browser which they had recently purchased and bundled with the OS had actually been integrated into the OS. They then "proved" it by having one of their people remove the web browser from the OS and showing that it runs slower without internet explorer.
So, under that precedent, all microsoft has to do is create a line of code that does the equivilant of
Of course it's been so long since I wrote code...Bill Gates will email a cookie to the first person who finds the error in this code.
Face it. Apple is not appealing to the cyber-elite. I don't know how they compare with Windows users, but there is no IQ test on the order form.
Maybe I shouldn't have said that they aren't appealing to tech people, since, they use a BSD kernel for OS-X. My point is that they do often try to appeal to what the original poster described as "inexperienced users".
No, Apple is targeting people who want to get their work done without having to deal with computer administration. Sadly, you seem "experienced" in the sense that you assume one MUST have to deal with a lot of administration in order to get anything done. Which is probably why you're confusing inexperience with "I want to get my work done and then go do something else".
No...I'm confusing the slow, inarticulate speech patterns normally used by stoned teenagers with "I want to get stoned"...You can't honestly watch the commercial with the slow-witted teenager and think "she's a businesswoman looking for the most efficient solution"?
Wasn't it apple that made all those commercials with stoned teenagers saying "I plugged in my camera...and it went "buzz"...i was like...bummer...ummm...apple just...i don't know...it just...uh...what's the word...works!"
Face it. Apple is not appealing to the cyber-elite. I don't know how they compare with Windows users, but there is no IQ test on the order form.
I am not a military personnel, but when the story broke about how that the military needs arabic translators, but keeps firing the ones it has for being gay, there were a few public interest stories about the working conditions. I've gotten the impression that there are plenty of military buildings that are just odd-looking offices. People go in, do their paperwork, and clock out (figuratively, if not literally) at 5pm.
I think I remember hearing that the majority of the military is support. Of course that can include the people who are in god-knows-where running water purification systems and maintaining missile defense systems, but it may also include translators, recruiters, and who knows, maybe military hospital personnel.
Apples hardware is no different then Dells or any other pc manufacturer. They all buy their hardware from 3rd party manufactures
Even if it is crappy hardware, making software work on one, well-known, piece of crappy hardware is much easier than making software work on every piece of crappy hardware on the market. :)
Proving that iPod users are either scrupulously honest or more paranoid they'll get sued by RIAA than owners of lesser music players."
Sounds like flamebait to me. Calling every other music player "lesser." Yeah, no other music player holds up to an iPod.
I'm slightly off subject, but have you noticed that general purpose items are now advertising themselves as "iPod" items? For example, my town's local department store had an item that transmits "iPod" signals to your car radio. If you pay close attention to the packaging, they seem like they're almost trying to hide the fact that it works on any device with a standard headphone port.
But that's not the same - we're talking about basically one Windows product with its associated unique vulnerabilities, but when we talk about Linux distros, we talk about several different ones that have the *same* vulnerability counted multiple times because it exists in multiple distros. Just one look at the CERT list and you will see all the duplicates in there. And then of course, even if you remove the dupli0cates, you are still left with vulnerabilities that were only present in one distribution, but got counted against "Linux/Unix" although 99% of the distros were never affected.
It would be much more effective if they would either take representative systems and count the bugs. For example, they might come up with common functionality such as "web server" "database" or "remote file server" and count the number of vulnerabilities in (using "web server" as an example)
if they really want to be fair they should sell either an external HD-DVD and Blue-ray player, or make the external support both formats.
Or, if they were truly interested in making the X-Box a better system, they could do the following:
But, business is business, and they will do what they can get away with
But the kings of hatred wont do that.
I thought the Kings of hatred worked for talk radio. You know, just a suggestion...Microsoft may be a large business, with questionable ethics and methods...In short, they __may__ be so focused on the bottom line (making as much money as possible) that they'll do anything to reach that goal, but calling them the "Kings of Hatred" reflects poorly on the person using the phrase.
First of all, the "Kings of..." phrase shows a larger-than-life negative portrayal of people who are human beings. In effect, it shows that you know little about them, and instead, portray them as batman villans, or living charicatures.
The second reason I suggest using a different term is because hatred implies that it's about hurting others. It implies that either they want to harm the public for no reason, or that they are bigots. I apologize if i seem heavy-handed, but there is a world of difference between uncompetitive business practices and hate-crimes.
Why not? The theory of evolution doesn't state that everything evolves into a dude in every possible location. In fact, as another poster has pointed out, it is commonly believed that a primary catalyst for evolution is that part of a population is seperated from the rest of the population, for several generations.
Not all atheists are geeks. I once knew an aethiest who had a really cool tattoo of a dragon eating a cow. That guy was cool!
Well, the ability to breed with humans is a somewhat reliable indicator. The exception being my mother who had her tubes tied, after I was born. I suppose she's still human...
Asia is a pretty big place...
Please tell me that "homo tree" is not a scientific term...I would make a joke about it, but, well that's too obvious...
IANAL, but for those of you who are, maybe you can help me...
This sounds like the opposite of a class action lawsuit. How is it that this is considered one case, instead of 25 different suits against 25 different people?
Part of the reason I am interested is because I have an interest in class-action lawsuits. Sure, they end up making small fortunes for the lawyers, and result in the wronged party receiving a coupon good for five dollars off their next defective product, but it is the only recourse the little guy has when the stakes are lower than lawyer's fees (like an iomega customer wanting his one hundred and fifty bucks back). I'm just curious how the law works when one company wants to sue several people who are not conspiring together, but who have simply committed the same tort.
Well, that's tricky. Basically, the strategy works for whoever is biggest (e.g. Microsoft succeeded in it because it is a monopoly). For this to work, a bunch of other hardware makers would have to rally behind Pioneer, so that instead of people saying "Pioneer makes crappy Blu-Ray players" it'll be "$MPAA_MEMBER makes crappy discs that say they're Blu-Ray, but don't actually work in any Blu-Ray player." And the other hardware makers certainly should do this, because it's in their own best interest (e.g. this delay certainly isn't helping them, you know).
You know, I think you've got a point, there. The problem is that a player is no good without media. It doesn't matter if it's a betaMax vcr, a SegaCD, or a blue-ray Disc player...It will never be successful until blockbuster video has a significant fraction of its shelf space dedicated to that media. This means that Pioneer must bow down to the MPAA, because, without their movies, Pioneer's player is nearly useless.
I just wish the MPAA would come to their senses and realize the truth of how this will come out
The point being, that it doesn't matter if the standard is released today, or a year from today, it still won't solve their problem.
The only question is, will they manage to get the encryption embedded into the player, so that a mod-chip is required to break the encryption...
Maybe if Pioneer sold enough of them, there'd be such an uproar when the DRM'd players come out that they'd be rejected completely by consumers. Or, at least, it would wake up more people to the dangers of DRM.
No, it would just make people think pioneer makes crappy products.
It's like the way Microsoft's embrace and extend policy worked. They refused to comply with the "official" html, and the "official" java standards, but if someone else's browser/Virtual Machine/etc didn't work with Microsoft-compliant code, then people didn't say "dammit, this crappy web page doesn't comply with the W3C standard"...They said "dammit, this crappy web browser can't read this web page"
I Am Not A Lawyer, but...
That's an interesting idea, but here are some counter arguments:
Interesting proposal, though...I feel that any contracts implicit in a store-bought item must either be placed on the outside of the box (in a legible font, with attention drawn to it), or they must be sold in a manner more similar to the way cell-phones are sold (with a salesman who will go over the contract with you).
Of course, there is no reasonable way that a company can fit a seven page contract on the outer packaging, have it be legible, and also draw people's attention to the product, and not the contract. That's the point!
The reason I say one of these two options should be used is because the current system depends on users agreeing to a contract that they never read, and will not follow, unless forced to do so, by powerful entities. This is a perversion of how contract law is supposed to work.
FYI, for other anarchocapitalists out there, my solution is true moderated arbitration mechanisms in a free market, not the law or the courts.I'm not even going to touch that. It's a new idea to me, but, since you seem to support it, let me ask you some questions:
Of course, those are my initial impressions
First of all, since I'm "defending the fundies", let me state my opinion.
I'm an athiest, and feel that creationism, and intelligent design are assumptions, not theories, hypotheses, or anything else that scientists should encourage. I also feel that the religious right is trying to push their views into the classroom by any means.
Now, that that's out of the way, this professor was not an inocent victim. He stated that his reason for giving his class a name referring to creatinism and intelligent design as "mythology" was to give the fundamentalists a "nice slap in their big fat face". The article doesn't say what his other emails said about catholicism and christianity in general, but it paints a picture of a man who is not using the socratic method, who isn't confronting these people with painful truths, or asking them to consider other views, but who is simply trying to piss people off because he doesn't like something about them.
Also, this man is still teaching. He didn't resign as a teacher. He resigned from his position as the chairman of the Department of Religious Studies, and cancelled the class. Now let me rephrase this:
The head of the department of religious studies was prejudiced against the predominant religion in our culture, and he, a man who obviously doesn't like creationism or intelligent design, is teaching a class on the subject. That's like hiring an antisemite to teach a class on Jewish philosophy.
Now, if he had been forced to resign from teaching, then I might have a problem...And, I can't condone the beating he received, but I can't help but feel that that is the risk you take when you show an open prejudice against the majority of your neighbors.
Why is it that, during an election, most major corporations donate money to both candidates, with no fear of either side being offended, but they can't do something similar here? Why can't they donate money both to the Darwin exhibit and to something of lasting religious significance, like a religious history exhibit for a museum or other public building? In this case, it can be explained as a fundamental respect for both the sciences, and for the diverse religious beliefs of americans.
As a side note, the supreme court has ruled that religious exhibits on federally owned property are perfectly legal as long as they don't discriminate or show favoratism, making this a perfectly legal "victory" brought to you by corporation xyz
Except that the Vatican has a long history of compromising key articles of faith to keep the peace. A compromising faith is the folly of much of catholicism, sadly.
Really? Really? Really? It seems to me that catholocism is one of the more conservative branches of Christianity, what, with their refusal to allow birth control, nonacceptance of homosexual priests, strict stances on abortion and war, and their view of divorce.
Nothing personal against the religion, but I never saw them as the happy-go-lucky, anything goes branch of Christianity.
You know, all that stuff about there being no death before Adam & Eve was a big mistake. And of course man can't really be made in God's image since the present day is just a step in a big long evolutionary path. Never mind that Genesis mentions creation in six days while going to great pains to define 'day' as the period of the suns position in the sky, just in case anyone misunderstands what a 'day' might mean. Not to mention the fossil record.
Don't forget the way that the book of genesis begins with one story of creation, and then immediately segways into a retelling with a slightly different order of events. How can the book be taken 100% literally if the first chapter can't go five pages without contradicting itself?
It's this watering down of basic Christianity that has allowed the really dangerous belief systems to infiltrate (PC-veilied Pantheism in the US and pacific, and Islam in Europe, Africa and the former Soviet countries).
So, Bin Laden interprets the Bible too loosely, which makes him like Americans who reinterpret religion so that it doesn't contradict the way they live their lives? Well, I did see a group of liberals screaming "allah" while driving a beat-up Volkswagon into a building once. Maybe you got a point there
Think the dark ages were bad? Wait till you see what's around the corner.
I promise you, the next Dark age will begin in middle america, led by some right-wing fundamentalist who's pissed off that "the rest of the world is depriving him of his right to have his religion forced on the rest of the world"
They're only redefining science for themselves. Thus they will live by their fantasy definition, while the rest of the world progresses.
This may be the best thing to happen for everyone else. Once Kansas becomes the victim of a self-imposed economic failure, even most religious fundamentalists will realize that factual science is a necessity.
You know, if politicians can redefine science, then they'll probably redefine "economic failure"...for a little while, and then, eventually, blame it on some random liberal policy, like public school systems, not enough tax cuts, etc...
It sounds like we're both in agreement. My point was that I don't know from a religious perspective, how one could assume that everything that has been disproven is symbolic, that everything that ever will be disproven already has, and everything else is to be taken literally...I also don't feel that evolution contradicts the bible, it simply adds a new dimension that couldn't have been explained, unless Moses had had a sharp mind, fierce dedication, and enough stone tablets to explain genetics.
Then there's the other way some of your sentences could have been interpreted. Each side sees this as the other side's way of forcing their views upon other people's children. I feel that it is legitimate in the case of science, for the teacher to describe evolution as a commonly held theory in the scientific community, and I feel that it would be appropriate to explain why that the theory of evolution is considered more "scientific" than the hypothesis of Intelligent Design (and why one is considered a theory and the other a hypothesis), but, having gone to a state university, I have found that the teachers there are very concious about respecting the beliefs of others. (My girlfriend went to a private institution where the downside to them using their private status to try to push religion on the students is that the teachers are often liberal, and they have just as little respect for the students as the people who run the school.)
In their defense, most of what is taught in schools either is not theoretical science (with evolution being the exception), or it is theories that are very likely, such as the theory that the earth revolves around the sun. So, while the foundation of science is the asking of questions, when a science teacher states that the earth revolves around the sun, should he or she expect twenty children to raise their hands and argue the contrary? Should the teacher end every lesson by saying something like "who would like to argue a different view of how photosynthesis works?"