WARNING: Excessive exposure to violent video games and other violent media has been linked to aggressive behavior.
Yeah. That's what he wants. Tipper Gore and her ilk wanted the same kind of thing for music. It didn't quite work out their way. Taking a page from what the RIAA did, the ESRB might want to consider labels such as:
WARNING: This game is so fucking awesome that you might HIT yourself if you don't buy it!
Over the label will be a small starburst sticker reading:
If you want to stop the botnet, you need to remove its incentive. The botnet operates not for someones jollies, but because it is profitable to have a botnet. If you remove the profit motive the botnet will self-disassemble over time.
By Jove, I think you've got it! All we need to do is remove the incentive and crime just fades away! I wonder why nobody's thought of that before.
What?! Now they're out-sourcing the conspiracies to foreign workers?! This is a travesty! America deserves a Government who will maintain an American workforce to craft it's most inner secrets and public deceptions.
We the consumer, demand cheaper priced products, why should we be surprised when manufacturers look for methods of reducing their costs? You don't exactly see them firing up manufacturing plants in Tokyo or Manhattan.
Corporations also demand more profit. Reducing costs helps that bottom line. Whether moving manufactoring locations ends up positive on that bottom line or not isn't always clear at the outset.
It's a Global Economy, get used to it.
It's been a global economy for decades. That's not the change.
Have these people lost their minds? I spend $60,000 for an automobile and now it will spam me while driving it? Are you serious, Lexus? What could possibly motivate these people to want to spam their customers AFTER a purchase?
"Dude. He just bought the car."
"Really?"
"Serious."
"What else will he buy? Lets try to sell him a bridge."
"No, no. I've got something better. Let's get him to agree to getting ads in the premium-priced car he just purchased."
"Brilliant! This is gonna be so good..."
"OK. Serious face, now. Prepare to witness epic salesmanship."
What it says is SourceForge gets to ignore your chosen license for your project if you happen to use their hosting services.
I was ready to make a counter-argument. I specifically expected to find that "content" was a reference to supporting date - web site, mailing lists, documentation, etc. And then I found this:
As used throughout these Terms, "Content" means any text, data, software, music, sound, photograph, graphic, video, message, or material, whether publicly posted, or privately transmitted via SourceForge.net.
And that gives me pause. I think you might be right.
Of course, this is probably all fine if you've licensed your project under BSD. There's a lot of folks in these parts who believe in freedom to a fault (I hope I don't drift in to another BSD/GPL debate by exposing my bias). And in that light, what Sourceforge is doing is perfectly compatible with Slashdot, et al. But I have to admit that I've found myself uncomfortable with the implications.
SourceForge, Inc. also runs the sourceforge.net code repository. Given the vocal advocacy on their web properties (like Slashdot or Linux.com), I find it ironic that sourceforge.net uses another proprietary license for their rights to the contents you put there.
I'm curious as to what issue you see in their license. Of note are:
Your Rights
Except for Feedback, which you agree to grant COMPANY any and all intellectual property rights owned or controlled by you relating to the Feedback, COMPANY claims no ownership or control over any Content. You or your third party licensor, as applicable, retain all intellectual property rights to any Content and you are responsible for protecting those rights, as appropriate.
With respect to SourceForge.net Public Content, the submitting user retains ownership of such SourceForge.net Public Content, except that publicly-available statistical content which is generated by COMPANY to monitor and display SourceForge.net project activity is owned by COMPANY.
By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through SourceForge.net, you grant COMPANY a worldwide, non-exclusive, irrevocable, perpetual, fully sublicensable, royalty-free license to use, reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, create derivative works from, publish, perform, display, rent, resell and distribute such Content (in whole or part) on SourceForge.net and incorporate Content in other works, in any form, media, or technology developed by COMPANY, though COMPANY is not required to incorporate Feedback into any COMPANY products or services. COMPANY reserves the right to syndicate Content submitted, posted or displayed by you on or through SourceForge.net and use that Content in connection with any service offered by COMPANY.
With respect to Content posted to private areas of SourceForge.net (e.g., private SourceForge.net development tools or SourceForge.net Mail), the submitting user may grant to COMPANY or other users such rights and licenses as the submitting user deems appropriate.
And...
8. LICENSING AND OTHER TERMS APPLYING TO CODE AND OTHER CONTENT POSTED ON SOURCEFORGE.NET
SourceForge.net fosters software development and content creation under Open-Source Initiative ("OSI")-approved licenses or other arrangements relating to software and/or content development that may be approved by COMPANY. For more information about OSI, and OSI-approved licenses, visit www.opensource.org.
Use, reproduction, modification, and ownership of intellectual property rights to data stored in CVS, SVN or as a file release and posted by any user on SourceForge.net ("Source Code") shall be governed by and subject to the OSI-approved license, or to such other licensing arrangements approved by COMPANY, applicable to such Source Code.
Content located on any SourceForge.net-hosted subdomain which is subject to the sole editorial control of the owner or licensee of such subdomain, shall be subject to the OSI-approved license, or to such other licensing arrangements that may be approved by COMPANY, applicable to such Content.
It doesn't seem all that incompatible with the likes of Slashdot or Linux.com.
Even if they had a good business model, the safer bet is to bet on the failure of the business. Don't hurt yourself patting yourself on the back - it's not worth the effort.
I always tell my customers: a computer is a tool, and you should use the appropriate tool to do the job.
A long time ago, I was happy if I had a hammer and a screwdriver. Then I ended up in a career that involved an entire roll-around sized toolbox. Now my own personal toolbox is a lot more involved.
During that career, I remember one time where we were building out a new toolbox. One individual involved insisted we order as much as we could from Snap-on. Another claimed Snap-on was over-priced junk and that there were far better manufacturers to pick from. Debate ensued.
To the average person, a screwdriver is a screwdriver and that's all they need. To someone skilled in the trade, not all tools are made the same and to do their best work requires a full assortment of tools. A craftsman will have a certain appreciation for their tools as without them they can not work to their full potential.
IT folks tend to be craftsmen in their trade. It is no more surprising that we would debate over the merits of our tools than mechanics or carpenters. And we are also passionate about those tools we most enjoy using.
Of course, computers are tools like no other. The systems we commonly use are complex and versatile. They can handle diverse tasks and do things we're not even aware of yet. And that's where "best tool for the job" is a bit deceiving. A hammer makes a poor axe and will never be an axe without fundamental changes to the tool. But a multiuse computer can be nearly anything (assuming the right software is available).
But I like your analogy -- what if you had to pay some hideous fee just to use a bible quote in your wedding invitation or church newsletter or whatnot?
Good point. But it's more than that. Say you want to criticize the Church by quoting the text of the Bible. What if the Church decides to squelch your criticism by claiming copyright of the Bible and pursues legal action. Sure - you can claim fair use. But the trouble with that is that fair use isn't determined until you take it to court. Do you really want to pit your personal finances against the financial resources of the Church?
Again - this is more than a theoretical situation. Critics of Scientology have faced this exact issue.
Let me ask you just one thing: after your preferred web browser gained tabs (this was a while back for me since I use Firefox almost exclusively, though I have dabbled with Chrome), did you stick to having any separate browser windows, or did you go all tab-per-page mode?
Hmmm. Interesting question.
I do a bit of both. I'll usually have the "goofing off" browser open that becomes littered with tabs as I follow links around or go "hey - did you see that video on YouTube?" If / when I'm looking up something for a particular task, sometimes I'll open a tab on that window and go from there. Often I then move that tab to a new window or, if I'm thinking ahead, open a new window in advance. Then all the following tabs (spawned from google searches, etc.) are all in the same window for that particular task / subject. Once I'm done, I close the window. Sometimes I clean up my tabs until there's just the ones I found useful and then I "Bookmark All Tabs.." (yup - using Firefox as well). Part of the reason I do this is compartamentalization. But it also allows me to move that browser window over to that task's desktop and have it side-by-side (sometimes on the 2nd screen - which is actually my docked laptop) as reference (leaving Slashdot behind).
I also think touchscreen/stylus tablet use on both desktops and mobiles will become more common within the next 1-3 years, so perhaps that introduces some bias.
I see how this interface is useful for mobile computing. But I'm not sure I buy it for desktop environments. I remember touch-screens and light pens in the '80s. Neat stuff (I had a light pen). But ultimately just not the right interface. Although - imagine one of the Waacom screen tablets (I forget the model) that's also your main monitor. If it was wireless, just picking up your monitor to scribble on it would be kind of cool. But I'm not sure it'd be that useful outside artistic circles.
Just curious why it is critically important for the characters to be in public domain? People will still make money off them if they are in public domain but the parent company will likely loose business and have to lay off people. Why? Why does the public have rights over and above the creator? I ask this as an artist that has copyrighted characters. I'd rather have my grandchildren benefit from my creations than some guy that has a sweat shop in China cranking off cheapie knock offs. How is society better off from artists loosing rights to their work?
It's interesting that you characterize the beneficiaries of limited copyright being sweat shop. Meanwhile, you've already breezed by one of the most well-known beneficiaries of the public domain: Disney.
Disney's portfolio is littered with stories from the Public Domain (starting with Snow White). Many of those stories are some of the best examples of classic Disney work.
Another interesting aspect of copyright is religion. Religion is one of the fundamental aspects of society. Religious texts are published, copies, and scrutinized by both true believers and critics. Can you imagine the Roman Catholic Church claiming copyright over the Bible? If you're a critic of Scientology, you can.
I often wonder about releasing some work to the public because in the end the only true way in our society to control your work is to not publish it ever. I no longer have the financial need so why not just keep my work for family and friends? Society won't benefit, it's an AC post so you don't know who this is, but at least I'll control my creations.
You're under the delusion that you own and control your creations.
In some ways an artist's creation should have more protection than personal property since it is a part of themselves yet it has far less protection. My family home can still be in the family in 500 years but my work will belong to anyone that wants to reproduce it for a quick buck.
And now I see why you have this idea. Ideas are not property. Again - at best you have copyright and / or trademarks. These are often referred to as "intellectual property" for simplicity. But they are not real property.
It may seem straight forward to non artists but it's an upsetting subject for many artists. I've largely decided to draw a line between commercial and personal work and what I deem personal will never be released to the public. It's my choice and ultimately it is the only real control I have.
That will work until eventually those works enter the public awareness via a distant relative's actions or death. And then, once the issue of copyright is worked out, the public has just as much access to your work as ever.
The only control you can exert on the future is to destroy your work now while you're alive. Obliterate it. Make it as if it never existed. Undo your work if control is that much more important that creativity. Otherwise you're going to have to accept that ideas outlive their creators and are beyond control of mortal man.
This is where I have to begin to disagree with you. I know it's a hard habit to give up, but I think the multi-window desktop UI paradigm we've been force-fed since the 80's is vastly overrated. I don't know how you do your tasks, but I do mine one at a time, and the really important windows are kept full-screen. The rare exception to that might be filesystem browsing, but a multi-frame browser is a simpler solution there. Recent studies show that humans are not natively multi-tasking, and asking them to do so tends to slow them down, where single-tasking serially is faster.
This has me thinking - how diverse are our habits for working? What you described is entirely unlike my normal environment. Let's compare.
My environment involves multiple virtual desktops. Each desktop tends to be dedicated to a specific task. I always have an email desktop and a web browser desktop. At work, I also have a VM desktop. Others get used according to whatever tasks pop up. Let's say I get an email alerting me to some issue. I'll pop that email up in to its own window then move that over to an empty desktop / workspace. Then I'll open terminal windows, monitoring apps, etc. and get to work using the email as a reference. The size of those windows are usually dependent on how much real-estate is needed to view the app / information. Sometimes I either go full-screen, full-width, or full-height but rarely. At work, that sometimes mean my reference material (be it a web page, email, document, etc.) gets moved over to a second monitor. Moving between windows is usually point-and-raise. Sometimes I use the Compiz Scale feature (similar to MacOS Expose) to select a window in the current desktop or from all desktops. Once a task is done, the associated windows are closed (although email, web, and VM are usually running until I'm done for the day).
Its not that I'm multi-tasking per se. Its more compartmentalization. I only work on one task at a time. But I'm able to move from section to section, quickly moving between sources of information or even tasks if priorities warrant.
I couldn't imagine going to a single-window world (much less a single desktop - single monitor I still do at home but its a relatively large monitor). But at the same time, I have no desire to do the same thing with a mobile device. Unless that mobile device is a brick that behaves as a mobile device and is the center of my desktop environment when docked. Then I'd want both the single-window mode and the multi-workspace mode available as appropriate (I might also want such a wonderful device to act as a pony too, while I'm at it).
I'm glad the summary specifies that they were born in the US. Because otherwise it would be okay to treat them like dirt, right?
That they are a part of US culture cuts away a certain amount of confusion. Where you grow up does tend to affect your mannerisms, cultural queues and understanding, etc. These folks were a part of the very culture that misunderstood them which highlights that there was no such cultural confusion involved (in so far as possible with a population of very diverse subcultures).
It doesn't OK treating citizens from other countries like crap. But it does eliminate one excuse for treating these people this way.
One evil act by anything or anyone makes a motto of "Do no Evil" broken by default. Is that not enough?
The Devil would be in the details. Was this act done by mistake or by a rogue employee? Or was it reflective of a general company policy? The motto is perfectly fine as long as its not a cynical veil for the true nature in conflict with it.
I understand the reasoning for being suspicious. But again, it's simply suspicion until you can show concrete proof of fact - no matter how well the odds are in your favor.
You don't understand. It's not that Google is evil. It's that they're run by space aliens and unicorns. And until you can prove otherwise, it's a fact!
Until you can crack open their entire operation and show me, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Google doesn't abuse their position in at least one way (because that's all it takes, then I'd let go some of my skepticism.
There's a difference between stating a definite and suspecting. If you want to claim the definite, then you need to have definitive proof. Producing that proof would help others to agree (or disagree) with your point.
Keep your skepticism. It's good to have. Blind faith is for suckers. But until you can show that something really is happening, don't fool yourself in to believing you're omnipotent. You don't know - you suspect.
Slashdot Mirror
WARNING: Excessive exposure to violent video games and other violent media has been linked to aggressive behavior.
Yeah. That's what he wants. Tipper Gore and her ilk wanted the same kind of thing for music. It didn't quite work out their way. Taking a page from what the RIAA did, the ESRB might want to consider labels such as:
WARNING: This game is so fucking awesome that you might HIT yourself if you don't buy it!
Over the label will be a small starburst sticker reading:
WARNING: This warning too "edgy" for public view.
If you want to stop the botnet, you need to remove its incentive. The botnet operates not for someones jollies, but because it is profitable to have a botnet. If you remove the profit motive the botnet will self-disassemble over time.
By Jove, I think you've got it! All we need to do is remove the incentive and crime just fades away! I wonder why nobody's thought of that before.
Are you kidding? That conspiracy was farmed out to the Israelies. No wonder America is in such a dire economic situation.
What?! Now they're out-sourcing the conspiracies to foreign workers?! This is a travesty! America deserves a Government who will maintain an American workforce to craft it's most inner secrets and public deceptions.
We the consumer, demand cheaper priced products, why should we be surprised when manufacturers look for methods of reducing their costs? You don't exactly see them firing up manufacturing plants in Tokyo or Manhattan.
Corporations also demand more profit. Reducing costs helps that bottom line. Whether moving manufactoring locations ends up positive on that bottom line or not isn't always clear at the outset.
It's a Global Economy, get used to it.
It's been a global economy for decades. That's not the change.
Have these people lost their minds? I spend $60,000 for an automobile and now it will spam me while driving it? Are you serious, Lexus? What could possibly motivate these people to want to spam their customers AFTER a purchase?
"Dude. He just bought the car."
"Really?"
"Serious."
"What else will he buy? Lets try to sell him a bridge."
"No, no. I've got something better. Let's get him to agree to getting ads in the premium-priced car he just purchased."
"Brilliant! This is gonna be so good..."
"OK. Serious face, now. Prepare to witness epic salesmanship."
BUT the 1541 could play Bicycle Built for Two! You couldn't do THAT with a cassette tape.
(Wait... what? Oh. Yeah...)
What it says is SourceForge gets to ignore your chosen license for your project if you happen to use their hosting services.
I was ready to make a counter-argument. I specifically expected to find that "content" was a reference to supporting date - web site, mailing lists, documentation, etc. And then I found this:
As used throughout these Terms, "Content" means any text, data, software, music, sound, photograph, graphic, video, message, or material, whether publicly posted, or privately transmitted via SourceForge.net.
And that gives me pause. I think you might be right.
Of course, this is probably all fine if you've licensed your project under BSD. There's a lot of folks in these parts who believe in freedom to a fault (I hope I don't drift in to another BSD/GPL debate by exposing my bias). And in that light, what Sourceforge is doing is perfectly compatible with Slashdot, et al. But I have to admit that I've found myself uncomfortable with the implications.
Alright. Great. And the conflict is...? Bold tags do not make an argument.
In the end computers are just tools.
Do you 'believe' in SnapOn, Mac or Matco?
Some people do.
What keeps them from winding up on the grey market with the current system?
SourceForge, Inc. also runs the sourceforge.net code repository. Given the vocal advocacy on their web properties (like Slashdot or Linux.com), I find it ironic that sourceforge.net uses another proprietary license for their rights to the contents you put there.
I'm curious as to what issue you see in their license. Of note are:
Your Rights
Except for Feedback, which you agree to grant COMPANY any and all intellectual property rights owned or controlled by you relating to the Feedback, COMPANY claims no ownership or control over any Content. You or your third party licensor, as applicable, retain all intellectual property rights to any Content and you are responsible for protecting those rights, as appropriate.
With respect to SourceForge.net Public Content, the submitting user retains ownership of such SourceForge.net Public Content, except that publicly-available statistical content which is generated by COMPANY to monitor and display SourceForge.net project activity is owned by COMPANY.
By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through SourceForge.net, you grant COMPANY a worldwide, non-exclusive, irrevocable, perpetual, fully sublicensable, royalty-free license to use, reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, create derivative works from, publish, perform, display, rent, resell and distribute such Content (in whole or part) on SourceForge.net and incorporate Content in other works, in any form, media, or technology developed by COMPANY, though COMPANY is not required to incorporate Feedback into any COMPANY products or services. COMPANY reserves the right to syndicate Content submitted, posted or displayed by you on or through SourceForge.net and use that Content in connection with any service offered by COMPANY.
With respect to Content posted to private areas of SourceForge.net (e.g., private SourceForge.net development tools or SourceForge.net Mail), the submitting user may grant to COMPANY or other users such rights and licenses as the submitting user deems appropriate.
And...
8. LICENSING AND OTHER TERMS APPLYING TO CODE AND OTHER CONTENT POSTED ON SOURCEFORGE.NET
SourceForge.net fosters software development and content creation under Open-Source Initiative ("OSI")-approved licenses or other arrangements relating to software and/or content development that may be approved by COMPANY. For more information about OSI, and OSI-approved licenses, visit www.opensource.org.
Use, reproduction, modification, and ownership of intellectual property rights to data stored in CVS, SVN or as a file release and posted by any user on SourceForge.net ("Source Code") shall be governed by and subject to the OSI-approved license, or to such other licensing arrangements approved by COMPANY, applicable to such Source Code.
Content located on any SourceForge.net-hosted subdomain which is subject to the sole editorial control of the owner or licensee of such subdomain, shall be subject to the OSI-approved license, or to such other licensing arrangements that may be approved by COMPANY, applicable to such Content.
It doesn't seem all that incompatible with the likes of Slashdot or Linux.com.
Even if they had a good business model, the safer bet is to bet on the failure of the business. Don't hurt yourself patting yourself on the back - it's not worth the effort.
I understand the focus on gathering evidence, but it is interesting the disruption isn't a more important part of the law-enforcement toolkit.
Arrests and, more importantly, conviction ARE disruptive.
I always tell my customers: a computer is a tool, and you should use the appropriate tool to do the job.
A long time ago, I was happy if I had a hammer and a screwdriver. Then I ended up in a career that involved an entire roll-around sized toolbox. Now my own personal toolbox is a lot more involved.
During that career, I remember one time where we were building out a new toolbox. One individual involved insisted we order as much as we could from Snap-on. Another claimed Snap-on was over-priced junk and that there were far better manufacturers to pick from. Debate ensued.
To the average person, a screwdriver is a screwdriver and that's all they need. To someone skilled in the trade, not all tools are made the same and to do their best work requires a full assortment of tools. A craftsman will have a certain appreciation for their tools as without them they can not work to their full potential.
IT folks tend to be craftsmen in their trade. It is no more surprising that we would debate over the merits of our tools than mechanics or carpenters. And we are also passionate about those tools we most enjoy using.
Of course, computers are tools like no other. The systems we commonly use are complex and versatile. They can handle diverse tasks and do things we're not even aware of yet. And that's where "best tool for the job" is a bit deceiving. A hammer makes a poor axe and will never be an axe without fundamental changes to the tool. But a multiuse computer can be nearly anything (assuming the right software is available).
But I like your analogy -- what if you had to pay some hideous fee just to use a bible quote in your wedding invitation or church newsletter or whatnot?
Good point. But it's more than that. Say you want to criticize the Church by quoting the text of the Bible. What if the Church decides to squelch your criticism by claiming copyright of the Bible and pursues legal action. Sure - you can claim fair use. But the trouble with that is that fair use isn't determined until you take it to court. Do you really want to pit your personal finances against the financial resources of the Church?
Again - this is more than a theoretical situation. Critics of Scientology have faced this exact issue.
Let me ask you just one thing: after your preferred web browser gained tabs (this was a while back for me since I use Firefox almost exclusively, though I have dabbled with Chrome), did you stick to having any separate browser windows, or did you go all tab-per-page mode?
Hmmm. Interesting question.
I do a bit of both. I'll usually have the "goofing off" browser open that becomes littered with tabs as I follow links around or go "hey - did you see that video on YouTube?" If / when I'm looking up something for a particular task, sometimes I'll open a tab on that window and go from there. Often I then move that tab to a new window or, if I'm thinking ahead, open a new window in advance. Then all the following tabs (spawned from google searches, etc.) are all in the same window for that particular task / subject. Once I'm done, I close the window. Sometimes I clean up my tabs until there's just the ones I found useful and then I "Bookmark All Tabs.." (yup - using Firefox as well). Part of the reason I do this is compartamentalization. But it also allows me to move that browser window over to that task's desktop and have it side-by-side (sometimes on the 2nd screen - which is actually my docked laptop) as reference (leaving Slashdot behind).
I also think touchscreen/stylus tablet use on both desktops and mobiles will become more common within the next 1-3 years, so perhaps that introduces some bias.
I see how this interface is useful for mobile computing. But I'm not sure I buy it for desktop environments. I remember touch-screens and light pens in the '80s. Neat stuff (I had a light pen). But ultimately just not the right interface. Although - imagine one of the Waacom screen tablets (I forget the model) that's also your main monitor. If it was wireless, just picking up your monitor to scribble on it would be kind of cool. But I'm not sure it'd be that useful outside artistic circles.
I'm curious as to why you're so keen on the idea.
There are now dozens of "why is this red" posts littered throughout /.
Just curious why it is critically important for the characters to be in public domain? People will still make money off them if they are in public domain but the parent company will likely loose business and have to lay off people. Why? Why does the public have rights over and above the creator? I ask this as an artist that has copyrighted characters. I'd rather have my grandchildren benefit from my creations than some guy that has a sweat shop in China cranking off cheapie knock offs. How is society better off from artists loosing rights to their work?
It's interesting that you characterize the beneficiaries of limited copyright being sweat shop. Meanwhile, you've already breezed by one of the most well-known beneficiaries of the public domain: Disney.
Disney's portfolio is littered with stories from the Public Domain (starting with Snow White). Many of those stories are some of the best examples of classic Disney work.
Another interesting aspect of copyright is religion. Religion is one of the fundamental aspects of society. Religious texts are published, copies, and scrutinized by both true believers and critics. Can you imagine the Roman Catholic Church claiming copyright over the Bible? If you're a critic of Scientology, you can.
I often wonder about releasing some work to the public because in the end the only true way in our society to control your work is to not publish it ever. I no longer have the financial need so why not just keep my work for family and friends? Society won't benefit, it's an AC post so you don't know who this is, but at least I'll control my creations.
You're under the delusion that you own and control your creations.
In some ways an artist's creation should have more protection than personal property since it is a part of themselves yet it has far less protection. My family home can still be in the family in 500 years but my work will belong to anyone that wants to reproduce it for a quick buck.
And now I see why you have this idea. Ideas are not property. Again - at best you have copyright and / or trademarks. These are often referred to as "intellectual property" for simplicity. But they are not real property.
It may seem straight forward to non artists but it's an upsetting subject for many artists. I've largely decided to draw a line between commercial and personal work and what I deem personal will never be released to the public. It's my choice and ultimately it is the only real control I have.
That will work until eventually those works enter the public awareness via a distant relative's actions or death. And then, once the issue of copyright is worked out, the public has just as much access to your work as ever.
The only control you can exert on the future is to destroy your work now while you're alive. Obliterate it. Make it as if it never existed. Undo your work if control is that much more important that creativity. Otherwise you're going to have to accept that ideas outlive their creators and are beyond control of mortal man.
The Japanese.
Wait. The other troll says it's "the Jews." Now I don't know who to believe.
This is where I have to begin to disagree with you. I know it's a hard habit to give up, but I think the multi-window desktop UI paradigm we've been force-fed since the 80's is vastly overrated. I don't know how you do your tasks, but I do mine one at a time, and the really important windows are kept full-screen. The rare exception to that might be filesystem browsing, but a multi-frame browser is a simpler solution there. Recent studies show that humans are not natively multi-tasking, and asking them to do so tends to slow them down, where single-tasking serially is faster.
This has me thinking - how diverse are our habits for working? What you described is entirely unlike my normal environment. Let's compare.
My environment involves multiple virtual desktops. Each desktop tends to be dedicated to a specific task. I always have an email desktop and a web browser desktop. At work, I also have a VM desktop. Others get used according to whatever tasks pop up. Let's say I get an email alerting me to some issue. I'll pop that email up in to its own window then move that over to an empty desktop / workspace. Then I'll open terminal windows, monitoring apps, etc. and get to work using the email as a reference. The size of those windows are usually dependent on how much real-estate is needed to view the app / information. Sometimes I either go full-screen, full-width, or full-height but rarely. At work, that sometimes mean my reference material (be it a web page, email, document, etc.) gets moved over to a second monitor. Moving between windows is usually point-and-raise. Sometimes I use the Compiz Scale feature (similar to MacOS Expose) to select a window in the current desktop or from all desktops. Once a task is done, the associated windows are closed (although email, web, and VM are usually running until I'm done for the day).
Its not that I'm multi-tasking per se. Its more compartmentalization. I only work on one task at a time. But I'm able to move from section to section, quickly moving between sources of information or even tasks if priorities warrant.
I couldn't imagine going to a single-window world (much less a single desktop - single monitor I still do at home but its a relatively large monitor). But at the same time, I have no desire to do the same thing with a mobile device. Unless that mobile device is a brick that behaves as a mobile device and is the center of my desktop environment when docked. Then I'd want both the single-window mode and the multi-workspace mode available as appropriate (I might also want such a wonderful device to act as a pony too, while I'm at it).
I'm glad the summary specifies that they were born in the US. Because otherwise it would be okay to treat them like dirt, right?
That they are a part of US culture cuts away a certain amount of confusion. Where you grow up does tend to affect your mannerisms, cultural queues and understanding, etc. These folks were a part of the very culture that misunderstood them which highlights that there was no such cultural confusion involved (in so far as possible with a population of very diverse subcultures).
It doesn't OK treating citizens from other countries like crap. But it does eliminate one excuse for treating these people this way.
One evil act by anything or anyone makes a motto of "Do no Evil" broken by default. Is that not enough?
The Devil would be in the details. Was this act done by mistake or by a rogue employee? Or was it reflective of a general company policy? The motto is perfectly fine as long as its not a cynical veil for the true nature in conflict with it.
I understand the reasoning for being suspicious. But again, it's simply suspicion until you can show concrete proof of fact - no matter how well the odds are in your favor.
You don't understand. It's not that Google is evil. It's that they're run by space aliens and unicorns. And until you can prove otherwise, it's a fact!
It's not a meme, it's just the truth.
Until you can crack open their entire operation and show me, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Google doesn't abuse their position in at least one way (because that's all it takes, then I'd let go some of my skepticism.
There's a difference between stating a definite and suspecting. If you want to claim the definite, then you need to have definitive proof. Producing that proof would help others to agree (or disagree) with your point.
Keep your skepticism. It's good to have. Blind faith is for suckers. But until you can show that something really is happening, don't fool yourself in to believing you're omnipotent. You don't know - you suspect.