Har! Wrong, matey. That is exactly what most of them are. I don't know too many rich people who bother to download games/movies/music. Why should they? The ones who most object to paying for a 'free' copy of something are the ones who have to work at some shite job that they can't stand doing, where they are counting every minute of every hour until they can escape from their wage slave existence.
Not having the money to buy something you want is no excuse for taking it; it's not like not having the latest game is going to cause you to starve to death. Most of the software pirates I've known are really somewhat pathetic - they simply want to amass a large software collection simply to sya they have a large one and never run or use most of the software they've collected.
Robin Hood is actually an excellent analogy. The people they/we are 'stealing' from are pretty much about as rich as you can get. I mean they ain't exactly Bill Gates, but most do make more in a week than I make in a whole year. And for accomplishing very little of any real value to the world. You can argue about the relative wealth of the recipients, but the wealth of the 'victims' is indisputable. And the story does play like a sort of geek folk tale, a David-Golaith story where we all know who ultimately is going to win.
The arguement that is OK to steal from people you view as rich is exactly what a 411 or other third world scammer would view themselves doing - taking money from soemone who has way too much and giving it to someone with much less (themselves).
many of these rich victims you deride built their wealth by producing a product people want and were willing to pay for; so it has value - even if it is only for entertainment.
I don't believe that 'information' is something that can be stolen. I do believe in copyright actually (and it is like a religion), but I don't believe it is ethical to enforce against anyone who is not actually making a profit from it. thepiratebay doesn't make a dime of profit from the copyrighted files they help distribute. Might as well throw all the postal services in jail. And thepiratebay folks barely even qualify as messengers anyway. If you don't like the precariousness of selling binary data, go do something else. I dunno. Learn how to cook or something. You can't copy a hamburger. Then you won't feel so cheated when nearly perfect (except for the cracked binary) copies of your hard work are given away to anyone with a computer and an internet connection.
First of all, you really don't believe in coipyrights if you feel it is OK for someone to use copyrighted material without the owner's permission.
Second, piratebay may not make money by selling the programs, but they're getting money to host the material only becaus ethey have the material - if there were no pirated goods on piratebay no one would be interested in them - so they are profiting from the material.
I've been a bit off topic here but I'll try to bring it back on track...It really doesn't matter how many parties are involved in a country's government. The majority party gets to write the rules (laws) and more importantly...interpret them. The Swedish government is no different than any other country. If the powers that be get a bug up their ass, they will swat it to the extent that they can whether that is "right" or not.
That depends on the type of government - in a parlimentary democracy a small fringe party can have a lot more power to get laws passed and positions of importance if they are crucial to teh ruling party's majority and hence ability to stay in power. The ruling party must keep them from crossing over to the other side (or abondoning the coalition) to prevent their government from falling; hence they are willing to cede more power than they would if not faced with that threat.
You see that to a lesser extent in the US system - while a party is willing to work with a pilitician who is an independent (such as Lieberman in the Senate) to craft a majority since they don't risk a new election if they lose a vote.
an entertaining prank to be sure, and a surprise that no one's tried it before on this scale. There's no excuse for there not to be black electrical tape over every IR receiver on that set of displays.
If you leave something THAT open to pranking at a public or semi-public event, it's going to happen. That's like leaving LAN jacks open all over the place at the conference and having an unsecured credit card processing machine on the same network. You deserve what you get for that level of carelessness.
If your front door can be kicked in and you leave expensive computer equipment on a desk do you deserve to be robbed? After all, you could hire an armed guard and if you didn't your carelessness means you are asking to be robbed?
The notion that a prank is OK simply because you can do it doesn't mean it is; or that you should not be held responsible for the results.
In this case, Gizmodo should be held fiancially liable for its employee's actions. In addition, as someone who has had press credentials at major shows I don't think their behaviour was appropriate and they deserve to be banned from future events.
Some argue that it's unfair to tar all bloggers with the same brush; I agree, but this made it harder for bloggers to be taken serious. Bloggers that write for major media outlets (think CNN / Time Warner et. al.) will still get in - because the organizers know they are professionals with an audience - less recognized names will be easier to simply ignore rather than try to determine if they are for real or some kid with a cheap web account trying to score some free swag and brag to his friends that he got into CES for free. It's simply more cost effective to say no to everyone you don't recognize than spend hours finding the 10% that deserve a yes; and that 10% will work through their media contacts with exhibitors to get the show to let them in.
Most digital cameras are VERY senstitive to IR light, and to anyone with a digital camera looking at the LCD preview screen, or to anyone with a web cam pointed into the audience, that remote would go off like a strobe. It should have taken them less than 20 seconds to find this joker.
Digital cameras have IR filters built in to block IR light from reaching the sensor (which is sensitive to IR), which is why IR photography requires either a camera mod or a model that is sensitive to IR despite the filter, such as the OZ2020.
While a remote will sometimes show up as a light source, it doesn't "go off like a strobe."
Sea air should not be much of a problem - first of all it's the spray that is a problem, not the air itself; second it's in port, where the cabling will not be in the water; ships stay tied to shore power for months in shipyards without problems.
Their is a lot of off the shelf stuff on ships - sailors bring computers, cell phones, mp3 players to sea with them and they survive just fine; not ot mention cruise ships with TVs etc. tha are exposed 24x7 to the same environment without problems.
It's really no different than building a facility near the shore - you seal and climate control critical spaces as needed.
Also, most ships don't rock at the pier. They move with the tide but that is generally an up down motion which is barely noticable.
Yeah, I just read a press release from the FAA blasting driver training courses. Apparently, flight students who just got their drivers licenses were not able to navigate in the air, execute banks, take-off, or land properly.
Your analogy is valid, but not for the reason you intended. The issue is what is the best way to train a person to develop a desired skill set. To use your example, if flight schools required drivers licenses as a prereq to strating flight training then they are doing exaactly what the profs are complaining about - starting people at the wrong point. Despite having completed the prescribed course (getting a d/l) the student is no more ready to learn to fly than tehy were before they learned to drive.
Students have to start somewhere. It's easier to start with simple stuff than to try to cram their heads full of everything all at once.
Yers, and you do that by providing fundemental knowledge that can be applied to various situations by developing an understanding of what is happening and why things act in certain ways in given conditions. that's why engineers learn physics, statics, dynamics and simple math like calculus before they learn thermo, aero/hydro dynamics / structures / etc. - they have developed a set of rules thay can broadly apply and then learn more specific and detailed applications.
Early training is about developing a structured apporach to think and problem solving; so you can tackle more complex problems in a systematic and rigourous manner.
That's why student pilots first learn basic areo, flight physiology, and navigation techniques - to prepare them for when the step into a real airplane.
It's also why I often ask questions such as "How many dogs are there in NYC?"; "If you were in ancient Greece and just invented teh telescope, how would you determine the price?"; or "What is the weight of this building?" - I want to see if the person can think and how they approach problem solving; and really don't care what answer they get.
That's something that's always bothered me. The old, "Well, you know that barfight you started? Well, since you kicked that guy in the nuts, you are being charged with felony sexual assault, but if you just agree to plead guilty to misdemeanor battery, we'll recommend you only get 10 days in jail." How is someone supposed to get a fair trial this way?
I can understand that - it is a way to get convictions without clogging up the courts with cases; at least from a prosecutor's viewpoint. You could also argue that the person was guilty of misdemeanor battery and so justice was served; and the accussed could still roll the dice and go to trial.
Of course not. You'd just plead guilty to what you should have been on trial for to begin with--minus the chance to actually mount a defense.
Your defense comes during the bargaining - estentially how much risk are you willing to take. If the case is weak you might refuse and take your chances with a jury; if not 10 days may be better than the possibility of a much stiffer sentence.
In many ways our justice system is an economic system - if the cost of not fighting is cheaper than the the expected value of going to court many people will chose not to fight; leaving the docket open for cases that should go to trial. That's why traffic tickets are sometimes "forgiven" if you pay and go to traffic school - you get the desired outcome - no points on the license and the state gets its - cash and one less case to get through in traffic court. While that is not an "ideal" justice system where everyone gets their day in court it's one that works in the real world of rocket dockets and large case backlogs.
Texas already requires that computer forensics investigators be licensed PIs. The requirement isn't just window dressing, either. Getting a PI license is tough there. That's why there are only about a dozen licensed computer forensics investigators in entire state. Um, and Media Sentry sure as hell ain't one of them...
One key outcome from requiring a license is it limits competition by putting up a barrier to entry - which helps those with licenses keep their rates higher. As someone who has held a license (not PI) it is a good deal; despite the hassle of taking an annual exam it enabled me to get a bonus every year.
Of course, licenses don't always make sense - look at barbers for instance. I can walk into any barber shop and watch them cut hair and see teh results. If they are incompent I can walk out; and even if I don't discover that until to late a week later and my hair is back; yet we license barbers.
A conviction where the majority of the sentence came from the spamming law rather than all the other ones (fraud, laundering, etc). The spamming sentence seems to be just the icing on the cake, powerless to have any real effect on its own. It may be adding insult to injury to the criminal, but it's not what nails them in the first place.
YET SPAM KEEPS GROWING BIGGER EVERY DAY, AND NOTHING GETS DONE. As I previously described, the current anti-spam laws are a joke when it comes to enforcement, and are only applied to people who get convicted on so many other counts they won't even feel this final punch.
My question is... WHY?
You're right - spam enforcement is just icing on the cake. Prosecutoers want victories, and piling on is one way to help cut a deal. It's the big ticket items that are the hammer - wire fraud, money laundring, etc. carry serious time so it makes sense to work on that angle and not be very concerned about the spamming.
Look at it this way, if you can put someone away for 15 years who cares what it is that results in that sentence. You've sent someone away, even if it wasn't for the moset heneous crime, efectively punishing them. The law provides the tools to do just that; you just have to use tehm properly to get the desired results. The key thing to worry about in many cases is teh tax angle - a tax evasion conviction is a very effective way to put someone away for an extended period when you can't convict on soemthing else.
Donald Norman Design of Everyday Things (ISBN-13: 978-0385267748) He will get you thinking about the implications of your interface design; this classic may be hard to find but he has other books out as well. While his examples focus on mechanical objects the thought process and criticisms provide insights into how to think about the end user in your design and avoid become someone "Who won an award" for their design. Once you read teh book you'll get what I mean. http://www.jnd.org/
Bruce Tognazzini Tog on Interface (ISBN-13: 978-0201608427) A bit dated but the concepts and idaeas are what matters. He has a website as well as other books. http://www.asktog.com/
Finally, there are classics by Edwin Tufte you may want to checkout as well. He focuses on displaying information (mostly quantitative) in a manner to support understanding; and hates PowerPoint type presentations with a passion. Tufte has a website as well. http://www.edwardtufte.com/ His one day course ie excellant.
Many airport security operations overseas have used similar techniques for quite some time; and this provides a way to be more rigorous in how to select people to screen furtehr. As TFA pointed out, law enforcement (and doctors / shrinks / etc.) have used this type of observation for years - because certain behavior patterns often indicate something is wrong or needs further exploration. I'd rather have them do this than get randomly selected very time I buy a one-way ticket at the last minute; becasue it attempts to provide consistant logical methodology to the process. I doubt it is perfect but no xcreening system is. One problem with guaging success is you don'y know who decided not to try to commit a crime becasue they realized they *may* be caught and decided not to risk it.
One key is properly training people so they can be effective and it doesn't become yet another "good idea" that morphs into a useless and potentially illegal profiling methodology.
Finally, despite the Orwellean tie-in some on/. will make, my experience is many people in law enforcemenmt truly care about such things as civil liberties and Constitutional rights; their goal is to protect people without infringing on their righst and keep the bad actors off the stage.
The main problem that I see: she has benefited from another purse while developing this technology, then kept the patents for her self to benefit on. It may be acceptable in a human-eat-human world, but it is far from charitable. Maybe it would have been better for her to move on and develop better technology, then patent and profit from that. For example, that XO display has a number of benefits over the competition but still has deficiencies. With her knowledge of the original, perhaps she could have gone on to develop one with a higher contrast reflective mode. (As an example.) That way at least she is doing something outside of the context of the OLPC project to add value, without straight off stealing the goods.
How? We have no idea what the agreement between her and OLPC was; and as another poster pointed out the patent is assigned to OPLC - not her. I would guess tehre has been some sort of licensing agreement reached between her and OLPC that both find reasonable and beneficial to avoid nasty lawsuits.
She, understandably, wants to make some money off of her ideas; while still benefiting OPLC (selling components at cost per TFA). Just becasue she was at a non-profit doesn't mean she shouldn't do what many have done before - leave to start their own company. often, non-profits can't or won't commercialize products; and employees leave to fill what they see as a market opportunity; having worked at a non-profit I've seen that happen first hand - in this case; after trying to convince the organization that they could create a for-profit sub and use the profits to fund other activities.
And on the flopside I'm bringing some nice noise canceling headphones and an extra laptop battery. Then I can watch movies for the whole trip and not worry about the insanity that is outside of 1 foot in front of my face.
I hate to break it to you, but noise canceling headphones don't "cancel" most noise - they do a good job of limiting consistent background noise - such as aircraft engine whine, and in ear (and cans to a lesser extent) block outside sound by plugging or blocking the ear canal (as would a good set of ear plugs) - but despite Sony's ad you'll still hear the screaming baby behind you.
Personally, I hope they do block VOIP - there are already two many idiots who feel the need to "dial up" as soon as the wheels screech; and talk incessantly while on the ground; and I have no reason to believe their behavior would change in the air and reasonably priced access would encourage such use.
The only reason automobile mechanics must give you a replaced part if you ask for it is so that you can get a second opinion afterwards, thus hoping to reduce fraud that tends to run rampant at some questionable automotive places where either through technician ignorance, negligence, or through purposeful managerial policy, a part is replace that does not need to be replaced.
Yes, and that's why most parts have a core charge - if you decide to keep it, you don't get that money back. In the auto business, many parts are recycled - you can buy rebuilt brakes, starters, engines, etc. There, the profit from the rebuilt product, which isn't obsoleted by a newer model since a 06 Chevy needs an 06 starter, not the newer higher RPM version from an 08 (I made that up), is enough that reusing the old part makes sense; especially since you can rebuild based on anticipated demand. You know how many cars of a certain type are on the road; when it drops low enough you stop making very many replacement; and those you have become special order (which could be build to order or from a tiny stock level).
Apple has a legitimate reason for keeping the drive which is described on the form given to the customer - it believes the drive can be fixed and sold. As a paying customer, you are a part of that economic system. If you do not wish to participate, that is your prerogative, and with standardization of components, you are more than welcome to find an alternative (which ironically the consumer considered and should have pursued).
I agree. Computer parts, however, have a short lifespan. Even if your MacBook had a 40g drive and it failed after 2 years, you may find, your only replacement choice is an 80g. While newer parts may be fixed, I'm guessing most are scrapped and shipped to China to be recycled. A smart intelligence agency would be looking for ways to ID potentially interesting drives, but the sheer volume would make it tough.
As a professional operational risk manager, I see the same behavior in countless execs. It's called leptokurtic risk (or kurtosis) - the condition of seeking artificial enhancement of returns at the center of a distribution while also taking on excessive outlier risk in the tails (called "fat tails"). These executives take on excessive risk for all of us as they seek their own personally-rewarding summits. The company I work for has struggled through significant catastrophic risk due to the neglect of systems maintenance by previous executives. Instead of spending money refreshing hardware, maintaining trained staffing and continuing license agreements with vendors, they threw it all overboard so they could puff up quarterly numbers and reward themselves for their "achievements." They left before the disasters began to occur, millions richer. They cashed out with hundreds of millions while shareholders and employees were left holding the bag. Their summit-seeking behavior let them seek greatness and riches while screwing the rest of us.
Isn't that the essence of human behavior - acting to maximize one's return under a given set of rules? As long as people are rewarded for this qtr they will do whatever they have to to maximize that reward - especially since future payoffs are uncertain. The "option cost" of acting in the long term - fore going current income - is too high in face of that uncertainty - and so they don't "pay " it - the make as much as possible now.
When the risk can be shifted elsewhere - such as stock and bond holders - the incentive is even greater - they get the money today and in the future if they meet the numbers; can bail if things go bad without losing all the money they already had. While I agree that sucks, it's still fundamental economics.
I can honestly do without tv. I get most of my news & entertainment online. The only way I will "switch over" is if cable companies drop their increased pay for HD channels.
Yea, getting pron for free online beats paying for it in HD.
And I just want to point out that if Congress has to subsidize receivers to force this change along, it's probably not a good idea in the first place
Congress did that (subsidize) not because they wanted to help force the change; but because they want to avoid having a bunch of angry constituents showing up and yelling at them for taking away *their* TV.
Is it a good idea? Probably given that it frees up spectrum.
Will Congress back away from the forced change over? If enough constituents howl they may; but probably only after it occurs will they "allow" broadcasters to use the old spectrum - which will be gone anyway - so they can then say - "We fixed it - but the mean old broadcasters decided not to go back. Here's $50. Please vote for me."
There are many cleaner ways to generate electricity than nuclear. Hydro, geothermal, tidal and wave, wind and solar energy are all cleaner.
Of course, if your a fish blocked by a dam, a bird getting chopped up by a windmill, or near where they manufacturer any of the components for those sources you'd have a different view of cleaner.
I mean, if I am joe-everybody, and got somehow a pda with wireless connection in a stadium or mobile phone+internet, how can they even hope to stop me writing post in a blog (or even a normal html web page) on the exciting match I am just watching ? I can't see anything copyrighted here (describing an event in writing) where they could even stops me, would not it ? Less even detect at which seating I am ?
It applies to credentialed press only - not joe-fan; while you could probably blog to your hearts content I would guess:
1) Most fans watch the game and would not post that much for fear of missing the game; 2) They could, if it violates your agreement when you bought the ticket, eject you. If you are a session ticket holder they could revoke that - and I'd destroy my cellphone on the spot and eat the remains before I gave up my season tickets.
Why the NCAA decided on this is anybody's guess - mine is they are feeling heat from traditional outlets that don't want to compete with online broadcasts - they'd rather you watch their ad filled service. Want to bet CNN's "live" college football play - by play isn't considered a blog even though it essentially is a scrolling list of posts viewable from a browser?
Of course, that doesn't even address the issue that most online only college sports services have a hard time getting credentials to begin with; at least at big time programs.
Oh, and this could definitely blow up in the RIAA's face. Clear Channel, Infinity and the like are notorious for being very, very tough business people. If this proposal goes through, and if they aren't able to negotiate a miniscule enough rate per play, I wouldn't put it past them to start buying up the larger RIAA members, just to get their music catalogs. Would there be anti-trust implications? Sure. Would it be worth a few tens of millions here or there to try. Absolutely.
I doubt that - the cost to buy a catalogue vs the return on it is likely less than they could get for other uses of the money; so buying makes no sense.
Rather, I see them looking at what the estimated cost would be, where they ned to be to make the desired profit, and shift their broadcast mix to keep cost in line. They control, after all, what is played and ultimately the money paid out for rights. How to do that? Here are a few ways:
1) Add in more commercials or traffic / news flashes to cover airtime normally used for music and play less music. 2) Replace lower rated times with all talk or mostly talk / little music formats. 3) Adjust the playlist to get more non-RIAA songs 4) Negotiate lower rates / "reimbursements" to play certain songs
While the RIAA may think it will see a new revenue stream; reality probably will be a shift of how the current totals dollars are split; with stations playing fewer songs and mostly the "old favorites" with less new music getting on the air.
Songwriters will see income drop, labels will have a harder time getting new music out there, and the broadcasters will adjust to maximize their profit. It's not like their are multiple broadcasters competing with the same formats in every market; and even so once one does it the others will see if they can get enough of an increase in ratings to warrant paying more for music or fall in line and simply adjust their format to keep costs down. It's really simple linear programming problem.
Given that keeping costs down hurts the RIAA labels and songwriters; I bet on the later.
So long as Microsoft is unable to move past the desktop monopoly, Microsoft will fail. Every attempt of Microsoft to find a new and profitable business has relied upon leveraging Microsoft's desktop monopoly. Unfortunately for Microsoft, competitors like Google are making the desktop moot, thereby crumbling Microsoft's very foundation.
Interestingly enough, MS profited by making the client - server model obsolete - instead of having to log into the server with your trusty VT100 you had the power to take your apps with you, only logging into to check mail. Now, we're going back to the days of big iron and terminals; all in the name of progress.
I doubt Google will drive MS out of business; especially since they have the opportunity to seamlessly integrate the desktop / PDA/ web into a single tool using existing software where Google need to invent the tools first. Plus, connectivity is not a given - making web based tools a partial solution at best.
Leveraging the desktop is the way for MS to go since that gives them the best competitive position.
Apple Records (a 'music' company) sued Apple Computer (a 'computer' company) over the name thing. Apple Records initially didn't do much about Steve Jobs use of their name back when Apple records was the big dog and Apple Computer was a nobody because no one would ever confuse computers with music. Right. Apple Records has pretty much been eclipsed by Apple Computer now and Jobs won the latest trademark dispute thanks to so many years of using the Apple name.
Apple did not win the latest trademark dispute becasue of size or name recognition; they had a clause in their license agreement taht was interpreted to allow them to move into music related computer products. They later reached an agreement with Apple Records over the ownership of the Apple trademark, which makes sense since Apple Computer is a much bigger dog and can better protect the Apple name. In any case; it was done via agreemnets between teh two companies, not a court awarding Apple rights to the trademark.
And how is that different from Google Docs? TFA even mentions that it is getting a "Crowded office", with all these wannabe "online" office applications. This is nothing but a press release, a slashvertisement for a product that did not even proved its worth yet.
Well, the offline synchronization looks promising - even if you only treat it as a free online backup and remote access tool. If they manage to create a common OS independent office suite that really is transaprent to users (in terms of 100% file compatibiity between versiosn running on different OS) then it will be a useful tool.
Nothing to see here, move along people.
Sort of like Porto being a wannabe Lisbon? I think we could both agree there is room for different varients on a theme; although I draw the line at White Port and California Port.
Depends on the location. Our local police send Fire / Police / Ambulance. Fire is usually first on scene, which is fine because as the officer put it - they are trained as paramedics, and if it's a crime in progress most criminals flee when they hear sirens, let alone several large guys with axes running up the driveway.
Depending on the circumstances they may cancel the other responders.
They did ask us not ot hang up, but said if we are worried about being detected to hang up once the call goes through and they will respond; or if it is a situation such as a fire to dial 911 and simply leave.
Slashdot Mirror
Har! Wrong, matey. That is exactly what most of them are. I don't know too many rich people who bother to download games/movies/music. Why should they? The ones who most object to paying for a 'free' copy of something are the ones who have to work at some shite job that they can't stand doing, where they are counting every minute of every hour until they can escape from their wage slave existence.
Not having the money to buy something you want is no excuse for taking it; it's not like not having the latest game is going to cause you to starve to death. Most of the software pirates I've known are really somewhat pathetic - they simply want to amass a large software collection simply to sya they have a large one and never run or use most of the software they've collected.
Robin Hood is actually an excellent analogy. The people they/we are 'stealing' from are pretty much about as rich as you can get. I mean they ain't exactly Bill Gates, but most do make more in a week than I make in a whole year. And for accomplishing very little of any real value to the world. You can argue about the relative wealth of the recipients, but the wealth of the 'victims' is indisputable. And the story does play like a sort of geek folk tale, a David-Golaith story where we all know who ultimately is going to win.
The arguement that is OK to steal from people you view as rich is exactly what a 411 or other third world scammer would view themselves doing - taking money from soemone who has way too much and giving it to someone with much less (themselves).
many of these rich victims you deride built their wealth by producing a product people want and were willing to pay for; so it has value - even if it is only for entertainment.
I don't believe that 'information' is something that can be stolen. I do believe in copyright actually (and it is like a religion), but I don't believe it is ethical to enforce against anyone who is not actually making a profit from it. thepiratebay doesn't make a dime of profit from the copyrighted files they help distribute. Might as well throw all the postal services in jail. And thepiratebay folks barely even qualify as messengers anyway. If you don't like the precariousness of selling binary data, go do something else. I dunno. Learn how to cook or something. You can't copy a hamburger. Then you won't feel so cheated when nearly perfect (except for the cracked binary) copies of your hard work are given away to anyone with a computer and an internet connection.
First of all, you really don't believe in coipyrights if you feel it is OK for someone to use copyrighted material without the owner's permission.
Second, piratebay may not make money by selling the programs, but they're getting money to host the material only becaus ethey have the material - if there were no pirated goods on piratebay no one would be interested in them - so they are profiting from the material.
I've been a bit off topic here but I'll try to bring it back on track...It really doesn't matter how many parties are involved in a country's government. The majority party gets to write the rules (laws) and more importantly...interpret them. The Swedish government is no different than any other country. If the powers that be get a bug up their ass, they will swat it to the extent that they can whether that is "right" or not.
That depends on the type of government - in a parlimentary democracy a small fringe party can have a lot more power to get laws passed and positions of importance if they are crucial to teh ruling party's majority and hence ability to stay in power. The ruling party must keep them from crossing over to the other side (or abondoning the coalition) to prevent their government from falling; hence they are willing to cede more power than they would if not faced with that threat.
You see that to a lesser extent in the US system - while a party is willing to work with a pilitician who is an independent (such as Lieberman in the Senate) to craft a majority since they don't risk a new election if they lose a vote.
an entertaining prank to be sure, and a surprise that no one's tried it before on this scale. There's no excuse for there not to be black electrical tape over every IR receiver on that set of displays.
If you leave something THAT open to pranking at a public or semi-public event, it's going to happen. That's like leaving LAN jacks open all over the place at the conference and having an unsecured credit card processing machine on the same network. You deserve what you get for that level of carelessness.
If your front door can be kicked in and you leave expensive computer equipment on a desk do you deserve to be robbed? After all, you could hire an armed guard and if you didn't your carelessness means you are asking to be robbed?
The notion that a prank is OK simply because you can do it doesn't mean it is; or that you should not be held responsible for the results.
In this case, Gizmodo should be held fiancially liable for its employee's actions. In addition, as someone who has had press credentials at major shows I don't think their behaviour was appropriate and they deserve to be banned from future events.
Some argue that it's unfair to tar all bloggers with the same brush; I agree, but this made it harder for bloggers to be taken serious. Bloggers that write for major media outlets (think CNN / Time Warner et. al.) will still get in - because the organizers know they are professionals with an audience - less recognized names will be easier to simply ignore rather than try to determine if they are for real or some kid with a cheap web account trying to score some free swag and brag to his friends that he got into CES for free. It's simply more cost effective to say no to everyone you don't recognize than spend hours finding the 10% that deserve a yes; and that 10% will work through their media contacts with exhibitors to get the show to let them in.
Most digital cameras are VERY senstitive to IR light, and to anyone with a digital camera looking at the LCD preview screen, or to anyone with a web cam pointed into the audience, that remote would go off like a strobe. It should have taken them less than 20 seconds to find this joker.
Digital cameras have IR filters built in to block IR light from reaching the sensor (which is sensitive to IR), which is why IR photography requires either a camera mod or a model that is sensitive to IR despite the filter, such as the OZ2020.
While a remote will sometimes show up as a light source, it doesn't "go off like a strobe."
Having a drink = "highly illegal exploits"
You must be american.
The reasonableness of drink laws aside, every culture has norms or laws that others find odd.
For example, the German's outlaw NAZI symbols - understandable given their history but still odd to others who view free speech as important.
Godwin's Law.
Sea air should not be much of a problem - first of all it's the spray that is a problem, not the air itself; second it's in port, where the cabling will not be in the water; ships stay tied to shore power for months in shipyards without problems.
Their is a lot of off the shelf stuff on ships - sailors bring computers, cell phones, mp3 players to sea with them and they survive just fine; not ot mention cruise ships with TVs etc. tha are exposed 24x7 to the same environment without problems.
It's really no different than building a facility near the shore - you seal and climate control critical spaces as needed.
Also, most ships don't rock at the pier. They move with the tide but that is generally an up down motion which is barely noticable.
Yeah, I just read a press release from the FAA blasting driver training courses. Apparently, flight students who just got their drivers licenses were not able to navigate in the air, execute banks, take-off, or land properly.
Your analogy is valid, but not for the reason you intended. The issue is what is the best way to train a person to develop a desired skill set. To use your example, if flight schools required drivers licenses as a prereq to strating flight training then they are doing exaactly what the profs are complaining about - starting people at the wrong point. Despite having completed the prescribed course (getting a d/l) the student is no more ready to learn to fly than tehy were before they learned to drive.
Students have to start somewhere. It's easier to start with simple stuff than to try to cram their heads full of everything all at once.
Yers, and you do that by providing fundemental knowledge that can be applied to various situations by developing an understanding of what is happening and why things act in certain ways in given conditions. that's why engineers learn physics, statics, dynamics and simple math like calculus before they learn thermo, aero/hydro dynamics / structures / etc. - they have developed a set of rules thay can broadly apply and then learn more specific and detailed applications.
Early training is about developing a structured apporach to think and problem solving; so you can tackle more complex problems in a systematic and rigourous manner.
That's why student pilots first learn basic areo, flight physiology, and navigation techniques - to prepare them for when the step into a real airplane.
It's also why I often ask questions such as "How many dogs are there in NYC?"; "If you were in ancient Greece and just invented teh telescope, how would you determine the price?"; or "What is the weight of this building?" - I want to see if the person can think and how they approach problem solving; and really don't care what answer they get.
That's something that's always bothered me. The old, "Well, you know that barfight you started? Well, since you kicked that guy in the nuts, you are being charged with felony sexual assault, but if you just agree to plead guilty to misdemeanor battery, we'll recommend you only get 10 days in jail." How is someone supposed to get a fair trial this way?
I can understand that - it is a way to get convictions without clogging up the courts with cases; at least from a prosecutor's viewpoint. You could also argue that the person was guilty of misdemeanor battery and so justice was served; and the accussed could still roll the dice and go to trial.
Of course not. You'd just plead guilty to what you should have been on trial for to begin with--minus the chance to actually mount a defense.
Your defense comes during the bargaining - estentially how much risk are you willing to take. If the case is weak you might refuse and take your chances with a jury; if not 10 days may be better than the possibility of a much stiffer sentence.
In many ways our justice system is an economic system - if the cost of not fighting is cheaper than the the expected value of going to court many people will chose not to fight; leaving the docket open for cases that should go to trial. That's why traffic tickets are sometimes "forgiven" if you pay and go to traffic school - you get the desired outcome - no points on the license and the state gets its - cash and one less case to get through in traffic court. While that is not an "ideal" justice system where everyone gets their day in court it's one that works in the real world of rocket dockets and large case backlogs.
Texas already requires that computer forensics investigators be licensed PIs. The requirement isn't just window dressing, either. Getting a PI license is tough there. That's why there are only about a dozen licensed computer forensics investigators in entire state. Um, and Media Sentry sure as hell ain't one of them...
One key outcome from requiring a license is it limits competition by putting up a barrier to entry - which helps those with licenses keep their rates higher. As someone who has held a license (not PI) it is a good deal; despite the hassle of taking an annual exam it enabled me to get a bonus every year.
Of course, licenses don't always make sense - look at barbers for instance. I can walk into any barber shop and watch them cut hair and see teh results. If they are incompent I can walk out; and even if I don't discover that until to late a week later and my hair is back; yet we license barbers.
A conviction where the majority of the sentence came from the spamming law rather than all the other ones (fraud, laundering, etc). The spamming sentence seems to be just the icing on the cake, powerless to have any real effect on its own. It may be adding insult to injury to the criminal, but it's not what nails them in the first place.
YET SPAM KEEPS GROWING BIGGER EVERY DAY, AND NOTHING GETS DONE. As I previously described, the current anti-spam laws are a joke when it comes to enforcement, and are only applied to people who get convicted on so many other counts they won't even feel this final punch.
My question is... WHY?
You're right - spam enforcement is just icing on the cake. Prosecutoers want victories, and piling on is one way to help cut a deal. It's the big ticket items that are the hammer - wire fraud, money laundring, etc. carry serious time so it makes sense to work on that angle and not be very concerned about the spamming.
Look at it this way, if you can put someone away for 15 years who cares what it is that results in that sentence. You've sent someone away, even if it wasn't for the moset heneous crime, efectively punishing them. The law provides the tools to do just that; you just have to use tehm properly to get the desired results. The key thing to worry about in many cases is teh tax angle - a tax evasion conviction is a very effective way to put someone away for an extended period when you can't convict on soemthing else.
Donald Norman Design of Everyday Things (ISBN-13: 978-0385267748) He will get you thinking about the implications of your interface design; this classic may be hard to find but he has other books out as well. While his examples focus on mechanical objects the thought process and criticisms provide insights into how to think about the end user in your design and avoid become someone "Who won an award" for their design. Once you read teh book you'll get what I mean. http://www.jnd.org/
Bruce Tognazzini Tog on Interface (ISBN-13: 978-0201608427) A bit dated but the concepts and idaeas are what matters. He has a website as well as other books. http://www.asktog.com/
Finally, there are classics by Edwin Tufte you may want to checkout as well. He focuses on displaying information (mostly quantitative) in a manner to support understanding; and hates PowerPoint type presentations with a passion. Tufte has a website as well. http://www.edwardtufte.com/ His one day course ie excellant.
Many airport security operations overseas have used similar techniques for quite some time; and this provides a way to be more rigorous in how to select people to screen furtehr. As TFA pointed out, law enforcement (and doctors / shrinks / etc.) have used this type of observation for years - because certain behavior patterns often indicate something is wrong or needs further exploration. I'd rather have them do this than get randomly selected very time I buy a one-way ticket at the last minute; becasue it attempts to provide consistant logical methodology to the process. I doubt it is perfect but no xcreening system is. One problem with guaging success is you don'y know who decided not to try to commit a crime becasue they realized they *may* be caught and decided not to risk it.
/. will make, my experience is many people in law enforcemenmt truly care about such things as civil liberties and Constitutional rights; their goal is to protect people without infringing on their righst and keep the bad actors off the stage.
One key is properly training people so they can be effective and it doesn't become yet another "good idea" that morphs into a useless and potentially illegal profiling methodology.
Finally, despite the Orwellean tie-in some on
The main problem that I see: she has benefited from another purse while developing this technology, then kept the patents for her self to benefit on. It may be acceptable in a human-eat-human world, but it is far from charitable. Maybe it would have been better for her to move on and develop better technology, then patent and profit from that. For example, that XO display has a number of benefits over the competition but still has deficiencies. With her knowledge of the original, perhaps she could have gone on to develop one with a higher contrast reflective mode. (As an example.) That way at least she is doing something outside of the context of the OLPC project to add value, without straight off stealing the goods.
How? We have no idea what the agreement between her and OLPC was; and as another poster pointed out the patent is assigned to OPLC - not her. I would guess tehre has been some sort of licensing agreement reached between her and OLPC that both find reasonable and beneficial to avoid nasty lawsuits.
She, understandably, wants to make some money off of her ideas; while still benefiting OPLC (selling components at cost per TFA). Just becasue she was at a non-profit doesn't mean she shouldn't do what many have done before - leave to start their own company. often, non-profits can't or won't commercialize products; and employees leave to fill what they see as a market opportunity; having worked at a non-profit I've seen that happen first hand - in this case; after trying to convince the organization that they could create a for-profit sub and use the profits to fund other activities.
And on the flopside I'm bringing some nice noise canceling headphones and an extra laptop battery. Then I can watch movies for the whole trip and not worry about the insanity that is outside of 1 foot in front of my face.
I hate to break it to you, but noise canceling headphones don't "cancel" most noise - they do a good job of limiting consistent background noise - such as aircraft engine whine, and in ear (and cans to a lesser extent) block outside sound by plugging or blocking the ear canal (as would a good set of ear plugs) - but despite Sony's ad you'll still hear the screaming baby behind you.
Personally, I hope they do block VOIP - there are already two many idiots who feel the need to "dial up" as soon as the wheels screech; and talk incessantly while on the ground; and I have no reason to believe their behavior would change in the air and reasonably priced access would encourage such use.
The only reason automobile mechanics must give you a replaced part if you ask for it is so that you can get a second opinion afterwards, thus hoping to reduce fraud that tends to run rampant at some questionable automotive places where either through technician ignorance, negligence, or through purposeful managerial policy, a part is replace that does not need to be replaced.
Yes, and that's why most parts have a core charge - if you decide to keep it, you don't get that money back. In the auto business, many parts are recycled - you can buy rebuilt brakes, starters, engines, etc. There, the profit from the rebuilt product, which isn't obsoleted by a newer model since a 06 Chevy needs an 06 starter, not the newer higher RPM version from an 08 (I made that up), is enough that reusing the old part makes sense; especially since you can rebuild based on anticipated demand. You know how many cars of a certain type are on the road; when it drops low enough you stop making very many replacement; and those you have become special order (which could be build to order or from a tiny stock level).
Apple has a legitimate reason for keeping the drive which is described on the form given to the customer - it believes the drive can be fixed and sold. As a paying customer, you are a part of that economic system. If you do not wish to participate, that is your prerogative, and with standardization of components, you are more than welcome to find an alternative (which ironically the consumer considered and should have pursued).
I agree. Computer parts, however, have a short lifespan. Even if your MacBook had a 40g drive and it failed after 2 years, you may find, your only replacement choice is an 80g. While newer parts may be fixed, I'm guessing most are scrapped and shipped to China to be recycled. A smart intelligence agency would be looking for ways to ID potentially interesting drives, but the sheer volume would make it tough.
As a professional operational risk manager, I see the same behavior in countless execs. It's called leptokurtic risk (or kurtosis) - the condition of seeking artificial enhancement of returns at the center of a distribution while also taking on excessive outlier risk in the tails (called "fat tails"). These executives take on excessive risk for all of us as they seek their own personally-rewarding summits. The company I work for has struggled through significant catastrophic risk due to the neglect of systems maintenance by previous executives. Instead of spending money refreshing hardware, maintaining trained staffing and continuing license agreements with vendors, they threw it all overboard so they could puff up quarterly numbers and reward themselves for their "achievements." They left before the disasters began to occur, millions richer. They cashed out with hundreds of millions while shareholders and employees were left holding the bag. Their summit-seeking behavior let them seek greatness and riches while screwing the rest of us.
Isn't that the essence of human behavior - acting to maximize one's return under a given set of rules? As long as people are rewarded for this qtr they will do whatever they have to to maximize that reward - especially since future payoffs are uncertain. The "option cost" of acting in the long term - fore going current income - is too high in face of that uncertainty - and so they don't "pay " it - the make as much as possible now.
When the risk can be shifted elsewhere - such as stock and bond holders - the incentive is even greater - they get the money today and in the future if they meet the numbers; can bail if things go bad without losing all the money they already had. While I agree that sucks, it's still fundamental economics.
I can honestly do without tv. I get most of my news & entertainment online. The only way I will "switch over" is if cable companies drop their increased pay for HD channels.
Yea, getting pron for free online beats paying for it in HD.
And I just want to point out that if Congress has to subsidize receivers to force this change along, it's probably not a good idea in the first place
Congress did that (subsidize) not because they wanted to help force the change; but because they want to avoid having a bunch of angry constituents showing up and yelling at them for taking away *their* TV.
Is it a good idea? Probably given that it frees up spectrum.
Will Congress back away from the forced change over? If enough constituents howl they may; but probably only after it occurs will they "allow" broadcasters to use the old spectrum - which will be gone anyway - so they can then say - "We fixed it - but the mean old broadcasters decided not to go back. Here's $50. Please vote for me."
There are many cleaner ways to generate electricity than nuclear. Hydro, geothermal, tidal and wave, wind and solar energy are all cleaner.
Of course, if your a fish blocked by a dam, a bird getting chopped up by a windmill, or near where they manufacturer any of the components for those sources you'd have a different view of cleaner.
I mean, if I am joe-everybody, and got somehow a pda with wireless connection in a stadium or mobile phone+internet, how can they even hope to stop me writing post in a blog (or even a normal html web page) on the exciting match I am just watching ? I can't see anything copyrighted here (describing an event in writing) where they could even stops me, would not it ? Less even detect at which seating I am ?
It applies to credentialed press only - not joe-fan; while you could probably blog to your hearts content I would guess:
1) Most fans watch the game and would not post that much for fear of missing the game;
2) They could, if it violates your agreement when you bought the ticket, eject you. If you are a session ticket holder they could revoke that - and I'd destroy my cellphone on the spot and eat the remains before I gave up my season tickets.
Why the NCAA decided on this is anybody's guess - mine is they are feeling heat from traditional outlets that don't want to compete with online broadcasts - they'd rather you watch their ad filled service. Want to bet CNN's "live" college football play - by play isn't considered a blog even though it essentially is a scrolling list of posts viewable from a browser?
Of course, that doesn't even address the issue that most online only college sports services have a hard time getting credentials to begin with; at least at big time programs.
Oh, and this could definitely blow up in the RIAA's face. Clear Channel, Infinity and the like are notorious for being very, very tough business people. If this proposal goes through, and if they aren't able to negotiate a miniscule enough rate per play, I wouldn't put it past them to start buying up the larger RIAA members, just to get their music catalogs. Would there be anti-trust implications? Sure. Would it be worth a few tens of millions here or there to try. Absolutely.
I doubt that - the cost to buy a catalogue vs the return on it is likely less than they could get for other uses of the money; so buying makes no sense.
Rather, I see them looking at what the estimated cost would be, where they ned to be to make the desired profit, and shift their broadcast mix to keep cost in line. They control, after all, what is played and ultimately the money paid out for rights. How to do that? Here are a few ways:
1) Add in more commercials or traffic / news flashes to cover airtime normally used for music and play less music.
2) Replace lower rated times with all talk or mostly talk / little music formats.
3) Adjust the playlist to get more non-RIAA songs
4) Negotiate lower rates / "reimbursements" to play certain songs
While the RIAA may think it will see a new revenue stream; reality probably will be a shift of how the current totals dollars are split; with stations playing fewer songs and mostly the "old favorites" with less new music getting on the air.
Songwriters will see income drop, labels will have a harder time getting new music out there, and the broadcasters will adjust to maximize their profit. It's not like their are multiple broadcasters competing with the same formats in every market; and even so once one does it the others will see if they can get enough of an increase in ratings to warrant paying more for music or fall in line and simply adjust their format to keep costs down. It's really simple linear programming problem.
Given that keeping costs down hurts the RIAA labels and songwriters; I bet on the later.
So long as Microsoft is unable to move past the desktop monopoly, Microsoft will fail. Every attempt of Microsoft to find a new and profitable business has relied upon leveraging Microsoft's desktop monopoly. Unfortunately for Microsoft, competitors like Google are making the desktop moot, thereby crumbling Microsoft's very foundation.
Interestingly enough, MS profited by making the client - server model obsolete - instead of having to log into the server with your trusty VT100 you had the power to take your apps with you, only logging into to check mail. Now, we're going back to the days of big iron and terminals; all in the name of progress.
I doubt Google will drive MS out of business; especially since they have the opportunity to seamlessly integrate the desktop / PDA/ web into a single tool using existing software where Google need to invent the tools first. Plus, connectivity is not a given - making web based tools a partial solution at best.
Leveraging the desktop is the way for MS to go since that gives them the best competitive position.
Because court is about winning and losing; not objective reviews of fact.
Apple Records (a 'music' company) sued Apple Computer (a 'computer' company) over the name thing. Apple Records initially didn't do much about Steve Jobs use of their name back when Apple records was the big dog and Apple Computer was a nobody because no one would ever confuse computers with music. Right. Apple Records has pretty much been eclipsed by Apple Computer now and Jobs won the latest trademark dispute thanks to so many years of using the Apple name.
Apple did not win the latest trademark dispute becasue of size or name recognition; they had a clause in their license agreement taht was interpreted to allow them to move into music related computer products. They later reached an agreement with Apple Records over the ownership of the Apple trademark, which makes sense since Apple Computer is a much bigger dog and can better protect the Apple name. In any case; it was done via agreemnets between teh two companies, not a court awarding Apple rights to the trademark.
And how is that different from Google Docs? TFA even mentions that it is getting a "Crowded office", with all these wannabe "online" office applications. This is nothing but a press release, a slashvertisement for a product that did not even proved its worth yet.
Well, the offline synchronization looks promising - even if you only treat it as a free online backup and remote access tool. If they manage to create a common OS independent office suite that really is transaprent to users (in terms of 100% file compatibiity between versiosn running on different OS) then it will be a useful tool.
Nothing to see here, move along people.
Sort of like Porto being a wannabe Lisbon? I think we could both agree there is room for different varients on a theme; although I draw the line at White Port and California Port.
Depends on the location. Our local police send Fire / Police / Ambulance. Fire is usually first on scene, which is fine because as the officer put it - they are trained as paramedics, and if it's a crime in progress most criminals flee when they hear sirens, let alone several large guys with axes running up the driveway.
Depending on the circumstances they may cancel the other responders.
They did ask us not ot hang up, but said if we are worried about being detected to hang up once the call goes through and they will respond; or if it is a situation such as a fire to dial 911 and simply leave.