While no one would suggest that they don't own the hardware, without doubt copyright on the email material belongs to the woman. What gave the company the right to make copies of her material?
Except that the phrase "living constitution" dates at least back to the early 1930s, and (I believe) to a published book of the same name. The idea of building a dynamic rather than static core body of laws, I thought, goes all the way back...
Methinks the concept hard to swallow is that Christian Fundamentalists are "No worse than state-sponsored Madrassas in Pakistan and elsewhere." Implied is the idea that they are no better. Telling a Southern Babtist that they are of the same ilk as other Fundies is fighting words.
More specificly its cynical to say that its OK to do bad things because bad things have always been done. Its like saying its OK to be bad, since there are bad people. Most any argument that boils down to "its alright to do bad" is flamebait.
Well regulated doesn't mean, "well-armed and provided for", but rather it means that it is well controlled. A lynch mob is NOT a well regulated militia. A gun club is NOT a well regulated militia. The US Coast Guard is a well regulated milita.
Some types of things require an opinion. The speed of light, though, isn't really so much a matter of opinion. My concern is when things that can be measured are reduced from the status of Fact to that of opinion. If your daughter discovers her own Truth, good for her. Unless she discovers a Lie, thinking its the Truth. The speed of light is independent of world views.
Well, for instance, what is reasonable and what isn't, in terms of searches and seizures? Do the same reasons apply during wartime as during peacetime? Could a document written over 200 years ago deal with the reasonableness of using sonar and/or radar?
"The Constitution is not "alive" in the sense most people use it, where the words have no meaning and the Congress ignores what it says, such that the Constitution might as well not even exist."
I've never met anyone who seemed to suggest that the Constitution being a "living document" meant that the words have no meaning. I think you are setting up a straw man argument. Aware that its not possible to codify laws in one context that would work in all possible contexts, the Constitution is fluid rather than fixed. The Constitution was designed to evolve.
Science isn't the sort of democracy where opinions are granted equal weight. Rather, science is the sort of democracy where anyone can publish results, and if others validate the results, then said results speak for themselves. It is exactly this reliance on verifiable data that sets science apart from pretty much everything else. Where else does it matter so little who you are, and so much on the results of what you've done (that can be verified independently). This is the source of the power behind science: it matters not at all what various people want to believe, or even do believe; what matters is what can be measured.
"Doesn't it seem just a little bit unfair to you to prosecute people whom were relying on legal opinions issued by our own Justice Department advising them that what they were about to do was in fact legal?"
Methinks information entropy is akin to Claude Shannon's Information Theory.
But, at a multidisciplinary level, connections can be made between thermodynamic and informational entropy, although it took many years in the development of the theories of statistical mechanics and information theory to make the relationship fully apparent. In fact, in the view of Jaynes (1957), thermodynamics should be seen as an application of Shannon's information theory: the thermodynamic entropy is interpreted as being an estimate of the amount of further Shannon information needed to define the detailed microscopic state of the system, that remains uncommunicated by a description solely in terms of the macroscopic variables of classical thermodynamics.
Shannon's efforts to find a way to quantify the information contained in, for example, an e-mail message, led him unexpectedly to a formula with the same form as Boltzmann's. Bekenstein summarizes that "Thermodynamic entropy and Shannon entropy are conceptually equivalent: the number of arrangements that are counted by Boltzmann entropy reflects the amount of Shannon information one would need to implement any particular arrangement..." of matter and energy. The only salient difference between the thermodynamic entropy of physics and the Shannon's entropy of information is in the units of measure; the former is expressed in units of energy divided by temperature, the latter in essentially dimensionless "bits" of information, and so the difference is merely a matter of convention.
The holographic principle states that the entropy of ordinary mass (not just black holes) is also proportional to surface area and not volume; that volume itself is illusory and the universe is really a hologram which is isomorphic to the information "inscribed" on the surface of its boundary
As what was once considered culture becomes more and more to be considered property, the designers, owners and creators of said culture should be held responsible. If you are willing and able to spend the money to modify behavior on a national level for profit, you should be held accountable for the costs associated with the negative consequences of the behavior you've purchased.
Its not the effect that should be illegal, but rather the impact of distributing the result. Idolizing diseases for fun and profit isn't political speech, rather its predatory behavior. Thus, photographic techniques, lighting techniques, etc..., can contribute to a marketing campaign that crosses a line and should be actionable. Any technique could be problematic, but its not the technique that is the issue. Its the use the technique is put to, and the consequences that thereby accrue.
"The court held that Fox News had no obligation to report truthfully, and the First Amendment protects their right to lie. Therefore, the court held that firing a reporter for refusing to lie is not actionable under the whistleblower statute. The story can be seen in the feature length documentary film The Corporation." The Corporation is where I first heard of this. Journalistic Ethics is becoming a contradiction in terms. Activities should be categorized as "entertainment", or "journalism", or "advertising", and obviously different legal standards need to be applied to each. An informed public being necessary to the workings of a democracy, this is beyond stupid and well into a dangerous zone. As the law currently stands, behavior approaching that of treason is not actionable. In a democracy we've really only ourselves to blame for letting this happen to us, too.
But you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Eminent harm. What about the eating disorders, and self-estem/body-image consequences, that occur when such marketing is targeted directly at the audience most vulnerable to said harm? If marketers want to present such fantastic images as an idealization rather than a fantasy, shouldn't they have to pay for the harm? Perhaps, in cases where its judged they've crossed the line, they should be taxed some multiplier times the total cost of the ad campaign, to be used specifically to alleviate the damage they are causing? There is a poetic justice to linking responsibility to consequences. It might even become a meme.
I think stating that it ran just fine is controversial, if not plain wrong. Its not like there weren't complaints regarding full load slow downs. You want to make it sound like a mysterious one time failure occurred, rather than the system limping poorly to total utter collapse. In terms of "replacing the entire system would approach the cost of integrating the new system", how about less than half the cost, with about $15M/year in estimated savings? And that cost isn't just for one product. They bought the development team with the software. Really, that upfront cost needs to be spread over future works including but not limited to this one failed application replacement. Sounds like a great trade to me.
Perhaps the point is that no matter how good your are, or where you are, proprietary software locks you out of being able to do anything other than accept whats offered. Its like buying "off the rack", whereas the solution being moved towards is more akin to buying a company of tailors.
And yet, thats actually the point. Rather than myopic, its insightful. The value of open vs closed is just exactly that which you dismiss. Its about the ability to be able to modify it, whether you are hiring it done or buying a dev group to bring it inhouse. The real win here was not for a particular kernel, nor was the lose for a particular language or IDE. The win was for a methodology. And this was a big win for Free Software, and a big lose for the upstart proprietary model. So the people saying "Rah rah rah!", actually get it. Just for fun, I'd suggest that the "hilarious" aspect to this situation is the "apeshit" way a failing model is supported. Whats more myopic than stating, "but they state clearly that they didn't switch from buggies to cars in order to use *new* technology, but rather that it was merely cheaper ($30M vs $65M, with additional $14.7M saved annually), faster (0.4 milliseconds vs. 2.7 milliseconds), more dependable, and everyone else in their industry was following suit. But this doesn't mean buggies aren't still the way to go!". Note: even if they were using Mono, this would still be a big, big win. Thats the real point.
Methinks the windows registry is a database, not a script. One major problem is that it becomes corrupted. Another problem is the inability to do *anything* to fix truly corrupted registries. Its a potential black whole that can suck in and destroy your installation. A configuration file simply can't do that. Which many think is sane.
Um...actually they bought a development company for $30million, rather than go with a $65.NET "off the shelf" solution. This isn't the same thing as ditching MS Office for OpenOffice. This is ditching MS Office to buy Sun for cheaper than MS Office...
Slashdot Mirror
While no one would suggest that they don't own the hardware, without doubt copyright on the email material belongs to the woman. What gave the company the right to make copies of her material?
And thus all the arguments regarding "they own the hardware, they can do whatever they want" fail.
If company policy states that personal use is OK (as was the case according to TFA) then she wasn't violating company policy.
Agreed. Speed is the main reason I switched to Chrome. Speed is the main reason why everyone I know who has switched to Chrome decided to switch.
Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works...
the pic
the shirt
Except that the phrase "living constitution" dates at least back to the early 1930s, and (I believe) to a published book of the same name. The idea of building a dynamic rather than static core body of laws, I thought, goes all the way back...
Methinks the concept hard to swallow is that Christian Fundamentalists are "No worse than state-sponsored Madrassas in Pakistan and elsewhere." Implied is the idea that they are no better. Telling a Southern Babtist that they are of the same ilk as other Fundies is fighting words.
More specificly its cynical to say that its OK to do bad things because bad things have always been done. Its like saying its OK to be bad, since there are bad people. Most any argument that boils down to "its alright to do bad" is flamebait.
Well regulated doesn't mean, "well-armed and provided for", but rather it means that it is well controlled. A lynch mob is NOT a well regulated militia. A gun club is NOT a well regulated militia. The US Coast Guard is a well regulated milita.
Some types of things require an opinion. The speed of light, though, isn't really so much a matter of opinion. My concern is when things that can be measured are reduced from the status of Fact to that of opinion. If your daughter discovers her own Truth, good for her. Unless she discovers a Lie, thinking its the Truth. The speed of light is independent of world views.
Circular reasoning works because...
Well, for instance, what is reasonable and what isn't, in terms of searches and seizures? Do the same reasons apply during wartime as during peacetime? Could a document written over 200 years ago deal with the reasonableness of using sonar and/or radar?
"The Constitution is not "alive" in the sense most people use it, where the words have no meaning and the Congress ignores what it says, such that the Constitution might as well not even exist."
I've never met anyone who seemed to suggest that the Constitution being a "living document" meant that the words have no meaning. I think you are setting up a straw man argument. Aware that its not possible to codify laws in one context that would work in all possible contexts, the Constitution is fluid rather than fixed. The Constitution was designed to evolve.
Science isn't the sort of democracy where opinions are granted equal weight. Rather, science is the sort of democracy where anyone can publish results, and if others validate the results, then said results speak for themselves. It is exactly this reliance on verifiable data that sets science apart from pretty much everything else. Where else does it matter so little who you are, and so much on the results of what you've done (that can be verified independently). This is the source of the power behind science: it matters not at all what various people want to believe, or even do believe; what matters is what can be measured.
"Doesn't it seem just a little bit unfair to you to prosecute people whom were relying on legal opinions issued by our own Justice Department advising them that what they were about to do was in fact legal?"
No.
Energy, matter, and information equivalence
As what was once considered culture becomes more and more to be considered property, the designers, owners and creators of said culture should be held responsible. If you are willing and able to spend the money to modify behavior on a national level for profit, you should be held accountable for the costs associated with the negative consequences of the behavior you've purchased.
Its not the effect that should be illegal, but rather the impact of distributing the result. Idolizing diseases for fun and profit isn't political speech, rather its predatory behavior. Thus, photographic techniques, lighting techniques, etc..., can contribute to a marketing campaign that crosses a line and should be actionable. Any technique could be problematic, but its not the technique that is the issue. Its the use the technique is put to, and the consequences that thereby accrue.
"The court held that Fox News had no obligation to report truthfully, and the First Amendment protects their right to lie. Therefore, the court held that firing a reporter for refusing to lie is not actionable under the whistleblower statute. The story can be seen in the feature length documentary film The Corporation." The Corporation is where I first heard of this. Journalistic Ethics is becoming a contradiction in terms. Activities should be categorized as "entertainment", or "journalism", or "advertising", and obviously different legal standards need to be applied to each. An informed public being necessary to the workings of a democracy, this is beyond stupid and well into a dangerous zone. As the law currently stands, behavior approaching that of treason is not actionable. In a democracy we've really only ourselves to blame for letting this happen to us, too.
But you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Eminent harm. What about the eating disorders, and self-estem/body-image consequences, that occur when such marketing is targeted directly at the audience most vulnerable to said harm? If marketers want to present such fantastic images as an idealization rather than a fantasy, shouldn't they have to pay for the harm? Perhaps, in cases where its judged they've crossed the line, they should be taxed some multiplier times the total cost of the ad campaign, to be used specifically to alleviate the damage they are causing? There is a poetic justice to linking responsibility to consequences. It might even become a meme.
I think stating that it ran just fine is controversial, if not plain wrong. Its not like there weren't complaints regarding full load slow downs. You want to make it sound like a mysterious one time failure occurred, rather than the system limping poorly to total utter collapse. In terms of "replacing the entire system would approach the cost of integrating the new system", how about less than half the cost, with about $15M/year in estimated savings? And that cost isn't just for one product. They bought the development team with the software. Really, that upfront cost needs to be spread over future works including but not limited to this one failed application replacement. Sounds like a great trade to me.
Perhaps the point is that no matter how good your are, or where you are, proprietary software locks you out of being able to do anything other than accept whats offered. Its like buying "off the rack", whereas the solution being moved towards is more akin to buying a company of tailors.
And yet, thats actually the point. Rather than myopic, its insightful. The value of open vs closed is just exactly that which you dismiss. Its about the ability to be able to modify it, whether you are hiring it done or buying a dev group to bring it inhouse. The real win here was not for a particular kernel, nor was the lose for a particular language or IDE. The win was for a methodology. And this was a big win for Free Software, and a big lose for the upstart proprietary model. So the people saying "Rah rah rah!", actually get it. Just for fun, I'd suggest that the "hilarious" aspect to this situation is the "apeshit" way a failing model is supported. Whats more myopic than stating, "but they state clearly that they didn't switch from buggies to cars in order to use *new* technology, but rather that it was merely cheaper ($30M vs $65M, with additional $14.7M saved annually), faster (0.4 milliseconds vs. 2.7 milliseconds), more dependable, and everyone else in their industry was following suit. But this doesn't mean buggies aren't still the way to go!". Note: even if they were using Mono, this would still be a big, big win. Thats the real point.
Marketing never says, "when it doesn't work, you won't be able to use it". The correct phrase is "100% reliability (when running)."
Methinks the windows registry is a database, not a script. One major problem is that it becomes corrupted. Another problem is the inability to do *anything* to fix truly corrupted registries. Its a potential black whole that can suck in and destroy your installation. A configuration file simply can't do that. Which many think is sane.
Um...actually they bought a development company for $30million, rather than go with a $65 .NET "off the shelf" solution. This isn't the same thing as ditching MS Office for OpenOffice. This is ditching MS Office to buy Sun for cheaper than MS Office...