The ad is presumable there to sell you something. Somewhere back in this chain of events is a vendor trying to sell you something. What the vendor wants is for people to buy something from them. Ads are one way to encounrage people to do that. It won't work for all people. If someone is turned off by adds and blocks them, chances are that they aren't a potential customer anyway, at least not for this particular promotional method. What do you think? you slip an add past their add blocker and they are just going to say "Hey, that's a cool product. I'll get one." No, more like "WTF is wrong with my add blocker. That shouldn't be there". You're not losing customers to add blockers, you're loosing them to ad annoyance.
Then comes the middlemen. The middlemans job is to take the ad from the vendor and get people to see it. Unlike the vendor, they get paid by views, not by purchases. So they don't care if you're is not interested in the product, they want the add on your screen anyway. The vendor doesn't necessarily want to push the add to someone who is not interested. But the middleman does. He's got a different pay pattern.
So somehow convence the vendors to straighten out the middlemen and you've got a more reasonable advertising method.
But he also has no right for his own actions to be in that mall, see?
Actually, no I don't see.
Does he have the right to be at the mall? You'd think so. Otherwise they'd have a hard time getting customers in there.
Does he have a right to take pictures while in the mall? I see people taking pictures in the mall all the time, usually of themselves and their friends.
Does he have the right to take pictures of things in the mall other than himself? People do that all the time too.
Does he have the right to take pictures of specific things, like other cameras? Well that seems to be the question. Exactly where is the line where it goes from being a right to no longer a right?
I suppose you could claim that noone has the "right" to do anything in the mall, and that they can only do things be the grace of whatever authority allows them to do it on a whim. Modern law doesn't like that definition of rights, and neither do I. It's inconsistant and subject to the vagueries of peoples moods, opinions and temperment. Modern law is supposed to be above that.
The biggest problem seems to be sensitivity to people who are paying attention to the wrong thing. People look at what the merchants want them to, everything is OK. People look at other things the merchants don't want them to, they get nervous. That's far from not being a right.
You may not always know what you don't like until you see it, but you can't just make up rights and rules on the fly based on instant preference.
The merchants don't like something, first they make the rule official, then they run it past legal (You can't make rules that violate civil rights or are inconsistant, for instance). Then they make it public. Then you have something to point to. Those merchants didn't do that, and they didn't have anything to point to. The only precident they had says people can take pictures in public places. You want to change that, you go through procedures, you don't make it up on the fly. So it was all personal preference, nothing more.
There was nothing at all that says he didn't have the right to do what he did. Sure it was wierd, and the merchants didn't like it. But that doesn't mean he didn't have the right to do it.
"What I argue is that if I'm going to be held accountable for my actions that I should be allowed to record... my actions," Mann said. "Especially if somebody else is keeping a record of my actions."
Yeah, what he was doing didn't have much to do with recording himself. Yeah, it was a pretty pointless excercise. Yeah, it was hypocritical even.
But his point above is valid. He should be able to make a record of his own actions.
Historical point: Last summer there were lots of protestors running around in New York during the Republican Convention. The NY Police effeciently rounded them up and took them away, often on charges of disruption, resisting arrest and whatever else they could think of. But the protestors were smart. They had their own people out there recording the whole thing on Tape. When the cases came to court, they played it back. The protestors were not disrupting anything. They obeyed the police. they didn't resist. 90% of the cases were dropped or thrown out. Did the police bring out their own tapes of what happened? No. The citizens made recordings of themselves (and their friends) and it was very helpfull, specifically against those that were supposed to be serveiling them "fairly".
This goes to Manns point. Those serveiling you may not necessarily use that in your best interest when it does not suite them to do so. It is up to you to do that. And who knows, if you record them, you might see them doing something they shouldn't, like false arrest.
Actually, at least one third party (the makers of TaxAct), offers e-file for free to everyone.
Well, I don't know much about TaxAct, but if they are offering software to the public for free, then how do they make their own living? Could there be a motivation inside there to capture and use peoples information in a similar way to what this article is complaining about? A direct federal tax entry system would bypass that issue. It's not just aboutthe fees. That's just adding insult to injury.
If the IRS would actually come out with a method of E-Filing that does not require third party involvement, they would go a long way towards elimenating this type of problem. Look at the E-Filing instructions and it's all about how to find the right third party to do it for you (for a Fee!). Bleh.
At least some states have figured out how to file taxes electronicly and directly (and free!) without involving someone with a profit motive in the mix.
And you were mostly right up until you said "You are right up until the point you say he created it." Because I didn't say that. You're trying to twist and reword my sentences too?
I said it comes close, and I left the definition of "create" up to you.
Hey, you like to get pedantic on words, right? Here's one for you. English sentences go like {subject} {verb} {object}, as in
I {subject}
Took {verb}
the Initiative {object}
The rest is filler. And initiative means he tried to do something, started doing something. It doesn't mean he succeeded, and it doesn't mean he what he attempted to do was not already done before. So on the purely rhetorical basis of his sentences, he is still correct. Alas, English is so flexable once you get used to it. You can make it do almost anything.
I heard that one of the factors on DST (I don't know which side or where) was that they wanted school kids to go to school in the morning with full daylight. It was considered safer. And with some schools starting as early as 7:15 AM, you need to make sure that daylight is available as early as 6:45 for them.
Now, if those schools would get real and start school after 8:00 like reasonable people, we could get around this little problem and be much more flexable with the time.
Al Gore didn't create a damned thing, all he did was spend money to expand it.
Wrong here too. Al Gore did a lot more than throw money at it.
At first, there were several independant networks, like ARPANET, BITNET and some others. Each was an independant research project owned and run by various misex is governemtn and educational institutions. Al Gore brought these together to a unified network working under unified organizational control. That's big , and its not about money.
Second, the resulting netowrk was still mostly government owned and managed. Al Gore got the network ownership moved out of government hands an into independant management in the private sector. This is also a big move, and it is not about money.
There was certainly money involved in merging and expanding the network. But if you choose to ignore the rest of the value that Gore added, then you are only fooling yourself. You can argue all day about the meaning of the word "Create", but in the end the value that Gore added to the Internet comes very close to whatever definition of "Create" you finally settle on. So stop being pedantic about vocabulary and give him the credit he deserves.
A lot of discussion of election reform methods is specifically in terms of whether it benefits or hurts one of the two major parties, the Democrats or the Republicans.
What if we discuss the electoral reforms in terms of what benefits the voters rather than what benefits the parties? The ideas you mentioned all will have their various effects on the parties, but they will also have their effect on the voter too. Policies that make it easier for voters to get registered, and easier to vote are good for the voter. Making voter registration and election day more accurate and secure is also good for the voter. Instant runoff voting is good for the voters too, and that's something that is likely to weaken the power of both major parties.
Ultimately, elections are not about the parties, they are about the voters.
1. When presented with a large set of expert testemony and facts, completely ignore those aspects of the facts that do not support you. Don't acknowledge them. Pretend they don't exist.
2. Search the testemony for the occasional awkward phrase or incomplete coverage. Intentionally interpret these as explicit admissions that the information behind them is false or incomplete. (when they most likely are just the authors incomplete coverage of solid inforamtion). It's a semantic search. You are looking for words, not meaning.
3. Change the definition of words to use a definition different than what the author meant, partucularly if such redefinition makes the original sentence false. Then accuse the author of lying.
There are two approaches to debate:
1. Try to establish the truth.
2. Try to win the arguement.
One does not necessarlily lead to the other. They are not equal.
The tactics describred above are typically used to win an arguement, but rarely have any benefit in identifying the truth. These are also the main tactics you are using in this thread. They only show that you are not interested in the truth, but rather in either protecting your disapproval or Gore or protecting your own arrogance.
Here goes:
1. Create != Invent. I can create a computer by buying parts and assembling them. I do not invent a computer. It is a distinct difference in definition that can only be missed if you intentionally want to misinterpret it. Gore can create the internet by bringing together the time, money and mandate to assemble the people, projects together that make up the internet. That is creation. It is not invention and Gore never said it was. That was done by some dumbass who was intentionally trying to take him down.
2. Internet != internetworking. Internet is a proper noun, the name of the large network of computers based around TCP/IP and the root name servers. "internetworkig" as used in your quote is a verb describing a method of connecting and communicating between computers. They share some letters and some spelling but they are not the same. The proper noun "Internet" did not appear until the late 80's/early 90's.
3. Cerf's essay is a strong endorsement of Gores participation. Don't ignore it, Understand it. It's all there. (unless you are just not interested in learning.)
So if you wish to continue to misinterpret an redefine all the words and meaning in this thread, go right ahead, but you've already lost all credibility.
Dude, you're a lost cause. You ignore snopes and Cerf. You completely ignore the credit given, and nit pick semantics until you find one little detail you can slam.
It sounds like you're getting really hung up on the word "create". Is that all you're really pissed about? There's a lot more to the word "create" that does not mean invent. I mean, noone creates anything if you claim that all atoms existed before whatever we form them into.
But I have one little nit of my own to pick. It wasn't called the "Internet" back then. As late as the mid 80's there were various distinct networks, like ARPANET, BITNET, UUNET. There was nothing with the name "Internet". So if all you care about is the name, then you're wrong. If it's about putting the various parts together, then it happened in the 80' or later, with Gores help. Either way, you're wrong about it being there before Gore.
And John Kennedy had nothing to do with putting a man on the moon. After all he didn't invent any rockets. Rockets existed before him. He didn't pilot the rockets. He didn't make space suits. He didn't leave his foot prints on the moon. He did NOTHING.
Well, except he put the political pressure together on all the right agencies to get moving..... And he made sure the necessary money was appropriated for it.... and he guided other political groups, Congress and private industry to work together on the matter. Nothing significant really.
And it turns out that these are all the same things that Gore did for the internet. Parts existed prior to Gore, but he's the one who put together the political support and money to take it to the next level and bring it public. Without him it might have remained a research project for another 5-10 years. Until someone else "invented" it, maybe someone more politically favorable to you.
If I thought these guys had any since of humor at all, I'd make a 1.5 Gb file of random binary from a random number generator and store it in a file with a suspicious name.
Of course I'd probably end up in Camp-XRay being tortured for the password. That's not where I want to spend my summer vacation.
The bias is right there, bookending the article in small print
I think you are confusing the difference between bias and conflict of interest.
Conflict of interest means someone with responsibility to act impartially also has a personal interest in the outcome of the action. It describes only the situation, not the actual decision.
Bias describes when a decision, statement or action is made that favors a particular outcome.
Conflict of interest is often a flag indicating that bias may be present. It does not garentee bias.
You have noted conflict of interest in the author. But given the completeness of his research and publication, along with the disclaimer, there is little indication of bias.
(i) The manufacturer shall conduct background checks on individuals who are programmers and developers before such individuals work on any software used in connection with the voting system.
They forgot part (i)(a).
(i)(a) The voting authority shall conduct background checks on individuals who are product managers, product architects, product promotion and distribution, and any executive in a position to influence the voting system softwares and any software used in connection with the voting system.
If anything about current interaction design can be called "glamorous," it's creating Web applications. After all, when was the last time you heard someone rave about the interaction design of a product that wasn't on the Web? (Okay, besides the iPod.) All the cool, innovative new projects are online.
Cool?
Developing applications using a particular technology because it's cool? Un-f*****g-believable. If you can get something on the web to interact almost as well as a client application it should be considered a miracle of design. The only advantage I see on web apps is that you don't have to install anything on the client PC, and even that's a stretch if you consider the apps that require flash, MSXML or all the different media players.
It's like calling lemmings cool because they invented base jumping.
PS: Yes, I have developed web apps with popout menus and using MSXML to generate SOAP requests for interactive content. It still sucks.
Some people do have patents on human genes. This example is the Canadian patent system, not US, but the problems are similar. I've heard of other cases of patents on human genes found in living people. I don't recall which ones, or whether it was a US patent or other.
I never believed that someone should be able to have a patent on something discovered in nature. If you invent something, great. But not if you discover something already in existance. And combining two genes discovered in nature to make something that is most likely not in nature is borderline. You can't cut out too much with combination limitations. But if it is too simple a combination, then what effort (other than technical effort) was really involved?
he seemed to think that no one would go to the trouble of genetically engineering pigs, just to let Jews eat real bacon
I don't blame him. Have you ever had turkey sausage? Beef sausage?
You can do a lot with other meats and a few spices. It will taste close enough that most poeple will not care about the difference. And it's a lot easier and cheaper than GM.
So it's less of a question of if you can, and more a question of why would you.
Honestly, who wants to run Linux on a MAC when they are able to run MacOS-X on it. Doesn't make much sense to me.
People who cares about having a 100% open source operative system, instead only a part?
I think you missed the question slightly.
If what you want is Open Source/Debian, then you pick the software first, and the hardware second. You can get a lot of hardware cheaper than a mini and just as good or better.
The decision to get a mini generally involves a decision that the extra cost brings with it something that you cannot get on other hardware. And that extra is OS-X.
So the question is more like:
Why buy a mac mini just to put debian on it?
Slashdot Mirror
The ad is presumable there to sell you something. Somewhere back in this chain of events is a vendor trying to sell you something. What the vendor wants is for people to buy something from them. Ads are one way to encounrage people to do that. It won't work for all people. If someone is turned off by adds and blocks them, chances are that they aren't a potential customer anyway, at least not for this particular promotional method. What do you think? you slip an add past their add blocker and they are just going to say "Hey, that's a cool product. I'll get one." No, more like "WTF is wrong with my add blocker. That shouldn't be there". You're not losing customers to add blockers, you're loosing them to ad annoyance.
Then comes the middlemen. The middlemans job is to take the ad from the vendor and get people to see it. Unlike the vendor, they get paid by views, not by purchases. So they don't care if you're is not interested in the product, they want the add on your screen anyway. The vendor doesn't necessarily want to push the add to someone who is not interested. But the middleman does. He's got a different pay pattern.
So somehow convence the vendors to straighten out the middlemen and you've got a more reasonable advertising method.
Actually, no I don't see.
Does he have the right to be at the mall? You'd think so. Otherwise they'd have a hard time getting customers in there.
Does he have a right to take pictures while in the mall? I see people taking pictures in the mall all the time, usually of themselves and their friends.
Does he have the right to take pictures of things in the mall other than himself? People do that all the time too.
Does he have the right to take pictures of specific things, like other cameras? Well that seems to be the question. Exactly where is the line where it goes from being a right to no longer a right?
I suppose you could claim that noone has the "right" to do anything in the mall, and that they can only do things be the grace of whatever authority allows them to do it on a whim. Modern law doesn't like that definition of rights, and neither do I. It's inconsistant and subject to the vagueries of peoples moods, opinions and temperment. Modern law is supposed to be above that.
The biggest problem seems to be sensitivity to people who are paying attention to the wrong thing. People look at what the merchants want them to, everything is OK. People look at other things the merchants don't want them to, they get nervous. That's far from not being a right. You may not always know what you don't like until you see it, but you can't just make up rights and rules on the fly based on instant preference. The merchants don't like something, first they make the rule official, then they run it past legal (You can't make rules that violate civil rights or are inconsistant, for instance). Then they make it public. Then you have something to point to. Those merchants didn't do that, and they didn't have anything to point to. The only precident they had says people can take pictures in public places. You want to change that, you go through procedures, you don't make it up on the fly. So it was all personal preference, nothing more.
There was nothing at all that says he didn't have the right to do what he did. Sure it was wierd, and the merchants didn't like it. But that doesn't mean he didn't have the right to do it.
Yeah, what he was doing didn't have much to do with recording himself. Yeah, it was a pretty pointless excercise. Yeah, it was hypocritical even.
But his point above is valid. He should be able to make a record of his own actions.
Historical point: Last summer there were lots of protestors running around in New York during the Republican Convention. The NY Police effeciently rounded them up and took them away, often on charges of disruption, resisting arrest and whatever else they could think of. But the protestors were smart. They had their own people out there recording the whole thing on Tape. When the cases came to court, they played it back. The protestors were not disrupting anything. They obeyed the police. they didn't resist. 90% of the cases were dropped or thrown out. Did the police bring out their own tapes of what happened? No. The citizens made recordings of themselves (and their friends) and it was very helpfull, specifically against those that were supposed to be serveiling them "fairly".
This goes to Manns point. Those serveiling you may not necessarily use that in your best interest when it does not suite them to do so. It is up to you to do that. And who knows, if you record them, you might see them doing something they shouldn't, like false arrest.
Well, I don't know much about TaxAct, but if they are offering software to the public for free, then how do they make their own living? Could there be a motivation inside there to capture and use peoples information in a similar way to what this article is complaining about? A direct federal tax entry system would bypass that issue. It's not just aboutthe fees. That's just adding insult to injury.
At least some states have figured out how to file taxes electronicly and directly (and free!) without involving someone with a profit motive in the mix.
I said it comes close, and I left the definition of "create" up to you.
Hey, you like to get pedantic on words, right? Here's one for you. English sentences go like {subject} {verb} {object}, as in
I {subject}
Took {verb}
the Initiative {object}
The rest is filler. And initiative means he tried to do something, started doing something. It doesn't mean he succeeded, and it doesn't mean he what he attempted to do was not already done before. So on the purely rhetorical basis of his sentences, he is still correct. Alas, English is so flexable once you get used to it. You can make it do almost anything.
Have a nice day.
Now, if those schools would get real and start school after 8:00 like reasonable people, we could get around this little problem and be much more flexable with the time.
Well, if all you need is an idea, than all you need for prior art is an idea..... Brainstorm.
Wrong here too. Al Gore did a lot more than throw money at it.
At first, there were several independant networks, like ARPANET, BITNET and some others. Each was an independant research project owned and run by various misex is governemtn and educational institutions. Al Gore brought these together to a unified network working under unified organizational control. That's big , and its not about money.
Second, the resulting netowrk was still mostly government owned and managed. Al Gore got the network ownership moved out of government hands an into independant management in the private sector. This is also a big move, and it is not about money.
There was certainly money involved in merging and expanding the network. But if you choose to ignore the rest of the value that Gore added, then you are only fooling yourself. You can argue all day about the meaning of the word "Create", but in the end the value that Gore added to the Internet comes very close to whatever definition of "Create" you finally settle on. So stop being pedantic about vocabulary and give him the credit he deserves.
Maybe it wasn't the Internet, the international network of privately owned network nodes and independant administration?
Transmission Control Protocoal does not define the Internet. The ownership, management and organization defines the internet.
TCP/IP alone is not enough to claim they were the same thing, any more than saying all operating systems are the same if they support POSIX.
What if we discuss the electoral reforms in terms of what benefits the voters rather than what benefits the parties? The ideas you mentioned all will have their various effects on the parties, but they will also have their effect on the voter too. Policies that make it easier for voters to get registered, and easier to vote are good for the voter. Making voter registration and election day more accurate and secure is also good for the voter. Instant runoff voting is good for the voters too, and that's something that is likely to weaken the power of both major parties.
Ultimately, elections are not about the parties, they are about the voters.
... if they use the right advertising method.
1. When presented with a large set of expert testemony and facts, completely ignore those aspects of the facts that do not support you. Don't acknowledge them. Pretend they don't exist.
2. Search the testemony for the occasional awkward phrase or incomplete coverage. Intentionally interpret these as explicit admissions that the information behind them is false or incomplete. (when they most likely are just the authors incomplete coverage of solid inforamtion). It's a semantic search. You are looking for words, not meaning.
3. Change the definition of words to use a definition different than what the author meant, partucularly if such redefinition makes the original sentence false. Then accuse the author of lying.
There are two approaches to debate:
1. Try to establish the truth.
2. Try to win the arguement.
One does not necessarlily lead to the other. They are not equal.
The tactics describred above are typically used to win an arguement, but rarely have any benefit in identifying the truth. These are also the main tactics you are using in this thread. They only show that you are not interested in the truth, but rather in either protecting your disapproval or Gore or protecting your own arrogance.
Here goes:
1. Create != Invent. I can create a computer by buying parts and assembling them. I do not invent a computer. It is a distinct difference in definition that can only be missed if you intentionally want to misinterpret it. Gore can create the internet by bringing together the time, money and mandate to assemble the people, projects together that make up the internet. That is creation. It is not invention and Gore never said it was. That was done by some dumbass who was intentionally trying to take him down.
2. Internet != internetworking. Internet is a proper noun, the name of the large network of computers based around TCP/IP and the root name servers. "internetworkig" as used in your quote is a verb describing a method of connecting and communicating between computers. They share some letters and some spelling but they are not the same. The proper noun "Internet" did not appear until the late 80's/early 90's.
3. Cerf's essay is a strong endorsement of Gores participation. Don't ignore it, Understand it. It's all there. (unless you are just not interested in learning.)
So if you wish to continue to misinterpret an redefine all the words and meaning in this thread, go right ahead, but you've already lost all credibility.
It sounds like you're getting really hung up on the word "create". Is that all you're really pissed about? There's a lot more to the word "create" that does not mean invent. I mean, noone creates anything if you claim that all atoms existed before whatever we form them into.
But I have one little nit of my own to pick. It wasn't called the "Internet" back then. As late as the mid 80's there were various distinct networks, like ARPANET, BITNET, UUNET. There was nothing with the name "Internet". So if all you care about is the name, then you're wrong. If it's about putting the various parts together, then it happened in the 80' or later, with Gores help. Either way, you're wrong about it being there before Gore.
Would you be more convenced if Vint Cerf said it?
And John Kennedy had nothing to do with putting a man on the moon. After all he didn't invent any rockets. Rockets existed before him. He didn't pilot the rockets. He didn't make space suits. He didn't leave his foot prints on the moon. He did NOTHING.
Well, except he put the political pressure together on all the right agencies to get moving. .... And he made sure the necessary money was appropriated for it. ... and he guided other political groups, Congress and private industry to work together on the matter. Nothing significant really.
And it turns out that these are all the same things that Gore did for the internet. Parts existed prior to Gore, but he's the one who put together the political support and money to take it to the next level and bring it public. Without him it might have remained a research project for another 5-10 years. Until someone else "invented" it, maybe someone more politically favorable to you.
Of course I'd probably end up in Camp-XRay being tortured for the password. That's not where I want to spend my summer vacation.
Nah, I see it as more of a "Saved by the Bell" meets "Star Trek".
Of course it could be more like "Harry Potter" meets star trek. I bet that's more what Shatner was thinking.
I think you are confusing the difference between bias and conflict of interest.
Conflict of interest means someone with responsibility to act impartially also has a personal interest in the outcome of the action. It describes only the situation, not the actual decision.
Bias describes when a decision, statement or action is made that favors a particular outcome.
Conflict of interest is often a flag indicating that bias may be present. It does not garentee bias.
You have noted conflict of interest in the author. But given the completeness of his research and publication, along with the disclaimer, there is little indication of bias.
They forgot part (i)(a).
I think they should add that in.Nahh. When people install linux, they post their stupid questions on usenet and slashdot.
Cool?
Developing applications using a particular technology because it's cool? Un-f*****g-believable. If you can get something on the web to interact almost as well as a client application it should be considered a miracle of design. The only advantage I see on web apps is that you don't have to install anything on the client PC, and even that's a stretch if you consider the apps that require flash, MSXML or all the different media players.
It's like calling lemmings cool because they invented base jumping.
PS: Yes, I have developed web apps with popout menus and using MSXML to generate SOAP requests for interactive content. It still sucks.
The Breast Cancer Gene Patent
Some people do have patents on human genes. This example is the Canadian patent system, not US, but the problems are similar. I've heard of other cases of patents on human genes found in living people. I don't recall which ones, or whether it was a US patent or other.
I never believed that someone should be able to have a patent on something discovered in nature. If you invent something, great. But not if you discover something already in existance. And combining two genes discovered in nature to make something that is most likely not in nature is borderline. You can't cut out too much with combination limitations. But if it is too simple a combination, then what effort (other than technical effort) was really involved?
I don't blame him. Have you ever had turkey sausage? Beef sausage?
You can do a lot with other meats and a few spices. It will taste close enough that most poeple will not care about the difference. And it's a lot easier and cheaper than GM.
So it's less of a question of if you can, and more a question of why would you.
I think you missed the question slightly. If what you want is Open Source/Debian, then you pick the software first, and the hardware second. You can get a lot of hardware cheaper than a mini and just as good or better.
The decision to get a mini generally involves a decision that the extra cost brings with it something that you cannot get on other hardware. And that extra is OS-X.
So the question is more like:
Why buy a mac mini just to put debian on it?