I do not mean to sound like a dick but teachers get paid too little and put up with too much garbage to deal with trash. She had to get her masters and 2 certifications and $100,000 in debt just to have the priviledge of putting up with gang bangers and death threats for a mere $39,000 a year.
This is why I refuse to be entertained with the thought of teaching [in a public school]. Becuase, if a child posed a real threat, I'd protect myself regardless of the outcome; death to be included and even probable. The bad thing, is that society would not look highly or even view such a situation with wisedom should a teacher kill a student. But, sometimes they do.... Bach [ the famous composer ] is no less for the fact he attacked one of his students with a sword.
On the otherhand, Columbine could have been prevented. So much, I admit, that those "assailants" were due vengence. We want to blame the parents, the teachers and all that biz. We all saw how no matter what a jock did, he seemed to always get off without a scratch, meanwhile anyone else would get into trouble. Jocks, sad to admit, are "human", so their barbarism is no less in the long run, especially when backed by those around them to push another child to the point of retribution. If someone had treated me as harshly as those kids were treated, I would have shot them too. So, contrary to popular opinion, I do not lay blame on the assailants during Columbine, nor their parents. Instead, I place blame on the two-faced nature of most of society that presents such hypocritical standards that ultimately fuel the frustration in any other person (young or old), and societies blatant tendancy to birth such horrors then shun off their own actions and avoid responsibility (to try to "blame" or say the kids were "wrong"). One thing that will 'piss' me off to the point of pulling a trigger, is someone telling me that I'm wrong for defending myself while being attacked; of all the things I believe in, of all the things I hold dear, EVERYONE has a RIGHT to defend themselves in the face of ANY aggression. What's not really hammered, in Columbines case, is the ridiculous amount of effort the kids AND their parents did to try to do something about the growing social turmoils that were apparent in their student body. So, it's not like they immediately concluded their "defense" was to shoot people, by that time, it was the only thing they could do.
What's sad, is that society didn't see this, and now we have kids getting in trouble for the dumbest things. And, this is just one of those Dumb things that, hopefully, will be laughed at much like how we view the Mc Charthy hearings today; or the Salem Witch Trials... or all the other bullshit, throughout history, that people are chastised over for ultimately, NO SANE REASON AT ALL.
People buy windows when there is a free alternative. The reason is simple. SkyOS does something very well, and people who need that one thing done well will buy it...
Why are people dellusional about what motivates purchases?
People will buy SkyOS becuase there is a cost associated to it. For no other reason, rationale or sentimental, than the fact it has a price tag.
For instance, take a look at a typical edition of Cosmopolitan magazine. Go ahead, flip through it. Don't worry, the chick next to you in line might think it's hot. There are so many advertisements in that magazine, you'll be hard pressed to actually find "content". The publishing house makes so much money off the advertisements, that they could pay people just to accept the magazine yet, it still has a price tag; so much money infact, they really don't need "content" and much of it is "fluff" to appear as if there's something of value other than the advertisements. Why? The Advertisement Firms insist they maintain a cover price, becuase they feel people will not take the publication seriously (including holding any value to the advertisements within) if the work was was for free. Now, to emphasize how much of that magazine is content, rip out every page that has the smallest blatant advertisement on it. Or, at your whim, hold all pages that have any "content" thereon. Doesn't matter, either way it will be pathetic I garruntee it.
It's not much talked about, or doesn't seem so, that one of the largest milestones the Open Source community has is convincing someone there is "value" in a "free" product. Especially, if that individual has been raised in such a capitalistic driven society; they literally can not conclude the possibility anyone could produce a valuable product for free without monetary or material compensation. It's out of their grasp, it does not compute. They default to a conclusion that something must be wrong or lacking if someone is willing to just hand it off on someone else.
Someone will buy SkyOS. Will they be the next Microsoft? I doubt it. But, I know for certain, someone will buy it in high regard and expectation of "quality" becuase sense they purchased the product... that makes the people making it, "professionals". To a Capitalist, ability and capability is soley determined by price.
Plus, guns were used in only 6% of the 4.8 MILLION violent crimes that took place in 2004.
Why does "luck" always have a small margin? Of 4.8 million violent crimes, I would suspect that 60% of the casualties wish their assailant used a gun. Have you ever been stabbed? Hurts worse than a gun shot, fatal stabs often mean slow, conscience and aware approach to death.
You SPECULATE that PERHAPS the customer is an "idiot". For this insult, you can go to hell.
Becuase you think the customer is an idiot, his desires are speculation, and you refuse to honor speculation save your own... to think, perhaps, you can convince him to stick around.
"What if the sentiment is on account of a fixable error?" Seems to make sense. "Sometimes, people can be releaved given discounts or sold on other options." Seems to make sense...
All your excuses, *seem* to make sense... from a business percpective. Not a logical one. Bottom line, I'm the customer and I want to cancel. Period. End of story, and take your "retention" attempts and stuff it. It's best companies cower behind miles of phone lines, becuase had that AOL rep been face to face with me, I would have sent him to the hospital after having to repeat an initial demand to cancel services.
I want to cancel, no questions asked and do not insult my intelligence by suggesting that after have fallen for your first pitch that I'll fall for another.
It SHOULD be:
"Hello, cancel my account. Now." *click*
I don't even want to hear one sound in a f****d up, accent from thousands of miles away.
If a credit card is involved, and they continue to charge, that's credit card fraud and I'll have no compunction of reporting them and making a mess of the situation all becuase of their persistance in disregard to consumer demands.
Notable changes include notification that AT&T will track viewing habits of customers of its new video services Homezone and U-Verse, which is forbidden for cable and satellite companies, as well as explicitly stating that the customer's data belongs to the company: 'While your account information may be personal to you, these records constitute business records that are owned by AT&T.
First off, how can my personal actions (viewings) be: 1) qualified 2) or, considered 'property', and 'property' of a third party?
Most importantly, my personal data is INHERENT to my being, and can should NOT be considered "property" of any third party. So, AT&T is fundamentally disregarding the legitamacy of individual personalities. I abhor the thought that AT&T thinks, MY first and last name is THEIR property to distribute for profit to advertisement firms, law enforcement et al. I, nor any substantial information indicative to my essence, is MY property and NOT theirs. If they wish to continue abstracting data that can pinpoint an individual, then any funds received off of exploiting that data should forfiet to the victim, royalties of some kind.
Of course, AT&T is now a monopoly since they sucked up all the Baby Bells, so we have no choice but to bounce charged electrons through their copper at some stage of communications. And, it's probably more an interest of the government, so there is nothing the consumer or "market" or populus can do about it. (We don't vote on who is placed in high paying positions at AT&T, nor do we have any real control over the choice of legislation our politicians choose to condone; to make it worse, Americans have no real choice of philosophical, legal, business, political preference of the politicians we are forced to choose from.)
I would ask American forefathers what they would do in this situation... but the only person alive today that might have a resembling answer is the one we are hunting in Afghanistan.
I will never get LASIK. And, I only wished I was still in the Navy to get the RK procedure.
What isn't often banged on, is the fact LASIK does not fix certain conditions and even cause some problems with eyesight. Forgive me for not knowing the medical terminology, I am aware of some of the effects.
1) LASIK does not correct, and often enduces starbursts. Starbursts is anytime you look at a light at night and you see halos or elongations of light. Sorta like how bright lights are depicted on television. This is due to lines/scratches etc on the cornea, this can also be emulated with uncleaned glasses. If it's bad enough, it could be a cause for perceived night-blindness.
2) LASIK always effects depth perception; sometimes, at a complete loss. This is hard to admit for many who claim they've had the procedure. Due to the likely hood that they really had bad vision, they've gone through much of their lives with less than exagerrated depth perception; few people have perfect glasses, imperfections can throw off depth perception as well so to those who have never had decent eye-sight, they don't notice. This is the number one factor as to why the Navy/Marines refuse to use LASIK procedures for pilots, snipers or special forces.
3) LASIK the procedure is too new, untested and not well documented for long term effects. Alternate methods are well established and some have been practiced for many many years... like full lense/cornea implants/transplants.
4) LASIK removes mass from your eye, while other procedures maintain maximum, natural lense strength. So, if you are say, a boxer, LASIK might be extremely risky depending on how much they have to carve away.
The benefits are that LASIK is common and thus cheap and readily available. There are many LASIK shops in San Diego. But, other procedures, like RK (which practically repairs your eyes as if they were naturally that way to begin with), are often more expensive and can be hard to find a doctor that is qualified to do it, much less willing to. I've searched for doctors in San Diego that did alternate eye surgery procedures... and it's only worse becuase of all the crack-pots with LASIK on their minds who are qualified or skilled in neither. But, I'll wear glasses till I find a ex-Naval surgeon who has the equipment for a military approved surgical procedure and willing to do it.
Right, becuase when we all have college degrees, the robots will do the manual labor anyway.
Capitalism will NEVER let this happen. Sure, you can cite examples where entire automotive manufacturing plants are 100% robotic, sure you can point to the lack of "arithmeticians" who were once well employed for scientific obscene and tedious mathematics on account of computers and mainframes.
But, despite all these computers, robots and such, the fact remains the agricultural technology (as an example) that exists today could feed the entire world twice over with the most elaborate dishes ever prepared. Yet, famine is still very real and Americans and Europeans alike throw away upwards of 30% of the food served at home or at restaurants. People still go hungry, and why? We still have electric and water bills... why? You know why, I know why, and we WILL be able to afford a loaf of bread at someone elses expense. There isn't an industry in existance that hasn't reached +200% profit margins on any of their products. Computers do NOT cost anywhere near the amount you pay; and, to be frank, their progress is NOT indicative to the amount of profit overhead INTEL and Motorola/IBM receive from sales of hardware. In other words, the speed at which the IT industry would not increase if everyone currently paid (most importantly could pay) 800 dollars more per computer. This is a FACT. The profit margins have far exceeded prospective timelines for research and development.
Speaking of Agriculture... here is a PRIME example of why your assertions are blatantly wrong. We DO have the technology to remove every human from the field. Infact, some of the largest farmed land held by the major food corporations like Dole and Kraft ARE infact completely automated. Problem is.... those machines capable of doing that cost so much even the corporations don't even own them, they lease them. (You think the US Military has a lot of money? Did you know, the engines to drive the aircraft carriers are so expensive they are leased and not owned by the US Navy? General Motors makes the engines for the boiler engines.) So, such technology is available, and even applied and used. But, still, most of the crop comes largely from smaller farmers who will NEVER be able to afford such a tractor. And as long as engineers and the like demand high prices for such equipment (which those tractors are satellite tracted and guided), and as long as such devices are less than "mundane", they will continue to always be exorbantly priced. Welcome to the benefits of "niche" market appeal. If you find a sustainable "niche" market, sometimes, that's better than having a "monopoly".
So, no, more educated students, better faster development, more mundane technology to use.... humans will STILL be digging ditches. And the ONLY difference, is years ago someone digging a ditch knew why he was digging one; "I don't have a high school diploma, what else can I do?". Now.... you have people who have a rationale and logical complaint becuase they are well educated and they are still digging that ditch. See, they are often "terrorists". Welcome to the real world pal.
This isn't some emerging trend, or some candle to hold up so that Western states can rise to it. At least here, when our IP rights are corroded, or IP gets overbearing, we have recourse.
Humor me, please. What so-called recourse might you take?
You can speak out? You can point a finger? Wait, I got it! You can run apachectl start, and post a blog for the world to see! But wait one second... who are you? If CNN doesn't make a claim of your credentials, noone cares what you have to say. Oh, but there's more. Furthermore, words are nothing but sound waves dissolving in unaffected gentle breeze. You won't pick up a gun, bat or throw a rock. You won't, becuase you think there's a higher plateau, a more sophisticated means of compromise or influence where everyone is happy throughout the debate. Problem is, not even geeks find much happiness in what they even consider truelly sophisticated; though we might enjoy being challanged, the connotation here is of the feeling of utter bewilderment and a sense of hopelessness. And why do you think, that those who are able to avoid action are better? Perhaps the answer to this question, lay within the social culture which you were raised. Oh, but, exactly WHO would most benefit in what could be accurately described as a docile subordinates?
Why, those in power... it's apparent.
But, lemme pose a question. Have you ever actually influenced anything in America? Yeah, the defacto standard response is something like, 'Yeah! I voted! Did you?'. If you aren't willing to fight, you don't truelly believe. See, our forefathers certainly believed. They rebelled with force, deadly force to themselves and to others around them. I'm sure there was some insane pilgrim who really cared more about serenity than her own personal welfare much less intangible crap such as personal rights. Rights... what rights? What rights do you think you have? Which of those rights have you exercised, diligently? None, I assure you. Cause, if you had, you'd quickly realize that long before you could have a modicum of impact on society, you would be jailed for break state, county, city ordinance, local and federal laws.
You are told you have 'rights' by someone very well capable of stripping them from you without you even being aware of it. You are handed a priveledge, and you are so enchanted by the implicit attention of someone of such power. Even if the King/President/Mayor/Senator/Congressman/Prime Minister et al passes laws that invalidate your given right. As long as those in power insist you have the Right, your ability or lack thereof, to practice your right effectively on a social scale becomes irrelevant. Your Rights, are irrelevant; and, YOU still don't care.
Why don't you care? Becuase you only care enough to pick up a pencil and roll out of bed... an excuse to not go to work, or an excuse to be late to work... Sir, I was at the polls fullfilling my civic duty! Democracy is great! Is that it? If I raped your daughter, you'd only be motivated enough to scrawl a worthless check on a peace of paper? Everything is fine after that? Justice is served? No, you would likely try to kill me. You would try to kill such an agressor, hopefully, becuase the safety of your daughter or children is a very STRONG belief to you. Is it not? See, the stronger the belief, the more willing you are to actually do something about a violation of your belief; including murder, mutilation.
Since it's safe to assume, you have yet to pick up a firearm on behalf of your belief of the infalible greatness ingrained in American politics, you really do not give two flying rats asses about what the American government does or doesn't do. You don't really care about your Rights, not like you care about the safety of your daughter. You don't care, one iota.
Yet, here you are, trying to claim those in China are left with no recourse; when you have absolutely none yourself. The Chinese have several advantages regarding this dilemna. First, th
A month ago, it hailed in San Diego. HAIL... not a little bit, but a lot; sustained for atleast an hour or two, and keep in mind were aren't talking about the Yukon here, but San Diego. In the mountains, maybe Big Bear or Alpine? Noooo...
Mission Beach, Mission Valley, Mira Mesa, La Jolla, Kearny Mesa, Downtown San Diego... San Diego, in all it's sunny glory got hail. Where you can go the entire year without a "coat", frozen precipitation formed below 800 millibars. Even Tijuana Mexico got the surprise package...
We don't need to be told by scientists that the climate is changing.
I fully understand, if a Company exploits a technology, a Companies sole motivation being economical, then they need to pony up a share to those who well deserve it.
However, for the person in his garage who isn't economically motivated, since he's not being paid for the direct effort and since he wishes to freely release his work, then the "patent holder" isn't "losing" money because there's no money exchanged to begin with; in short, noone is making money yet everyone is benefiting. Secondly, the individual is incapable of such magnitudes in all aspects of "Companies" in terms of distribution, research and development, wealth/power, manufacturing etc.
In short, I feel that patent law should ONLY be applicable to Companies. I would even extend this to any laws prohibiting reverse engineering as well; such that it's only illegal if you attempt to generate revenue in any way from your findings. Some upstart soundcard company reverse engineering Creative's work to market and distribute merchandise for sale should be illegal, but someone at home reverse engineering a Creative soundcard to write drivers for the Open Source community, or hardware hacks of any extreme, should be immune from any legal consequences, no matter how many others use the work; and becuase an "individual" would be lawful in doing such activities while companies aren't, companies that use what "individuals" have done lawfully (reverse engineering etc.) would still be required to pay royalties to relevant patent/copyright holders.
But, regardless of what those in power choose, I'm going to do what I feel is right.
There's no denying that cars are much better today than they were 20 years ago,
I've seen this through out the thread... and, you're a complete idiot if you actually believe this mess. It's classic, the guy who has all this math in his head on goes out and completely confuses hisself and is left dumbfounded when reality shatters his calculations. He had the audacity to think, Nature is so simple....
Cars are NOT better than they were 20 years ago. What is "better", tell me? Economically? No, they are an economic horror... today, not just becuase it's "law", you really do need insurance 20 years ago... you didn't and the argument against forced legislation to purchase insurance had far more ground than it does today. Before you open your mouth, take your new 2006 and hit a 1970 at only 30mph; FLASHBACK it used to be regulation that your bumper could sustain a 35mph collision, without any monetary damage to the bumper or car itself.
Now, I know what the idiots are thinking... with the foolish laymen physics... "Well, if a car is more mallible, then the structure itself will absorb some of the energy if it wrecks correctly saving lives and possibly your own..." This is total bullshit, and if anyone who actually believes this crap is ever in a real accident, they will be in for one hell of an awakening. If you aren't in a deadly accident, your car is nearly totalled leaving you to an insurance claim (oh, but most vehicles nowadays, and maintenance of vehicles are so expensive... many people chose not to purchase insurance except for once a year so they can register their cars.); not to mention, most cars sold are used and most insurance sold is only for liability. The 1970 Camaro would barely have a dent, and the 2002 Cadillac will have it's entire front-end structure deformed in a walk-away collision... and I've seen this particular situation. Then comes the fact, if you are in a life threatening collision, the last thing you really want is a eggshell to surround you... the real reason cars are so fragile is not becuase of safety interests, but economic interests. *I wonder... am I the only one who noticed that no matter how serious the accident in America, that the road is cleared of all evidence much quicker? They aren't using more hi-tech tools, it's just easier now to remove the corpses and trash the rest of the vehicle... and easier to recycle the parts. Years ago, a serious wreck took a long time to deal with... and that just adds to the shitpile of capitalisitic interests.*
Better my ass. Take a BMW SUV. Did you know, that a SUV is SUPPOSED to go offroad? Offroad doesn't mean, onto your front lawn. But, who would dare? The best offroad vehicles, even of those who actually do offroad, are about 20 years old... back when a 2 ton truck could actually do 2 tons of work. Even better, these work horses were NEVER really expensive until they became a social fad for idiots who think they are safe to stuff their bratty kids in; which it turns out, that while they are good to keep balance on rough turrain, they are the worst death traps in a game of bumper cars. Perhaps some of the idiot gene will cease to propogate as the parents stuff their specimens into large bulky SUVs and hit 90mph down the freeway. It's not economically feasible to purchase a new vehicle (should you be able to find an truely offroad vehicle, like a military issue humvee), and actually use it as it is seemingly designed to for. And, you say they are better? FFS, the "Amiga" even had a warning label explicitly stating that the vehicle was not intended for offroad use....
So, today, cars are more fragile than the dozen of eggs you buy at the supermarket. Not only that, they are far more expensive, and to fix the cars is insane. (I drive a BMW, and have had to replace the front grill and bumper... cost over 1000 dollars, after insurance coverage... luckily, I could afford it but that's total bullshit.) "But, what about anti-lock brakes?" Yeah, well how about "Learn to drive"? There was
Of all the horrors of Capitalism, those of us on the beneficial side of the equation never see, the degradation of acadamia is of noticable concern.
Now, hold on. An academic utopia is just as foolish as the mis-conceptions of Karl Marx in concluding he was striving for a socio-economic "utopia"; which, he wasn't the word is the only impressive vocabulary word a person is able to muster in retort. However, Capitalism has had real effects on acadamia while so many of us refuse to see any harm of a well educated society through and through; the key word here is "refuse", becuase in reality a society that's over-educated... suicide bombers, famine, "terrorists"--there are very well learned men who also have experienced, first hand, the social aspects of the Middle East, and there is strong argument to suggest such horrors are in fact on account of everyone having a degree. It is true, in the Middle East, it's not uncommon for your waiter to have the educational equivalent of a Masters Degree or a Ph.D. Bottom line is, you can't hire everyone; and someone must do the dirty work.
Now, back to the upper echelons of the problem I'm proposing. I'm in my second effort to complete a degree. And, even after my completion I'll not let arrogance cloud the fact that it is, in all philosophical meaning, worthless and a waste of time. I want a Mathematics degree, and there's no class of any University in the world teaching the students any information a moron can't find within his town's library. Which, for all practical purposes, for most fields there exists a diploma for, you could very well have taught yourself and saved thousands of dollars and have attained the knowledge far quicker and at your own pace. Which leads me to my parallel philosophy; if you actually learn anything in college from strict class ciriculum, you aren't that interested in the subject.
The fact is, most of the people today are going to college not becuase they are deeply interested in the subject, but becuase they think that they will make lots of money. They really don't want to go to college, but feel compelled to becuase the myraid fields one takes an interest in overwhelms any investor to the point a Genetic Engineer might think their prospective VC is a complete idiot. Yet, economically, the VC would like to have some level of assurance with his investment, and loves to see a workforce of "degrees" from "accredited" educational institutions. He has no other knowledge; to speak nothing of the fact of the essence that drew him to the company to begin with, perhaps they truely are idiots? HINT: He wouldn't have been there anyways had he figured they weren't doing well. Go figure right? So, this creates an interdependancy of it's self.
50 years ago, a person with a degree in any field well knew that field and probably lovingly endured it's discipline till the day they died. Today, far less proportionally walk across the stage with such eternal passion and it's becuase of the above predicament. Then, to further the problem, colleges have gotten into the habit of doing whatever to help people pass, becuase they want those graduation numbers to attract more students and hopefully land a famous face in the process; think about it, what really makes Harvard attractive? Harvard is attractive not becuase of it's name or inherent fact of existance, it's attractive becuase upteen million presidents, dignitaries, senators and other rich and powerful people have attended the school...
When you have some one at the keyboard, who is only looking forward to a fat paycheck, his work will NEVER be as honest or resemblant of the quality of someone else who is passionate about programming. Never, the self-motivation isn't there, the goals are askewed. One is only doing whatever is necessary for a paycheck, while the others goal is more inline with his job... he want's to code up a function that is so good, it even sparks an internal happiness for hisself.
This is a spreading virus, of rampant proportions. It a
[AC Wrote]
1) buggy GPL'ed driver
2) you fix the driver
3) oops, you can't actually install your fixed driver
Now do you see the problem?
[baadger tried to counter]
4) original author of signed/DRM'd driver sees said fixed version
5) original author ports your fixes to original release and gives you credit
6) original author signs/DRM's new driver
7) original author releases new code
The GPL is not incompatible with this scenario at all.
baadger, don't be so naive. The step AC assumed you'd understand is that he had to debug his fix. If you can't execute the code then there is no debugging. So, your step four will NEVER be acheived, becuase a "fix" will not be "known to work". The quality of the Open Source software will take a hit, becuase the "author" would be burdened with overly required to verify integrity instead of delegation and end-user appeal. I point to Rob Malda's age old patch for AfterStep 1.x that allowed for pixmaps to be displayed in the root menu. It was a good, noticable, while before AfterStep released their own version that did this natively. It was common convention for AfterStep users to download Rob Malda's patch at the same time they were downloading AfterStep.
In your world where it's assumed that one person on the AfterStep team had the ability to sign the keys, this scenerio wouldn't have been possible.
If it's possible... I think the best way for the Open Source Community to fight DRM hardware is to make it as transparent as possible from the end-user to the developer. Key tables if need be referenced by GCC... anything. I don't even want to know if my laptop has DRM hardware in it. I change, modify code as I wish, recompile and it works. Somewhere in the process, GCC just automatically signs it, or the kernel takes no concern of key requirements to execute logic, but only takes concern when initiating the DRM'd hardware. There's always a way... always. I don't want to have to ask for a key, I don't want to see it.
I would hope to discuss the problems with Wikipedia permitting such changes to take effect from sides of apparent burden of any negative tonations an article might have.
But, where to draw the line? I'm sure we would all love to have Einstein hisself elaborate, if only he were alive. But, should criticism be so quickly voided by intent of the target? Let's keep with Einstein; I argue that should a critism be brought forward, any criticism that one my find evidence of would hardly tarnish the fact of Einstein's contributions. It wouldn't be difficult to blame Einstein for many of the horrors of WWII (namely the atomic bomb), to include other nuclear scientists whose names are all too familiar, as convincing and possible an argument I personally would never think less of the man.
Now, let's take a situation where public perception might be damaging for an entity. First, we might want to consider the likelyhood that because it would damage the conglomerate, it fairs to assert that a positive perception is the source of the organizations success or failure. A politician can be sunk, literally, if wrongdoing is exposed. If he had done wrong, that would be accurate information, and worthy of Wikipedia. Regardless of damage, I have to question the politicians actions in attempting to cover-up his mistakes in such a manner. This sentiment is further extended to any group that relies on public perception, such as businesses and corporations.
We might be tempted to accept information, as they say, "from the horses mouth". But, when the horse constantly dyes it's coat to the color acceptable by the masses, then we have to be very wary of any information he presents. It will, always and forever, be in his best interest to paint the best possible picture of hisself to the readers. Now, some think Ad Hominem is a logical fallacy, and might consider this as Ad Hominem; "Of course the politician would deny it. Don't believe what he says to the contrary!". But, nothing here is to say their claims aren't correct... so, it's not Ad Hominem. It's preventing the strong, probable and likely situations of devious intervention, whether or not they are telling the truth; which sounds a bit harsh, but we shouldn't forget that they're desire is positive public perception and this is as baseless and emotive as it comes. It doesn't matter if they are right, if the public doesn't like them technicalities aren't going to save them... never has.
Take for instance:
A Customer of Pacific Bell is greatly nerved by PacBell's wrongdoings or questions it's practices and treament of customers. He reasonably adds his concerns, non-personalized, to Wikipedia's entry for PacBell; something perhaps of the sort, "Pacific Bell Company, as of , has denied customer rebates if they are crippled. Due to a literal interpretation of their contract which isn't reasonable for those enduring paralysis and lacking physical assistance." PacBell would no doubt wish to remove this portion should it ever be honestly added; and if all it took was to have a secretary do it on her lunch break then I garuntee it would be done.
My argument is that, PacBell should be prevented from removing the entry in the above example.
I'm just wondering how we could prevent PacBell from removing "negatory" entries. With little harm on them and the person doing it.
Maybe, each entry be granted a "Critique" section. Each critique entry in that section is voted on by the members, and the person making the claim should be responsible with presenting evidence of his claim should it have a negative feel towards the target. "Here's a PNG of a several consecutive facsimiles, personal information blacked out, showing overcharges...", "Here's a hi-res image of Monica and Bill..." Evidence presented, evidence accepted. Claim get's formal recognition, posted read-only... permanently.
I would like to point out, that there might be similar declines in music and movies. Lots of consumers seem wary about the quality of newly released movies and music. The industry giants, dealing in art, wish to make product and profits more concrete and attempt to fabricate and force trends onto the public--it's my belief that the music industries stance on P2P software is that it enables the consumer to choose aged music versus the latest and greatest from the studios, eliminating their control over what people purchase.
Now, with movie's with more eyecandy than plot, with music with more glitz and glam than talent, we move onto video games. I own a GameBoy Advanced SP, a Sony PSP and a Sony PS2. The Sony PS2 has only been played a total of 2 hours, purchased while I was on a business trip to pass time while in the hotel. The PSP, serves more as a cheap and very nice movie player for trips, and as a bit of interactive benefit, it plays a few games too. The GameBoy Advanced SP, was only purchased inspite my ex, it's pretty much useless. OK, with those systems defined, I have purchased games for all. Many new games on the shelf, are modeled after the same movies in the box office. If the movies aren't worth a flip, why would a game based off that movie be any better? As it turns out, that flawed logic actually has weight in this circumstance. I purchased SpiderMan for the GB Advance and being an aged gamer who remembers the Atari 2600, Sega Genesis et al. I was stunned to learn I had beat the game. I had no idea. The game sucked, I was hoping it would get more difficult or exciting... then, with no forewarning, the glamorous presentation marking the games defeat showed and I was amazed. After telling my friend about this experience, he informed me that is what I get for buying a game based off a movie. A game that's crap, slapped together while the movie is still fresh in the consumers mind, no game play value whatsoever in favour of the image of conformance to what the movie presented.... trash, something to bleed the consumer for more money off on top of a 10 dollar ticket stub and 5 dollar drink at a mega cinema complex.
Gazing upon BestBuys shelves, noticing the implications of the covers to games, I noticed that a considerable number of games were based off of some movie. All the movies suck. If it were exciting to make music, they'd probably have a game based off of Britney Spears and then turn around and think that people aren't interested in gaming becuase noone wants to purchase the Britney Spears Dance game.
What happened to all the talented game developers out there? The guy who come up with PacMan? What about Tetris? Quake was a revolutionary game, Dungeons and Dragons? Have all the smart people, who are able to concoct a difficult puzzle working on the next release of Myst? What happened to the guy who wrote Burger Time? Did the guys who made the first Killer Instinct all retire? What happened to games like Zelda, and Super Mario Bros? Games are supposed to be fun (addictive), increase in difficulty to offer some kind of reward for the effort. But, todays games, simply lack both. Many games on the shelf are neither rewarding nor addictive. That's sad.
See, I have been driving around with my eyes open. The sting operation consisted of a San Diego Transit Authority employee asked me directions to Horton Plaza from Del Mar. Unknowingly, I gave him five different ways to get downtown and to Horton Plaza, accurately too. Shortly there after, I was notified that I have violated San Diego's City Planning and Urban Development copyrights. Specifically, being able to identify exact positions of stoplights, or to draw a map with such detail. I tried to point out that other claims were public knowledge, such as all odd numbered roads heading North and South, even numbered roads head East to West. They wouldn't listen. Drawing a straight line up and down on a paper and labeling it as "5 North" is a copyright violation. As if whoever designed the "5" had the enourmous responsibility and ungodly insight to determine the road should head in some direction... but with an infinite number of "direction", which ONE is copyrightable....
Mr. Marshall's argument is unsound on many levels. But, he does have one technical accuracy which I strongly oppose. The fact that many employeers attempt to harvest intellectual thought regardless of direct obligation within an agreed upon timeframe.
Slavery was outlawed, and I argue that if an employeer owns all ideas concocted by their employees on or off the clock, then they effectively "own" the individual. I work for a very large corporation. Such clauses exist in our employment agreement, however, thankfully, the only time my corporation will knock on my front door at home, is if I develop software directly relating to what I do at work. I also made it very clear to them, when I was hired, of my active and ongoing interest in the Open Source arena. This didn't bother them, and it was pointed out that, in writting, that the contract respected the personal ownership of what I did on my own time.
So, any ideas I give the Open Source community, is of my own property and of noone elses. It would be fundamentally wrong to demand that you own all the thoughts an individual makes on or off the clock, so frankly, I wouldn't give a damn if I was on the clock. Becuase I agree with my company, which they in turn agree with me by respecting my interests when at home, I glady follow along.
No one owns me. And it's illegal for them to.
His argument against innovation is naturally and inherently flawed. Most innovation comes not from a team and a leader, but an individual genius brain storming. Many techniques of brainstorming and developing artistic enlightenment comes from an approach without any leadership or direction. In school, in attempts to develop a story from scratch one of the most effective methods is to data dump ideas onto a peace of paper, then review them afterwards to decide which sparks the most interests to base a story on. Art, whether it's composing a peace of music, or painting a picture sometimes is generated by initial random strokes on the canvas, or 3am drunkun random chord progressions on the guitar... eventually, something will spark, and they build off of it to create the next best thing. Leadership, in innovation or creation, is garunteed to inhibit a truely unique idea. Leadership can only go by what is known, what has already happened... inherently detering anything new to come from it.
Musicians want their music heard. Whether or not they get paid, they want their music heard. Some musicians, and bands, PAY OUT OF THEIR OWN POCKET for air time on local radio stations.
Downloading an mp3, even if it's from a known musician is NOT stealing. I don't give a hoot what you think the law says, or what it actually says for that matter. The law in this regard is supposed to reflect the feelings of the composers and performers... now, take this scenerio...
You approach Madonna, and say, "Wow, I've listened to all your songs and I'm a huge fan." Hell will freeze over before Madonna demands proof of purchase, or even ask, "Did you buy my CDs or did you just sit by a radio all day long?" About the ONLY thing we might hear a musician pitch is, "Oh, the T-Shirt stand is over there..."
As a musician myself. I will NEVER accept any notion saying that downloading an mp3 is either wrong, or illegal. I'll tell a judge to his face that he and his court is insignificant and irrelevant, without acute vision of the issue at hand then walk the hell out of the court room.
Slashdot Mirror
I do not mean to sound like a dick but teachers get paid too little and put up with too much garbage to deal with trash. She had to get her masters and 2 certifications and $100,000 in debt just to have the priviledge of putting up with gang bangers and death threats for a mere $39,000 a year.
This is why I refuse to be entertained with the thought of teaching [in a public school]. Becuase, if a child posed a real threat, I'd protect myself regardless of the outcome; death to be included and even probable. The bad thing, is that society would not look highly or even view such a situation with wisedom should a teacher kill a student. But, sometimes they do.... Bach [ the famous composer ] is no less for the fact he attacked one of his students with a sword.
On the otherhand, Columbine could have been prevented. So much, I admit, that those "assailants" were due vengence. We want to blame the parents, the teachers and all that biz. We all saw how no matter what a jock did, he seemed to always get off without a scratch, meanwhile anyone else would get into trouble. Jocks, sad to admit, are "human", so their barbarism is no less in the long run, especially when backed by those around them to push another child to the point of retribution. If someone had treated me as harshly as those kids were treated, I would have shot them too. So, contrary to popular opinion, I do not lay blame on the assailants during Columbine, nor their parents. Instead, I place blame on the two-faced nature of most of society that presents such hypocritical standards that ultimately fuel the frustration in any other person (young or old), and societies blatant tendancy to birth such horrors then shun off their own actions and avoid responsibility (to try to "blame" or say the kids were "wrong"). One thing that will 'piss' me off to the point of pulling a trigger, is someone telling me that I'm wrong for defending myself while being attacked; of all the things I believe in, of all the things I hold dear, EVERYONE has a RIGHT to defend themselves in the face of ANY aggression. What's not really hammered, in Columbines case, is the ridiculous amount of effort the kids AND their parents did to try to do something about the growing social turmoils that were apparent in their student body. So, it's not like they immediately concluded their "defense" was to shoot people, by that time, it was the only thing they could do.
What's sad, is that society didn't see this, and now we have kids getting in trouble for the dumbest things. And, this is just one of those Dumb things that, hopefully, will be laughed at much like how we view the Mc Charthy hearings today; or the Salem Witch Trials... or all the other bullshit, throughout history, that people are chastised over for ultimately, NO SANE REASON AT ALL.
People buy windows when there is a free alternative. The reason is simple. SkyOS does something very well, and people who need that one thing done well will buy it...
Why are people dellusional about what motivates purchases?
People will buy SkyOS becuase there is a cost associated to it. For no other reason, rationale or sentimental, than the fact it has a price tag.
For instance, take a look at a typical edition of Cosmopolitan magazine. Go ahead, flip through it. Don't worry, the chick next to you in line might think it's hot. There are so many advertisements in that magazine, you'll be hard pressed to actually find "content". The publishing house makes so much money off the advertisements, that they could pay people just to accept the magazine yet, it still has a price tag; so much money infact, they really don't need "content" and much of it is "fluff" to appear as if there's something of value other than the advertisements. Why? The Advertisement Firms insist they maintain a cover price, becuase they feel people will not take the publication seriously (including holding any value to the advertisements within) if the work was was for free. Now, to emphasize how much of that magazine is content, rip out every page that has the smallest blatant advertisement on it. Or, at your whim, hold all pages that have any "content" thereon. Doesn't matter, either way it will be pathetic I garruntee it.
It's not much talked about, or doesn't seem so, that one of the largest milestones the Open Source community has is convincing someone there is "value" in a "free" product. Especially, if that individual has been raised in such a capitalistic driven society; they literally can not conclude the possibility anyone could produce a valuable product for free without monetary or material compensation. It's out of their grasp, it does not compute. They default to a conclusion that something must be wrong or lacking if someone is willing to just hand it off on someone else.
Someone will buy SkyOS. Will they be the next Microsoft? I doubt it. But, I know for certain, someone will buy it in high regard and expectation of "quality" becuase sense they purchased the product... that makes the people making it, "professionals". To a Capitalist, ability and capability is soley determined by price.
Plus, guns were used in only 6% of the 4.8 MILLION violent crimes that took place in 2004.
Why does "luck" always have a small margin? Of 4.8 million violent crimes, I would suspect that 60% of the casualties wish their assailant used a gun. Have you ever been stabbed? Hurts worse than a gun shot, fatal stabs often mean slow, conscience and aware approach to death.
Not every CSR conversation has to go like this:
Customer: I want to cancel
CSR: Done. Thanks. bye.
You are dead wrong!
You SPECULATE that PERHAPS the customer is an "idiot". For this insult, you can go to hell.
Becuase you think the customer is an idiot, his desires are speculation, and you refuse to honor speculation save your own... to think, perhaps, you can convince him to stick around.
"What if the sentiment is on account of a fixable error?" Seems to make sense.
"Sometimes, people can be releaved given discounts or sold on other options." Seems to make sense...
All your excuses, *seem* to make sense... from a business percpective. Not a logical one. Bottom line, I'm the customer and I want to cancel. Period. End of story, and take your "retention" attempts and stuff it. It's best companies cower behind miles of phone lines, becuase had that AOL rep been face to face with me, I would have sent him to the hospital after having to repeat an initial demand to cancel services.
I want to cancel, no questions asked and do not insult my intelligence by suggesting that after have fallen for your first pitch that I'll fall for another.
It SHOULD be:
"Hello, cancel my account. Now." *click*
I don't even want to hear one sound in a f****d up, accent from thousands of miles away.
If a credit card is involved, and they continue to charge, that's credit card fraud and I'll have no compunction of reporting them and making a mess of the situation all becuase of their persistance in disregard to consumer demands.
Notable changes include notification that AT&T will track viewing habits of customers of its new video services Homezone and U-Verse, which is forbidden for cable and satellite companies, as well as explicitly stating that the customer's data belongs to the company: 'While your account information may be personal to you, these records constitute business records that are owned by AT&T.
First off, how can my personal actions (viewings) be:
1) qualified
2) or, considered 'property', and 'property' of a third party?
Most importantly, my personal data is INHERENT to my being, and can should NOT be considered "property" of any third party. So, AT&T is fundamentally disregarding the legitamacy of individual personalities. I abhor the thought that AT&T thinks, MY first and last name is THEIR property to distribute for profit to advertisement firms, law enforcement et al. I, nor any substantial information indicative to my essence, is MY property and NOT theirs. If they wish to continue abstracting data that can pinpoint an individual, then any funds received off of exploiting that data should forfiet to the victim, royalties of some kind.
Of course, AT&T is now a monopoly since they sucked up all the Baby Bells, so we have no choice but to bounce charged electrons through their copper at some stage of communications. And, it's probably more an interest of the government, so there is nothing the consumer or "market" or populus can do about it. (We don't vote on who is placed in high paying positions at AT&T, nor do we have any real control over the choice of legislation our politicians choose to condone; to make it worse, Americans have no real choice of philosophical, legal, business, political preference of the politicians we are forced to choose from.)
I would ask American forefathers what they would do in this situation... but the only person alive today that might have a resembling answer is the one we are hunting in Afghanistan.
I will never get LASIK. And, I only wished I was still in the Navy to get the RK procedure.
What isn't often banged on, is the fact LASIK does not fix certain conditions and even cause some problems with eyesight. Forgive me for not knowing the medical terminology, I am aware of some of the effects.
1) LASIK does not correct, and often enduces starbursts. Starbursts is anytime you look at a light at night and you see halos or elongations of light. Sorta like how bright lights are depicted on television. This is due to lines/scratches etc on the cornea, this can also be emulated with uncleaned glasses. If it's bad enough, it could be a cause for perceived night-blindness.
2) LASIK always effects depth perception; sometimes, at a complete loss. This is hard to admit for many who claim they've had the procedure. Due to the likely hood that they really had bad vision, they've gone through much of their lives with less than exagerrated depth perception; few people have perfect glasses, imperfections can throw off depth perception as well so to those who have never had decent eye-sight, they don't notice. This is the number one factor as to why the Navy/Marines refuse to use LASIK procedures for pilots, snipers or special forces.
3) LASIK the procedure is too new, untested and not well documented for long term effects. Alternate methods are well established and some have been practiced for many many years... like full lense/cornea implants/transplants.
4) LASIK removes mass from your eye, while other procedures maintain maximum, natural lense strength. So, if you are say, a boxer, LASIK might be extremely risky depending on how much they have to carve away.
The benefits are that LASIK is common and thus cheap and readily available. There are many LASIK shops in San Diego. But, other procedures, like RK (which practically repairs your eyes as if they were naturally that way to begin with), are often more expensive and can be hard to find a doctor that is qualified to do it, much less willing to. I've searched for doctors in San Diego that did alternate eye surgery procedures... and it's only worse becuase of all the crack-pots with LASIK on their minds who are qualified or skilled in neither. But, I'll wear glasses till I find a ex-Naval surgeon who has the equipment for a military approved surgical procedure and willing to do it.
Right, becuase when we all have college degrees, the robots will do the manual labor anyway.
Capitalism will NEVER let this happen. Sure, you can cite examples where entire automotive manufacturing plants are 100% robotic, sure you can point to the lack of "arithmeticians" who were once well employed for scientific obscene and tedious mathematics on account of computers and mainframes.
But, despite all these computers, robots and such, the fact remains the agricultural technology (as an example) that exists today could feed the entire world twice over with the most elaborate dishes ever prepared. Yet, famine is still very real and Americans and Europeans alike throw away upwards of 30% of the food served at home or at restaurants. People still go hungry, and why? We still have electric and water bills... why? You know why, I know why, and we WILL be able to afford a loaf of bread at someone elses expense. There isn't an industry in existance that hasn't reached +200% profit margins on any of their products. Computers do NOT cost anywhere near the amount you pay; and, to be frank, their progress is NOT indicative to the amount of profit overhead INTEL and Motorola/IBM receive from sales of hardware. In other words, the speed at which the IT industry would not increase if everyone currently paid (most importantly could pay) 800 dollars more per computer. This is a FACT. The profit margins have far exceeded prospective timelines for research and development.
Speaking of Agriculture... here is a PRIME example of why your assertions are blatantly wrong. We DO have the technology to remove every human from the field. Infact, some of the largest farmed land held by the major food corporations like Dole and Kraft ARE infact completely automated. Problem is.... those machines capable of doing that cost so much even the corporations don't even own them, they lease them. (You think the US Military has a lot of money? Did you know, the engines to drive the aircraft carriers are so expensive they are leased and not owned by the US Navy? General Motors makes the engines for the boiler engines.) So, such technology is available, and even applied and used. But, still, most of the crop comes largely from smaller farmers who will NEVER be able to afford such a tractor. And as long as engineers and the like demand high prices for such equipment (which those tractors are satellite tracted and guided), and as long as such devices are less than "mundane", they will continue to always be exorbantly priced. Welcome to the benefits of "niche" market appeal. If you find a sustainable "niche" market, sometimes, that's better than having a "monopoly".
So, no, more educated students, better faster development, more mundane technology to use.... humans will STILL be digging ditches. And the ONLY difference, is years ago someone digging a ditch knew why he was digging one; "I don't have a high school diploma, what else can I do?". Now.... you have people who have a rationale and logical complaint becuase they are well educated and they are still digging that ditch. See, they are often "terrorists". Welcome to the real world pal.
This isn't some emerging trend, or some candle to hold up so that Western states can rise to it. At least here, when our IP rights are corroded, or IP gets overbearing, we have recourse.
Humor me, please. What so-called recourse might you take?
You can speak out? You can point a finger? Wait, I got it! You can run apachectl start, and post a blog for the world to see! But wait one second... who are you? If CNN doesn't make a claim of your credentials, noone cares what you have to say. Oh, but there's more. Furthermore, words are nothing but sound waves dissolving in unaffected gentle breeze. You won't pick up a gun, bat or throw a rock. You won't, becuase you think there's a higher plateau, a more sophisticated means of compromise or influence where everyone is happy throughout the debate. Problem is, not even geeks find much happiness in what they even consider truelly sophisticated; though we might enjoy being challanged, the connotation here is of the feeling of utter bewilderment and a sense of hopelessness. And why do you think, that those who are able to avoid action are better? Perhaps the answer to this question, lay within the social culture which you were raised. Oh, but, exactly WHO would most benefit in what could be accurately described as a docile subordinates?
Why, those in power... it's apparent.
But, lemme pose a question. Have you ever actually influenced anything in America? Yeah, the defacto standard response is something like, 'Yeah! I voted! Did you?'. If you aren't willing to fight, you don't truelly believe. See, our forefathers certainly believed. They rebelled with force, deadly force to themselves and to others around them. I'm sure there was some insane pilgrim who really cared more about serenity than her own personal welfare much less intangible crap such as personal rights. Rights... what rights? What rights do you think you have? Which of those rights have you exercised, diligently? None, I assure you. Cause, if you had, you'd quickly realize that long before you could have a modicum of impact on society, you would be jailed for break state, county, city ordinance, local and federal laws.
You are told you have 'rights' by someone very well capable of stripping them from you without you even being aware of it. You are handed a priveledge, and you are so enchanted by the implicit attention of someone of such power. Even if the King/President/Mayor/Senator/Congressman/Prime Minister et al passes laws that invalidate your given right. As long as those in power insist you have the Right, your ability or lack thereof, to practice your right effectively on a social scale becomes irrelevant. Your Rights, are irrelevant; and, YOU still don't care.
Why don't you care? Becuase you only care enough to pick up a pencil and roll out of bed... an excuse to not go to work, or an excuse to be late to work... Sir, I was at the polls fullfilling my civic duty! Democracy is great! Is that it? If I raped your daughter, you'd only be motivated enough to scrawl a worthless check on a peace of paper? Everything is fine after that? Justice is served? No, you would likely try to kill me. You would try to kill such an agressor, hopefully, becuase the safety of your daughter or children is a very STRONG belief to you. Is it not? See, the stronger the belief, the more willing you are to actually do something about a violation of your belief; including murder, mutilation.
Since it's safe to assume, you have yet to pick up a firearm on behalf of your belief of the infalible greatness ingrained in American politics, you really do not give two flying rats asses about what the American government does or doesn't do. You don't really care about your Rights, not like you care about the safety of your daughter. You don't care, one iota.
Yet, here you are, trying to claim those in China are left with no recourse; when you have absolutely none yourself. The Chinese have several advantages regarding this dilemna. First, th
Six bedrooms... yet 24 bathrooms?
Sounds like someone has a severe bladder control problem.
A month ago, it hailed in San Diego. HAIL... not a little bit, but a lot; sustained for atleast an hour or two, and keep in mind were aren't talking about the Yukon here, but San Diego. In the mountains, maybe Big Bear or Alpine? Noooo...
Mission Beach, Mission Valley, Mira Mesa, La Jolla, Kearny Mesa, Downtown San Diego... San Diego, in all it's sunny glory got hail. Where you can go the entire year without a "coat", frozen precipitation formed below 800 millibars. Even Tijuana Mexico got the surprise package...
We don't need to be told by scientists that the climate is changing.
Howe & Ser Moving Company.... "Howitzer Moving Company"
Clever bunch of fellows they are.
For Open Source works.
I fully understand, if a Company exploits a technology, a Companies sole motivation being economical, then they need to pony up a share to those who well deserve it.
However, for the person in his garage who isn't economically motivated, since he's not being paid for the direct effort and since he wishes to freely release his work, then the "patent holder" isn't "losing" money because there's no money exchanged to begin with; in short, noone is making money yet everyone is benefiting. Secondly, the individual is incapable of such magnitudes in all aspects of "Companies" in terms of distribution, research and development, wealth/power, manufacturing etc.
In short, I feel that patent law should ONLY be applicable to Companies. I would even extend this to any laws prohibiting reverse engineering as well; such that it's only illegal if you attempt to generate revenue in any way from your findings. Some upstart soundcard company reverse engineering Creative's work to market and distribute merchandise for sale should be illegal, but someone at home reverse engineering a Creative soundcard to write drivers for the Open Source community, or hardware hacks of any extreme, should be immune from any legal consequences, no matter how many others use the work; and becuase an "individual" would be lawful in doing such activities while companies aren't, companies that use what "individuals" have done lawfully (reverse engineering etc.) would still be required to pay royalties to relevant patent/copyright holders.
But, regardless of what those in power choose, I'm going to do what I feel is right.
There's no denying that cars are much better today than they were 20 years ago,
I've seen this through out the thread... and, you're a complete idiot if you actually believe this mess. It's classic, the guy who has all this math in his head on goes out and completely confuses hisself and is left dumbfounded when reality shatters his calculations. He had the audacity to think, Nature is so simple....
Cars are NOT better than they were 20 years ago. What is "better", tell me? Economically? No, they are an economic horror... today, not just becuase it's "law", you really do need insurance 20 years ago... you didn't and the argument against forced legislation to purchase insurance had far more ground than it does today. Before you open your mouth, take your new 2006 and hit a 1970 at only 30mph; FLASHBACK it used to be regulation that your bumper could sustain a 35mph collision, without any monetary damage to the bumper or car itself.
Now, I know what the idiots are thinking... with the foolish laymen physics... "Well, if a car is more mallible, then the structure itself will absorb some of the energy if it wrecks correctly saving lives and possibly your own..." This is total bullshit, and if anyone who actually believes this crap is ever in a real accident, they will be in for one hell of an awakening. If you aren't in a deadly accident, your car is nearly totalled leaving you to an insurance claim (oh, but most vehicles nowadays, and maintenance of vehicles are so expensive... many people chose not to purchase insurance except for once a year so they can register their cars.); not to mention, most cars sold are used and most insurance sold is only for liability. The 1970 Camaro would barely have a dent, and the 2002 Cadillac will have it's entire front-end structure deformed in a walk-away collision... and I've seen this particular situation. Then comes the fact, if you are in a life threatening collision, the last thing you really want is a eggshell to surround you... the real reason cars are so fragile is not becuase of safety interests, but economic interests. *I wonder... am I the only one who noticed that no matter how serious the accident in America, that the road is cleared of all evidence much quicker? They aren't using more hi-tech tools, it's just easier now to remove the corpses and trash the rest of the vehicle... and easier to recycle the parts. Years ago, a serious wreck took a long time to deal with... and that just adds to the shitpile of capitalisitic interests.*
Better my ass. Take a BMW SUV. Did you know, that a SUV is SUPPOSED to go offroad? Offroad doesn't mean, onto your front lawn. But, who would dare? The best offroad vehicles, even of those who actually do offroad, are about 20 years old... back when a 2 ton truck could actually do 2 tons of work. Even better, these work horses were NEVER really expensive until they became a social fad for idiots who think they are safe to stuff their bratty kids in; which it turns out, that while they are good to keep balance on rough turrain, they are the worst death traps in a game of bumper cars. Perhaps some of the idiot gene will cease to propogate as the parents stuff their specimens into large bulky SUVs and hit 90mph down the freeway. It's not economically feasible to purchase a new vehicle (should you be able to find an truely offroad vehicle, like a military issue humvee), and actually use it as it is seemingly designed to for. And, you say they are better? FFS, the "Amiga" even had a warning label explicitly stating that the vehicle was not intended for offroad use....
So, today, cars are more fragile than the dozen of eggs you buy at the supermarket. Not only that, they are far more expensive, and to fix the cars is insane. (I drive a BMW, and have had to replace the front grill and bumper... cost over 1000 dollars, after insurance coverage... luckily, I could afford it but that's total bullshit.) "But, what about anti-lock brakes?" Yeah, well how about "Learn to drive"? There was
Of all the horrors of Capitalism, those of us on the beneficial side of the equation never see, the degradation of acadamia is of noticable concern.
Now, hold on. An academic utopia is just as foolish as the mis-conceptions of Karl Marx in concluding he was striving for a socio-economic "utopia"; which, he wasn't the word is the only impressive vocabulary word a person is able to muster in retort. However, Capitalism has had real effects on acadamia while so many of us refuse to see any harm of a well educated society through and through; the key word here is "refuse", becuase in reality a society that's over-educated... suicide bombers, famine, "terrorists"--there are very well learned men who also have experienced, first hand, the social aspects of the Middle East, and there is strong argument to suggest such horrors are in fact on account of everyone having a degree. It is true, in the Middle East, it's not uncommon for your waiter to have the educational equivalent of a Masters Degree or a Ph.D. Bottom line is, you can't hire everyone; and someone must do the dirty work.
Now, back to the upper echelons of the problem I'm proposing. I'm in my second effort to complete a degree. And, even after my completion I'll not let arrogance cloud the fact that it is, in all philosophical meaning, worthless and a waste of time. I want a Mathematics degree, and there's no class of any University in the world teaching the students any information a moron can't find within his town's library. Which, for all practical purposes, for most fields there exists a diploma for, you could very well have taught yourself and saved thousands of dollars and have attained the knowledge far quicker and at your own pace. Which leads me to my parallel philosophy; if you actually learn anything in college from strict class ciriculum, you aren't that interested in the subject.
The fact is, most of the people today are going to college not becuase they are deeply interested in the subject, but becuase they think that they will make lots of money. They really don't want to go to college, but feel compelled to becuase the myraid fields one takes an interest in overwhelms any investor to the point a Genetic Engineer might think their prospective VC is a complete idiot. Yet, economically, the VC would like to have some level of assurance with his investment, and loves to see a workforce of "degrees" from "accredited" educational institutions. He has no other knowledge; to speak nothing of the fact of the essence that drew him to the company to begin with, perhaps they truely are idiots? HINT: He wouldn't have been there anyways had he figured they weren't doing well. Go figure right? So, this creates an interdependancy of it's self.
50 years ago, a person with a degree in any field well knew that field and probably lovingly endured it's discipline till the day they died. Today, far less proportionally walk across the stage with such eternal passion and it's becuase of the above predicament. Then, to further the problem, colleges have gotten into the habit of doing whatever to help people pass, becuase they want those graduation numbers to attract more students and hopefully land a famous face in the process; think about it, what really makes Harvard attractive? Harvard is attractive not becuase of it's name or inherent fact of existance, it's attractive becuase upteen million presidents, dignitaries, senators and other rich and powerful people have attended the school...
When you have some one at the keyboard, who is only looking forward to a fat paycheck, his work will NEVER be as honest or resemblant of the quality of someone else who is passionate about programming. Never, the self-motivation isn't there, the goals are askewed. One is only doing whatever is necessary for a paycheck, while the others goal is more inline with his job... he want's to code up a function that is so good, it even sparks an internal happiness for hisself.
This is a spreading virus, of rampant proportions. It a
[AC Wrote]
1) buggy GPL'ed driver
2) you fix the driver
3) oops, you can't actually install your fixed driver
Now do you see the problem?
[baadger tried to counter]
4) original author of signed/DRM'd driver sees said fixed version
5) original author ports your fixes to original release and gives you credit
6) original author signs/DRM's new driver
7) original author releases new code
The GPL is not incompatible with this scenario at all.
baadger, don't be so naive. The step AC assumed you'd understand is that he had to debug his fix. If you can't execute the code then there is no debugging. So, your step four will NEVER be acheived, becuase a "fix" will not be "known to work". The quality of the Open Source software will take a hit, becuase the "author" would be burdened with overly required to verify integrity instead of delegation and end-user appeal. I point to Rob Malda's age old patch for AfterStep 1.x that allowed for pixmaps to be displayed in the root menu. It was a good, noticable, while before AfterStep released their own version that did this natively. It was common convention for AfterStep users to download Rob Malda's patch at the same time they were downloading AfterStep.
In your world where it's assumed that one person on the AfterStep team had the ability to sign the keys, this scenerio wouldn't have been possible.
If it's possible... I think the best way for the Open Source Community to fight DRM hardware is to make it as transparent as possible from the end-user to the developer. Key tables if need be referenced by GCC... anything. I don't even want to know if my laptop has DRM hardware in it. I change, modify code as I wish, recompile and it works. Somewhere in the process, GCC just automatically signs it, or the kernel takes no concern of key requirements to execute logic, but only takes concern when initiating the DRM'd hardware. There's always a way... always. I don't want to have to ask for a key, I don't want to see it.
www.eve-online.com
Please, come a little closer to my Thorax, my "blaster-rax".
I would hope to discuss the problems with Wikipedia permitting such changes to take effect from sides of apparent burden of any negative tonations an article might have.
But, where to draw the line? I'm sure we would all love to have Einstein hisself elaborate, if only he were alive. But, should criticism be so quickly voided by intent of the target? Let's keep with Einstein; I argue that should a critism be brought forward, any criticism that one my find evidence of would hardly tarnish the fact of Einstein's contributions. It wouldn't be difficult to blame Einstein for many of the horrors of WWII (namely the atomic bomb), to include other nuclear scientists whose names are all too familiar, as convincing and possible an argument I personally would never think less of the man.
Now, let's take a situation where public perception might be damaging for an entity. First, we might want to consider the likelyhood that because it would damage the conglomerate, it fairs to assert that a positive perception is the source of the organizations success or failure. A politician can be sunk, literally, if wrongdoing is exposed. If he had done wrong, that would be accurate information, and worthy of Wikipedia. Regardless of damage, I have to question the politicians actions in attempting to cover-up his mistakes in such a manner. This sentiment is further extended to any group that relies on public perception, such as businesses and corporations.
We might be tempted to accept information, as they say, "from the horses mouth". But, when the horse constantly dyes it's coat to the color acceptable by the masses, then we have to be very wary of any information he presents. It will, always and forever, be in his best interest to paint the best possible picture of hisself to the readers. Now, some think Ad Hominem is a logical fallacy, and might consider this as Ad Hominem; "Of course the politician would deny it. Don't believe what he says to the contrary!". But, nothing here is to say their claims aren't correct... so, it's not Ad Hominem. It's preventing the strong, probable and likely situations of devious intervention, whether or not they are telling the truth; which sounds a bit harsh, but we shouldn't forget that they're desire is positive public perception and this is as baseless and emotive as it comes. It doesn't matter if they are right, if the public doesn't like them technicalities aren't going to save them... never has.
Take for instance:
A Customer of Pacific Bell is greatly nerved by PacBell's wrongdoings or questions it's practices and treament of customers. He reasonably adds his concerns, non-personalized, to Wikipedia's entry for PacBell; something perhaps of the sort, "Pacific Bell Company, as of , has denied customer rebates if they are crippled. Due to a literal interpretation of their contract which isn't reasonable for those enduring paralysis and lacking physical assistance." PacBell would no doubt wish to remove this portion should it ever be honestly added; and if all it took was to have a secretary do it on her lunch break then I garuntee it would be done.
My argument is that, PacBell should be prevented from removing the entry in the above example.
I'm just wondering how we could prevent PacBell from removing "negatory" entries. With little harm on them and the person doing it.
Maybe, each entry be granted a "Critique" section. Each critique entry in that section is voted on by the members, and the person making the claim should be responsible with presenting evidence of his claim should it have a negative feel towards the target. "Here's a PNG of a several consecutive facsimiles, personal information blacked out, showing overcharges...", "Here's a hi-res image of Monica and Bill..." Evidence presented, evidence accepted. Claim get's formal recognition, posted read-only... permanently.
And, the machine is exactly has advertised. I feel ripped off!
I would like to point out, that there might be similar declines in music and movies. Lots of consumers seem wary about the quality of newly released movies and music. The industry giants, dealing in art, wish to make product and profits more concrete and attempt to fabricate and force trends onto the public--it's my belief that the music industries stance on P2P software is that it enables the consumer to choose aged music versus the latest and greatest from the studios, eliminating their control over what people purchase.
Now, with movie's with more eyecandy than plot, with music with more glitz and glam than talent, we move onto video games. I own a GameBoy Advanced SP, a Sony PSP and a Sony PS2. The Sony PS2 has only been played a total of 2 hours, purchased while I was on a business trip to pass time while in the hotel. The PSP, serves more as a cheap and very nice movie player for trips, and as a bit of interactive benefit, it plays a few games too. The GameBoy Advanced SP, was only purchased inspite my ex, it's pretty much useless. OK, with those systems defined, I have purchased games for all. Many new games on the shelf, are modeled after the same movies in the box office. If the movies aren't worth a flip, why would a game based off that movie be any better? As it turns out, that flawed logic actually has weight in this circumstance. I purchased SpiderMan for the GB Advance and being an aged gamer who remembers the Atari 2600, Sega Genesis et al. I was stunned to learn I had beat the game. I had no idea. The game sucked, I was hoping it would get more difficult or exciting... then, with no forewarning, the glamorous presentation marking the games defeat showed and I was amazed. After telling my friend about this experience, he informed me that is what I get for buying a game based off a movie. A game that's crap, slapped together while the movie is still fresh in the consumers mind, no game play value whatsoever in favour of the image of conformance to what the movie presented.... trash, something to bleed the consumer for more money off on top of a 10 dollar ticket stub and 5 dollar drink at a mega cinema complex.
Gazing upon BestBuys shelves, noticing the implications of the covers to games, I noticed that a considerable number of games were based off of some movie. All the movies suck. If it were exciting to make music, they'd probably have a game based off of Britney Spears and then turn around and think that people aren't interested in gaming becuase noone wants to purchase the Britney Spears Dance game.
What happened to all the talented game developers out there? The guy who come up with PacMan? What about Tetris? Quake was a revolutionary game, Dungeons and Dragons? Have all the smart people, who are able to concoct a difficult puzzle working on the next release of Myst? What happened to the guy who wrote Burger Time? Did the guys who made the first Killer Instinct all retire? What happened to games like Zelda, and Super Mario Bros? Games are supposed to be fun (addictive), increase in difficulty to offer some kind of reward for the effort. But, todays games, simply lack both. Many games on the shelf are neither rewarding nor addictive. That's sad.
See, I have been driving around with my eyes open. The sting operation consisted of a San Diego Transit Authority employee asked me directions to Horton Plaza from Del Mar. Unknowingly, I gave him five different ways to get downtown and to Horton Plaza, accurately too. Shortly there after, I was notified that I have violated San Diego's City Planning and Urban Development copyrights. Specifically, being able to identify exact positions of stoplights, or to draw a map with such detail. I tried to point out that other claims were public knowledge, such as all odd numbered roads heading North and South, even numbered roads head East to West. They wouldn't listen. Drawing a straight line up and down on a paper and labeling it as "5 North" is a copyright violation. As if whoever designed the "5" had the enourmous responsibility and ungodly insight to determine the road should head in some direction... but with an infinite number of "direction", which ONE is copyrightable....
Any object with it's own orbital path around a star, with it's own atmosphere as faint or distinct as it might be.
Mr. Marshall's argument is unsound on many levels. But, he does have one technical accuracy which I strongly oppose. The fact that many employeers attempt to harvest intellectual thought regardless of direct obligation within an agreed upon timeframe.
Slavery was outlawed, and I argue that if an employeer owns all ideas concocted by their employees on or off the clock, then they effectively "own" the individual. I work for a very large corporation. Such clauses exist in our employment agreement, however, thankfully, the only time my corporation will knock on my front door at home, is if I develop software directly relating to what I do at work. I also made it very clear to them, when I was hired, of my active and ongoing interest in the Open Source arena. This didn't bother them, and it was pointed out that, in writting, that the contract respected the personal ownership of what I did on my own time.
So, any ideas I give the Open Source community, is of my own property and of noone elses. It would be fundamentally wrong to demand that you own all the thoughts an individual makes on or off the clock, so frankly, I wouldn't give a damn if I was on the clock. Becuase I agree with my company, which they in turn agree with me by respecting my interests when at home, I glady follow along.
No one owns me. And it's illegal for them to.
His argument against innovation is naturally and inherently flawed. Most innovation comes not from a team and a leader, but an individual genius brain storming. Many techniques of brainstorming and developing artistic enlightenment comes from an approach without any leadership or direction. In school, in attempts to develop a story from scratch one of the most effective methods is to data dump ideas onto a peace of paper, then review them afterwards to decide which sparks the most interests to base a story on. Art, whether it's composing a peace of music, or painting a picture sometimes is generated by initial random strokes on the canvas, or 3am drunkun random chord progressions on the guitar... eventually, something will spark, and they build off of it to create the next best thing. Leadership, in innovation or creation, is garunteed to inhibit a truely unique idea. Leadership can only go by what is known, what has already happened... inherently detering anything new to come from it.
Kai-Fu Lee's teknique is unbeatababidable!
"Say that one more time!"
UNBEATABIDABIBABLE!!!!
Lee knows Kai teknique, sendmail teknique and pelvic thrust teknique. He has Kung-Fu teknique, and Bruce Lee teknique!
Kai-Fu Lee bictory is inebidable!
It is the right of every citizen to view public documents. They all should be in a format, readable by any operating system. Period. No exceptions.
Musicians want their music heard. Whether or not they get paid, they want their music heard. Some musicians, and bands, PAY OUT OF THEIR OWN POCKET for air time on local radio stations.
Downloading an mp3, even if it's from a known musician is NOT stealing. I don't give a hoot what you think the law says, or what it actually says for that matter. The law in this regard is supposed to reflect the feelings of the composers and performers... now, take this scenerio...
You approach Madonna, and say, "Wow, I've listened to all your songs and I'm a huge fan." Hell will freeze over before Madonna demands proof of purchase, or even ask, "Did you buy my CDs or did you just sit by a radio all day long?" About the ONLY thing we might hear a musician pitch is, "Oh, the T-Shirt stand is over there..."
As a musician myself. I will NEVER accept any notion saying that downloading an mp3 is either wrong, or illegal. I'll tell a judge to his face that he and his court is insignificant and irrelevant, without acute vision of the issue at hand then walk the hell out of the court room.