Right. "Freedom requires responsibility" is a meme authoritarians came up with the undermine freedom; you'd think it would be obvious, as "responsibility" always ends up meaning "do what we say", but a lot of people are taken in.
You have the freedom to speak, and the responsibility not to speak against the government (or not to say something which might upset The Children, or teach them something not correct). You have freedom of religion, and the responsibility to make it the right religion. You have the right to keep and bear arms, and the responsibility to limit this to single-shot muzzle loaders kept at an approved range. You have the right to deny soldiers the use of your home, but wouldn't it be irresponsible and unpatriotic to do so? You have the right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure; but your responsibility to prevent terrorism requires you to assume the position.
So who does own the bits of rust on my spinning disk which happen to embody a copy of the ebook? If it's in flash, does each cell have an owner depending on which ebook resides there?
But private performance (i.e. "playing" the music to an audience consisting only of one's family and/or "social circle") is not one of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder. So from whence did this "license to play" derive?
No, but I want to be buried with my Slayer and Black Sabbath albums. It will be good on scaring off the undead and it will guarantee that I won't be stuck playing a harp in the afterlife.
The place you're going is more into accordions than harps.
I own the damned copy. Ownership of a copy is recognized in copyright law, and a separate thing from ownership of the copyright or a license to any of the rights which make up copyright. A lot of publishers attempt to claim you don't even own the copy, some convincingly (e.g. a rental DVD), some rather less so (e.g. a product with an EULA printed within the packaging of a product you bought from a middleman.)
They claim they have found blood samples which are '"fully consistent" with doping'. Now, if you have a doping technique which doesn't produce a detectable signature, ANY blood sample will be consistent with doping (it will also be consistent with not doping). They're being cagey, and that makes me mistrustful.
(I think Armstrong's guilty, but I think USADA ought to have to prove it)
It's really time for computer science to grow up and join the rest of the pack.
It's really time for lovers of over-regulation (including regulation through overbroad liability) to consider the consequences of their actions.
If a mechanical engineer designs a bridge that collapses under normal load, that engineer can be held PERSONALLY responsible for breach of duty.
He's not, however, responsible if someone dynamites the bridge, deliberately overloads it, or commits other malicious acts designed to destroy it. So what's being proposed goes beyond even what is required for traditional engineering disciplines.
It's long past time for us to stop forgiving shody practices and people making the same old mistakes over and over that cause 90% of security vulnerabilities. Until people are held accountable, there won't be any meaningful change, and we'll keep having a field dominated by hacks and talent-free people without a real understanding of what they are doing.
The hacks and talent-free people have built everything in the field. Get rid of us and you've got nothing. You really think you're going to attract actual talent by requiring someone to have a degree plus 16 years of experience before they can work independently (that's a Texas requirement for a professional software engineer; Texas is one of the few states that licenses such)? How many actual talented software developers do you know who would put up with the amount of paperwork required to do work in such a discipline?
All you'd actually accomplish is to bring the field to a screeching halt.
As hard as that may be to believe, Smeed's Law has held up since the 1940's when Smeed first proposed it.
Nope. Smeed's law predicts 70,600 motor vehicle deaths for the US in 1994 (population 260,327,000, registered vehicles 192,497,000). There were 36,254. Smeed's law predicts 87301 deaths for 2010 (population 309,350,000, registered vehicles 257,515,000). There were 30196.
This is the second major study calling into question the idea that talking on the phone while driving is vastly more dangerous, as dangerous as drunk driving.
It was drop dead obvious that talking on the phone isn't vastly more dangerous than not doing so. It's so prevalent that a "vast" difference in danger would have been clearly reflected in the overall accident statistics.... and it hasn't been. Not that this stopped anyone in the mainstream from hyping the studies.
One of the earlier studies determined if someone was on the cell phone by comparing cell phone billing records with police records of the accident time. Cell phone time data is GPS based and accurate to fractions of a second. Police records are based on when the officer looked at his watch.
Yes, that example already very clearly fell under such a law (since it already got shot down!). I pulled it out because it was high-visibility and has already happened. Consider this program. It measures your heart rate through minute differences in brightness. What if you, as a home user and not a medical service provider, have a heart attack because there was a bug in the code? Most of the FDA's work regarding complex devices involves code verification to ensure this doesn't happen. Some kind of certification is necessary to ensure quality and accuracy.
A class III medical device (e.g. a pacemaker) might go through such verification (or perhaps not; I have no idea) A class II device (which a heart rate monitor might be) won't. Believe me, I've worked on medical visualization workstations and no one from the FDA was looking at the code. Nor was any formal code verification of any kind done. Nor was any certification on my part required.
There are a ton of non-iPhone heart-rate monitors being sold (mostly for fitness training), and I'd be willing to bet that almost none of them have medical device certification. Eventually the FDA may make a move on them... but aside from expanding the FDAs own power, what good would it really do?
Imagine you are a bee, or a hummingbird. There are all these delicious flower full of yummy nectar... but around them is this icky, nasty, yellow pollen. The flower needs the pollen to be carried around to propagate the species... but you still don't want to get plant jism all over yourself. So you develop strategies to get the nectar without getting pollen on you. The plant, in turn develops strategies to get more pollen on you while not wasting as much precious nectar. No morality about it, it's just nature.
(For the slow: the user is the bird or bee, the flower is the content provider, the nectar is the content, and the pollen is the advertisement.)
Re:Ok, let's see you died in the wool capitalists
on
OnLive Acquires OnLive
·
· Score: 1
Uncontrolled free market causes power focus into the hands of few powerful at the expense of many powerless. In this case, the manoeuvre allowed a big investor to essentially throw all small investors out of the company with minimal additional investment.
The company was insolvent. The investors were losing everything no matter what happened. It's not like the company was making money and he managed to screw the small equity holders out of it.
Re:Ok, let's see you died in the wool capitalists
on
OnLive Acquires OnLive
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
This looks to me like classic example of a fundamental problem with free market capitalism. All perfectly legal too. So come on: defend this. Seriously. Not trolling. I'm dying to know why it is that we should tolerate this sort of thing.
Would you care to spell out exactly what the problem is, or do you just want to rage incoherently?
Which are, in essence, a link. Maybe not in the technical sense of a direct pointer, but its a method for finding what you're looking for.
MPAA v. 2600 made a legal distinction between those two. An actual link can be infringement, the text version of the link without html directives are not. Go figure.
We are seeing more and more evidence that people aren't as logical as we like to think we are. We mostly use logic to rationalize a position that we have already decided.
Here's another in a growing list of papers that demonstrate our illogical nature:
I checked your papers, and it appears they started from the conclusion and rationalized their way back to the data.
One then must ask, "Why would psychopathy be so successful (at some small percentage of the population) that it inherits this strongly, while intelligence isn't.?"
Simple enough: The previous poster is wrong, Mike Judge is right, and intelligence is inheritable, though not 100%. As for the previous poster's claim of being an intelligent child of stupid parents, I can think of a few options 1) Hybrid vigor: Managed to get a good combination out of a poor but not hopeless set of genes. 2) Adoption. 3) Infidelity -- just because the real daddy was a snake doesn't mean he was stupid. 4) Poor opinion of parents not borne out by reality. 5) Parents had genetics for intelligence but were hindered by environment (e.g. poor childhood nutrition)
So some reporter asked a loaded question (implying the US had an OAS commitment to recognize diplomatic asylum), and this is a correction.
The case of Cardinal Mindszenty, which many are bringing up, is one where the Communist Hungarian government did not in fact recognize diplomatic asylum; Mindszenty was stuck in the US embassy for 15 years until the Hungarians relented.
It mostly worked for the Romanovs for 300 years, so it's not without precedent. I don't think Putin can make it work, though. And perhaps he doesn't care what happens to Russia after he dies.
What is their politics other than in fact "hooliganism"? Not sure how serious a crime that should be, but what kind of sentence would a white power band get for crashing a black church service?
In the US? They'd probably get charged with trespassing and/or disturbing the peace, and either the charges would be dropped or they'd be released with a fine and time served.
However, the US doesn't have a state church, so it's not really a good parallel.
Putin also seems to be misunderstanding the purpose of basic freedoms such as free speech, freedom to assemble peaceably, and the freedom for ordinary people to decide the next government leaders: By granting these freedoms, the society and the government in question can have an orderly transition from one governing philosophy to the next and "revolutions" take place at the ballot box instead of at gunpoint. By trying to suppress these kind of voices of opposition, Putin is insisting that he get assassinated and that his legacy will be seen as being a tyrant.
It's not that he misunderstands. It's that he disagrees. As far as he's concerned, an "orderly transition" means he rules until he dies, and then his picked successor rules until he dies, ad infinitum. It's worked for long periods of time, though usually in hereditary monarchies.
And Kasparov is exactly right about Obama's comments about the sentence being "disproportionate". If Obama wanted to be "hands off", there should have been no comment at all. That would have been craven, but by saying the sentence was disproportionate Obama is endorsing the conviction, which is worse. Hell of a day when a man born in the Soviet Union correctly lectures the US President on freedom.
Instead of forcing every woman you see to tell you no, how about you don't assume they all want to talk to you? Why does your desire to chat someone up cancel out her wishes not to be hit on at a computer hacker convention?
Asked and answered, several days ago. You even responded to it. If there are advances to be made, it is traditional in our society for the men to make them. He cannot know she is not receptive to them until she tells him so. You appear to be of the opinion that a "computer hacker convention" is not a place for sexual advances, which is rather odd; conventions are not just occasions where people go to see papers presented, they are also social occasions where like-minded people can gather together.
Slashdot Mirror
Right. "Freedom requires responsibility" is a meme authoritarians came up with the undermine freedom; you'd think it would be obvious, as "responsibility" always ends up meaning "do what we say", but a lot of people are taken in.
You have the freedom to speak, and the responsibility not to speak against the government (or not to say something which might upset The Children, or teach them something not correct). You have freedom of religion, and the responsibility to make it the right religion. You have the right to keep and bear arms, and the responsibility to limit this to single-shot muzzle loaders kept at an approved range. You have the right to deny soldiers the use of your home, but wouldn't it be irresponsible and unpatriotic to do so? You have the right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure; but your responsibility to prevent terrorism requires you to assume the position.
So who does own the bits of rust on my spinning disk which happen to embody a copy of the ebook? If it's in flash, does each cell have an owner depending on which ebook resides there?
That's a lot of extrapolation from a single data point.
But private performance (i.e. "playing" the music to an audience consisting only of one's family and/or "social circle") is not one of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder. So from whence did this "license to play" derive?
The place you're going is more into accordions than harps.
I own the damned copy. Ownership of a copy is recognized in copyright law, and a separate thing from ownership of the copyright or a license to any of the rights which make up copyright. A lot of publishers attempt to claim you don't even own the copy, some convincingly (e.g. a rental DVD), some rather less so (e.g. a product with an EULA printed within the packaging of a product you bought from a middleman.)
They claim they have found blood samples which are '"fully consistent" with doping'. Now, if you have a doping technique which doesn't produce a detectable signature, ANY blood sample will be consistent with doping (it will also be consistent with not doping). They're being cagey, and that makes me mistrustful.
(I think Armstrong's guilty, but I think USADA ought to have to prove it)
You say "grow up", I say "ossify". Assuming it doesn't simply "vanish".
If he's the unstable sort, I can think of much more productive things he can do instead of (or before) committing suicide.
However, despite what other posters have said, the judgement is likely dischargeable in bankruptcy. So it'll only ruin his life for another 10 years.
It's really time for lovers of over-regulation (including regulation through overbroad liability) to consider the consequences of their actions.
He's not, however, responsible if someone dynamites the bridge, deliberately overloads it, or commits other malicious acts designed to destroy it. So what's being proposed goes beyond even what is required for traditional engineering disciplines.
The hacks and talent-free people have built everything in the field. Get rid of us and you've got nothing. You really think you're going to attract actual talent by requiring someone to have a degree plus 16 years of experience before they can work independently (that's a Texas requirement for a professional software engineer; Texas is one of the few states that licenses such)? How many actual talented software developers do you know who would put up with the amount of paperwork required to do work in such a discipline?
All you'd actually accomplish is to bring the field to a screeching halt.
Lubarsky's law -- "There's always one more bug" -- dates back to at least the 1970s.
Nope. Smeed's law predicts 70,600 motor vehicle deaths for the US in 1994 (population 260,327,000, registered vehicles 192,497,000). There were 36,254. Smeed's law predicts 87301 deaths for 2010 (population 309,350,000, registered vehicles 257,515,000). There were 30196.
It was drop dead obvious that talking on the phone isn't vastly more dangerous than not doing so. It's so prevalent that a "vast" difference in danger would have been clearly reflected in the overall accident statistics.... and it hasn't been. Not that this stopped anyone in the mainstream from hyping the studies.
One of the earlier studies determined if someone was on the cell phone by comparing cell phone billing records with police records of the accident time. Cell phone time data is GPS based and accurate to fractions of a second. Police records are based on when the officer looked at his watch.
A class III medical device (e.g. a pacemaker) might go through such verification (or perhaps not; I have no idea) A class II device (which a heart rate monitor might be) won't. Believe me, I've worked on medical visualization workstations and no one from the FDA was looking at the code. Nor was any formal code verification of any kind done. Nor was any certification on my part required.
There are a ton of non-iPhone heart-rate monitors being sold (mostly for fitness training), and I'd be willing to bet that almost none of them have medical device certification. Eventually the FDA may make a move on them... but aside from expanding the FDAs own power, what good would it really do?
Imagine you are a bee, or a hummingbird. There are all these delicious flower full of yummy nectar... but around them is this icky, nasty, yellow pollen. The flower needs the pollen to be carried around to propagate the species... but you still don't want to get plant jism all over yourself. So you develop strategies to get the nectar without getting pollen on you. The plant, in turn develops strategies to get more pollen on you while not wasting as much precious nectar. No morality about it, it's just nature.
(For the slow: the user is the bird or bee, the flower is the content provider, the nectar is the content, and the pollen is the advertisement.)
The company was insolvent. The investors were losing everything no matter what happened. It's not like the company was making money and he managed to screw the small equity holders out of it.
Would you care to spell out exactly what the problem is, or do you just want to rage incoherently?
MPAA v. 2600 made a legal distinction between those two. An actual link can be infringement, the text version of the link without html directives are not. Go figure.
I checked your papers, and it appears they started from the conclusion and rationalized their way back to the data.
Simple enough: The previous poster is wrong, Mike Judge is right, and intelligence is inheritable, though not 100%. As for the previous poster's claim of being an intelligent child of stupid parents, I can think of a few options
1) Hybrid vigor: Managed to get a good combination out of a poor but not hopeless set of genes.
2) Adoption.
3) Infidelity -- just because the real daddy was a snake doesn't mean he was stupid.
4) Poor opinion of parents not borne out by reality.
5) Parents had genetics for intelligence but were hindered by environment (e.g. poor childhood nutrition)
As it turns out, it was the answer to a question:
Question from press briefing
So some reporter asked a loaded question (implying the US had an OAS commitment to recognize diplomatic asylum), and this is a correction.
The case of Cardinal Mindszenty, which many are bringing up, is one where the Communist Hungarian government did not in fact recognize diplomatic asylum; Mindszenty was stuck in the US embassy for 15 years until the Hungarians relented.
It mostly worked for the Romanovs for 300 years, so it's not without precedent. I don't think Putin can make it work, though. And perhaps he doesn't care what happens to Russia after he dies.
In the US? They'd probably get charged with trespassing and/or disturbing the peace, and either the charges would be dropped or they'd be released with a fine and time served.
However, the US doesn't have a state church, so it's not really a good parallel.
It's not that he misunderstands. It's that he disagrees. As far as he's concerned, an "orderly transition" means he rules until he dies, and then his picked successor rules until he dies, ad infinitum. It's worked for long periods of time, though usually in hereditary monarchies.
And Kasparov is exactly right about Obama's comments about the sentence being "disproportionate". If Obama wanted to be "hands off", there should have been no comment at all. That would have been craven, but by saying the sentence was disproportionate Obama is endorsing the conviction, which is worse. Hell of a day when a man born in the Soviet Union correctly lectures the US President on freedom.
Asked and answered, several days ago. You even responded to it. If there are advances to be made, it is traditional in our society for the men to make them. He cannot know she is not receptive to them until she tells him so. You appear to be of the opinion that a "computer hacker convention" is not a place for sexual advances, which is rather odd; conventions are not just occasions where people go to see papers presented, they are also social occasions where like-minded people can gather together.