However, you can't. Your idea just will lead to them getting SOPA in one form or another. You have to put something out there to mitigate the piracy issue. You have to at the very least show good faith here. If you don't do that then you've effectively shown bad faith and at that point your ability to influence the situation will be limited.
Good faith? With these guys? The ones who tried to ban the VCR? The ones who tried to ban the MP3 player? I said in a prior post that any sort of compromise would only lead them to demand another compromise, starting from the new status quo. That wasn't a guess: That's the situation we're in. The DMCA was supposed to have been that compromise. They've already demonstrated bad faith by coming back and demanding more.
So companies cannot monitor employees e-mail usage. That is unfair and violate their privacy.
In the US, companies can monitor employee e-mail usage. I don't know about Brazil.
Companies cannot stop employees from using the company e-mail for personal things. That would be unfair.
Companies in the US can prohibit employees from using the company email for personal things. Whether they can stop it is a different matter.
It is also interesting that, in Brazil, you have to pay the employee for overtime even if it was UNAUTHORIZED. Even if the company has a policy in place that authorization is needed. Since (according mostly to unions), authorized or not, the company benefited from it.
This is also true in the US; it's to avoid the obvious dodge of having overtime explicitly unauthorized but implicitly required. The employer must enforce any policy against overtime.
- Capable of refraining from telling co-workers that they're fucking inbred morons who would benefit from a course in remedial keyboarding, and that if they ever check in shit like that again that they'll discover that it is, in fact, possible to insert a 23 inch monitor into an arbitrary orifices.
The problem wasn't that you put that on your resume. It's that when we checked your references we found out you were demonstrably _not_ capable of so refraining.
Your solution of dispensing with copyrights entirely is about as practical as responding a debate by covering yourself in whip cream and then singing the thong song.
I guess it makes sense to you... but to everyone else it just looks like you went crazy and started wigging out.
Of course it's extreme. But so is what the other side is offering.
It's also a strawman to say I have advocated we forge our own bonds. Rather we have to come up with some legislation that solves the piracy issue in a constructive way that also respects our rights.
No such solution exists. We have devices which can create copies at the push of the button. We have a system which can transmit copies -- of any sort of information -- around the world almost as easily. Under such circumstances, "solving" the problem of preventing reproduction and distribution of certain material simply cannot be done, not without taking away those devices, breaking that system, and destroying our rights.
There has to be some kind of compromise you're willing to offer.
Perhaps. But if we're going to play the compromise game, we shouldn't start compromising between the status quo and their position. We should start compromising between what we want and what they want. Because if we "compromise" today and offer them something which takes only half as many rights, you know what happens? Piracy won't be stopped. Next year, they'll be screaming for even more extreme legislation, and get another compromise -- starting from the status quo.
This is a warning. We have to come up with competing systems to address the problem.
So we're going to put the chains on ourselves, or they'll put them on us? Sorry, I refuse to fashion my own bonds, even if they'd be laxer than the ones they'll come up with.
It's very important that the EFF amongst others come up with some alternative... Or we're boned.
Here's an alternative: "Title 17 of the United States Code is hereby repealed in its entirety." No more copyright, no more piracy.
What's actually going to happen, though, is either SOPA/PIPA will be tabled or they'll pass a slightly watered-down version. Then in the lame duck session they'll pass what remains.
It's the ones screaming "genocide" (about the US, usually) who don't understand the word. The invasion of Iraq, particularly, was by no means "genocide".
Just watch out for cases where it's constructively required. Cases where it's entirely 'optional' except that you go to the top of the layoff list if you don't.
Doesn't matter; in the US even if the work is 'optional' you have to be paid for it if you're non-exempt, if the employer knew or had reason to believe you were doing it.
Unfortunately, as I understand it phones/tablets don't have a nice seperation between the OS and the code which manages the cellular and wifi radios.
You understand incorrectly. For various reasons, the cellular radios are nearly always separate processors with separate firmware; they often talk with the main processor of the devices through a dedicated serial port using AT commands. The WiFi firmware may or may not be separate, but that's so on PCs as well.
You're being obtuse. The point here is that MS is strongarming hardware manufacturers to develop devices that only work with Windows. The reality here is that there almost certainly won't be tablets released with Android to go along side the ones that have Win 8 on them.
True. And it'll be largely because Microsoft will demand payments based on total volume of tablets shipped, not total volume of tablets shipped with Win8 installed. That's Microsoft's M.O., after all.
While i can understand kicking a person when he is down[dead] is disrespectful, you do not find the ultimate choice of taking his life even more disrespectful?
Someone who is threatening my life forfeits the obligation on my part to respect theirs. Your question simply amounts to "are you a pacifist", and my answer is "no".
America intervened at Vietnam and look how that turned out.
Hmm. US intervenes in Vietnam, Vietnam gets a totalitarian Communist government. Had the US failed to intervene, Vietnam would have gotten... oh, right, a totalitarian Communist government. Korea at least turned out half-better.
Startrek had it right and what the USA needs to do is replace their first amendment with the prime directive.
More honored in the breach than the observance on the original Star Trek.
Besides, earbuds, even crappy ones, are sealed to the ear canal and consequently very quiet to anyone else.
No, they aren't. A tinny version of the music comes out the back of the earbud and is quite audible to anyone nearby in a quiet room. This may or may not be true with decent earbuds, it is most certainly true with crappy ones.
How can you tell a kid it is ok to kill the guy pointing a gun at you. But you need to respect the body of the guy who wanted you dead? While it is disgusting, i find the killing far more disgusting then the pissing on the body.
Simple enough; the guy pointing a gun at you is a threat to your life. The dead body is not a threat to anyone. I realize that as a pacifist you don't believe that a threat to your life is worth killing over, but you still ought to be able to intellectually recognize the distinction.
And then I put some music on to drown out the annoying hum of your music. Where will it end?
When everyone gets some decent headphones (not crappy earbuds) which don't subject those nearby to the music being listened to. This is one problem which really does have a technical solution.
Who is responsible for being so fair to workers? We'd never get that here (meaning US.)
It's already law in the US, for non-exempt employees. If you're required to respond to emails, the time you spend responding to them count as "hours worked".
29 C.F.R 785.12: "The rule is also applicable to work performed away from the premises or the job site, or even at home. If the employer knows or has reason to believe that the work is being performed, he must count the time as hours worked."
the truth of the matter is that without extensive government assistance, most of these individuals will never see a place they can call their own due to numerous social and political issues of inequality they are so divorced from affecting.
Has damn little to do with "social and political issues of inequality" and a whole lot due to drugs, alcohol, and insan..excuse me, "serious mental illness". Usually more than one of the three.
The family of the student in this story are exceptions (though there's probably quite a few like them around in this economy), but they're not among your "most", and they're not what people think of when they hear about homeless people.
Not really - I've run into too many coders that think "lean" code is the same as "terse code". They skip comments, compress loops into a single line or use all sorts of other tricks to compress code into a single line, etc. Anything they can do to make their code "lean". Which of course, makes their code write-only.
I love those guys. My specialty is reading such code. Granted, sometimes it's easier to compile it and read the resulting assembler listing...
Other countries? You've got to look at who would really have benefited from the failure. Who also caused the problems with other Mars explorers. Metric v. Imperial? A good excuse, but who managed to make sure the units weren't converted correctly? Who ensured that the "successful" Mars rovers landed on particularly uninteresting parts of the planet? There's really only one choice: The Martian Intelligence Service. Clearly they don't want us Earthlings to know what they're cooking up out there. Probably because it's some kind of world-destroying weapon poised to turn Earth into a second asteroid belt.
There's no reason to ban drunk-driving per se. Just treat the result as what it is, premeditated murder or assault or vandalism, depending on the accident's result. If no accident takes place, good for everyone.
If it depends on the result, it could never be "premeditated murder". It's reckless at worst. You could get a judge to go for "depraved indifference" based on current attitudes, but there's no way you could rationally support that.
Don't forget the Irish Governement are cheating scum, stealing taxes from other countries by basically charging half taxes on licensing revenues ie income generating from selling coypright content is only taxed at at half the rate income earned from other sources is.
This is like complaining that Exxon is "cheating scum" because it charges less for diesel than the Sunoco across the street.
Slashdot Mirror
Good faith? With these guys? The ones who tried to ban the VCR? The ones who tried to ban the MP3 player? I said in a prior post that any sort of compromise would only lead them to demand another compromise, starting from the new status quo. That wasn't a guess: That's the situation we're in. The DMCA was supposed to have been that compromise. They've already demonstrated bad faith by coming back and demanding more.
In the US, companies can monitor employee e-mail usage. I don't know about Brazil.
Companies in the US can prohibit employees from using the company email for personal things. Whether they can stop it is a different matter.
This is also true in the US; it's to avoid the obvious dodge of having overtime explicitly unauthorized but implicitly required. The employer must enforce any policy against overtime.
The problem wasn't that you put that on your resume. It's that when we checked your references we found out you were demonstrably _not_ capable of so refraining.
Of course it's extreme. But so is what the other side is offering.
No such solution exists. We have devices which can create copies at the push of the button. We have a system which can transmit copies -- of any sort of information -- around the world almost as easily. Under such circumstances, "solving" the problem of preventing reproduction and distribution of certain material simply cannot be done, not without taking away those devices, breaking that system, and destroying our rights.
Perhaps. But if we're going to play the compromise game, we shouldn't start compromising between the status quo and their position. We should start compromising between what we want and what they want. Because if we "compromise" today and offer them something which takes only half as many rights, you know what happens? Piracy won't be stopped. Next year, they'll be screaming for even more extreme legislation, and get another compromise -- starting from the status quo.
So we're going to put the chains on ourselves, or they'll put them on us? Sorry, I refuse to fashion my own bonds, even if they'd be laxer than the ones they'll come up with.
Here's an alternative: "Title 17 of the United States Code is hereby repealed in its entirety." No more copyright, no more piracy.
What's actually going to happen, though, is either SOPA/PIPA will be tabled or they'll pass a slightly watered-down version. Then in the lame duck session they'll pass what remains.
It's the ones screaming "genocide" (about the US, usually) who don't understand the word. The invasion of Iraq, particularly, was by no means "genocide".
Doesn't matter; in the US even if the work is 'optional' you have to be paid for it if you're non-exempt, if the employer knew or had reason to believe you were doing it.
You understand incorrectly. For various reasons, the cellular radios are nearly always separate processors with separate firmware; they often talk with the main processor of the devices through a dedicated serial port using AT commands. The WiFi firmware may or may not be separate, but that's so on PCs as well.
True. And it'll be largely because Microsoft will demand payments based on total volume of tablets shipped, not total volume of tablets shipped with Win8 installed. That's Microsoft's M.O., after all.
Someone who is threatening my life forfeits the obligation on my part to respect theirs. Your question simply amounts to "are you a pacifist", and my answer is "no".
Hmm. US intervenes in Vietnam, Vietnam gets a totalitarian Communist government. Had the US failed to intervene, Vietnam would have gotten... oh, right, a totalitarian Communist government. Korea at least turned out half-better.
More honored in the breach than the observance on the original Star Trek.
No, they aren't. A tinny version of the music comes out the back of the earbud and is quite audible to anyone nearby in a quiet room. This may or may not be true with decent earbuds, it is most certainly true with crappy ones.
Simple enough; the guy pointing a gun at you is a threat to your life. The dead body is not a threat to anyone. I realize that as a pacifist you don't believe that a threat to your life is worth killing over, but you still ought to be able to intellectually recognize the distinction.
Preferably they shouldn't fear us, but should fear fucking with us.
When everyone gets some decent headphones (not crappy earbuds) which don't subject those nearby to the music being listened to. This is one problem which really does have a technical solution.
It's already law in the US, for non-exempt employees. If you're required to respond to emails, the time you spend responding to them count as "hours worked".
29 C.F.R 785.12: "The rule is also applicable to work performed away from the premises or the job site, or even at home. If the employer knows or has reason to believe that the work is being performed, he must count the time as hours worked."
Has damn little to do with "social and political issues of inequality" and a whole lot due to drugs, alcohol, and insan..excuse me, "serious mental illness". Usually more than one of the three.
The family of the student in this story are exceptions (though there's probably quite a few like them around in this economy), but they're not among your "most", and they're not what people think of when they hear about homeless people.
You prefer we make them live outside?
With opportunity to succeed comes opportunity to fail.
I love those guys. My specialty is reading such code. Granted, sometimes it's easier to compile it and read the resulting assembler listing...
The recognition that some people are better than others at certain tasks is not elitism, it is merely recognition of reality.
Elitism is the idea that those better people ought to rule over the other ones.
Other countries? You've got to look at who would really have benefited from the failure. Who also caused the problems with other Mars explorers. Metric v. Imperial? A good excuse, but who managed to make sure the units weren't converted correctly? Who ensured that the "successful" Mars rovers landed on particularly uninteresting parts of the planet? There's really only one choice: The Martian Intelligence Service. Clearly they don't want us Earthlings to know what they're cooking up out there. Probably because it's some kind of world-destroying weapon poised to turn Earth into a second asteroid belt.
Nope. They just patent the same thing again in a different context or a slight variant, and get another 20 years.
You should have bought one with the "non-exploding" feature. My first HDTV cost $3000, is over 5 years old and going strong.
If it depends on the result, it could never be "premeditated murder". It's reckless at worst. You could get a judge to go for "depraved indifference" based on current attitudes, but there's no way you could rationally support that.
This is like complaining that Exxon is "cheating scum" because it charges less for diesel than the Sunoco across the street.