And then, there is the opposite problem: Guys who are so deathly afraid of what others think of them, that they are some of the most boring people around. No doubt, some of them can be great employees as well, but too much blandness can also be considered a bad thing.
What I was also going to say is: If I was a counter-intelligence chief and particularly one in a country where the government could force their will internally easier than the US, and I was concerned about a device being used to spy, I'd push to have the device banned. We'd work to get rid of them and run public education campaigns letting people know that they could be spied on using them.
This is actually what France did three years ago, not that this worked very well. Some French officials (and heads of companies) are still using their Blackberries in secret, because the replacements the French government gave them didn't even work properly. Plus, there is also the problem of family members and mistresses using Blackberries. Those may not directly leak national/trade secrets, but they can leak information that could still be leveraged against the officials/CEOs they're connected to.
Your argument is silly. There is actually not one central authority that's in charge of issuing press passes. Press passes are just permission slips, they can be issued by a host of organizations, government agencies, companies, etc, for different jurisdictions, events, purposes, etc.
Many bloggers do get press passes (especially if their audience is large enough and the topic they specialize in is relevant enough). And many "real" journalists don't always get press passes (again, this is has to do with the size of their audience, the topic they tend to specialize in, and also whether or not they write articles that the powers that be liked).
If everyone who puts up a post about what they had for lunch is suddenly a journalist, then everyone will have those privileges.
This is a Strawman argument. No one has ever argued that, and no one will ever argue that. In South America for instance, there has been several documented court cases of bloggers risking their lives for bringing up important news that traditional journalists were just too afraid to publish through any of the more traditional outlets.
Part of the reason is that if you blog something of serious concern, you might put up your own life and your own family's life at risk, but if you publish something through a traditional newspaper, you're not just risking your own life, you're also risking the financial well-being of your newspaper, and you're risking the lives of all your co-workers and all their families as well. You can have a much smaller footprint as a blogger.
In fact in at least one case that I can remember in South America, a blogger won the same protection and privileges of a journalist, purely based on the content of what he was publishing. To the judge in question, based on the content of what the blogger was publishing (and no, he wasn't publishing what he "had for lunch" either), there was no doubt in the judge's mind that the blogger was providing a valuable public service for his country, risking his life for doing it, and as such deserved every protection a real journalist could get.
Then they are going to get taken away from everyone, including the real journalists.
To tell you the truth, if Wikileaks can't have those protections, I'd rather have not anything else get passed right now. The current laws will have to do for now (if that means Wikileaks can not be protected in any of the future laws, that will mean the protection of Cheney/Lewis "Scooter" Libby as anonymous sources for classified CIA materials will have to wait as well).
Imagine having a base station where you have to require a partition for the source.
Are you saying that posting the source code on github or posting it on their asterisks server wouldn't qualify??? Are we both even reading the same license, because it doesn't seem like we are. Please tell me which key paragraph/phrase I've missed, assuming I'm the one who's read the license incorrectly.
Or people with broken cell phones saying you're not providing an equal opportunity to download the software source.
Now, I know you're just joking. You really have to work on your humor, a few of the mods actually took your post at face value.
Couldn't they just have said it Slashdot style? The people being photographed at Burning Man own the copyright of their own image. And please, since we can not determine who is sober and who is not during the event, for any non-personal publication of those photographs, do not make anyone sign any model release form until well after the event has ended. Get their email address, or contact information instead.
The problem is that, of all the economic growth over the last thirty years or so, almost all of it has gone to the top one percent.
A similar problem occurs if we just compare physical performance results between couch potatoes and Olympic athletes. As the number of options, both good and bad, increases for everyone in our modern society. It only makes sense that this gap in outcomes of performance would widen over time.
And the real problem may be the expectation that an equality of outcomes should be maintained all the time. By the way, I also disagree with the bank bailout (so I think we're in agreement there). No bank is too big too fail in my book. In fact, for this system to work, we must allow for the failures of banks (that were too big to succeed) for them to be broken up and recycled back into the system.
who was actually correct about the facts of the matter?
sight unseen, i bet Wikipedia.
Yes, but the lawyer could just have had someone change the content of the Wikipedia article itself. It wouldn't have really mattered if a couple of hours later, someone had reverted the change back to its correct form. The damage would have been done.
Not that this happened in this case, but if the court did start accepting evidence from "Wikipedia", it would also make the incentive that much stronger for paid shills to falsify Wikipedia entries. And just imagine what happened with Comcast and its paid shills in real life, if a company like Comcast can bus in one hundred shills to preemptively occupy all of the seats in an FCC hearing on 'net neutrality' 90 minutes before it even starts, imagine what such a company could do if it had hired one hundred people (from god knows where on the internet) to make sure one phrase in a relatively obscure Wikipedia article stays incorrect for a certain period of time.
Since this license doesn't force the publication/inclusion of the source code with the binary, couldn't he just have used an Attribution-NonCommercial Creative Commons License??? Of course, that Creative Commons License doesn't include the YELLING-AT-YOU indemnification clause, but may be that clause should be rewritten anyway, he forgot to include the standard iTunes app store clause: You shall not use my app for the "development, design, manufacture or production of missiles, or nuclear, chemical or biological weapons."
Ok, how many "violations" have these scanners found that could be linked to something serious.
No doubt at least one, child pornography, since they chose not to test these x-ray vans on themselves, but on random samples of the general population instead. It's a very high probability that they've essentially strip-searched, recorded, and taken naked unauthorized snapshots of a number of random children.
This program must have been the bright idea of another Mark Foley pervert.
Perhaps they could be countered by emitting an EM burst or EMP in the direction X-rays were detected in.
No need to get so fancy. Just make me a cheap small device that can alert and detect accurately when an anonymous truck has a powered X-ray machine pointed at me, and I'll be sure to supply my own shot-gun.
PS: To the FBI, this is not a threat, unless you choose to come at me with such a device in my backyard or on the road without a warrant and without probable cause. Having such devices at airports, ports, and border control, I may not like, but I can accept those, especially since those locations are clearly marked. It's the places where you guys have no business scanning, with X-ray trucks that have no clear X-ray "Hey we're scanning you" markings, which in my opinion completely crosses my personal line in the sand.
No, they just want their emails/texts to stop being routed through the NSA's white-anglo Echelon program, they're just too afraid to say it openly. In 2007, France wasn't that shy about their complaints against RIM, the French government asserted that the US/UK/Canadian/Australian spying coalition was obtaining French corporate trade secrets that it could only have gotten through the RIM network (and considering the interesting anecdotes of the French leaking false information everywhere like the false plans of their planes and helicopters to everybody and their mother, it's not that far fetched to assume that (1) their claims against RIM are also completely made up (may be that's what they do, they're compulsive liars?) and they're trying to damage an Anglo-Canadian company or (2) that they identified the RIM leak by leaking easily identifiable false information through there as well and that's why they believe that the leak came from there.
So considering those two equally possible scenarios, and the fact that the European Union has also taken the prudent approach of also believing France's claims, it may also be prudent for other countries (that the US is also interested in) to also turn off all the traffic that gets unnecessarily routed through RIM's own proprietary servers on UK/US/Canadian/Australian soil (after all, phones like Nokia and Android can also do very strong end-to-end encryption, but it's not like those platforms force their traffic to go through any hub in particular). On those platforms, you're not forced to use gmail's/sms servers if you don't want to, and you're not forced to use Ovi/Nokia's mail/sms servers if you don't want to. And the same goes with the iPhone, the instant an SMS/email leaves your iPhone it's not absolutely necessary that it gets routed through Apple's own proprietary servers (just like for every email that leaves your Windows-powered computer, it's not absolutely necessary that all those emails go through Microsoft's proprietary servers either).
How is the FTC actually able to deduce which are from a firm and which are legit anyway?
I think they're going for the low hanging fruits first, many of which will be some of the worst offenders. Disgruntled former employees will be their primary source of information. And I'm guessing there will be a good number of them since this is not going to be a good job for anyone to have. The next ring down would be stupid PR firms that either brag/advertise what they're doing, or post suspect reviews from an ip address block that can easily be traced back to them.
After that, I think it will be in the hands of the web sites/app stores themselves. For instance, Amazon has a verified real person flag for customer reviews. The next step would be to flag who amongst the reviewers, has officially paid for the merchandise/books/apps in question that they're reviewing. There is no need to prevent anonymous reviewers or unverified reviewers from posting reviews, for me just flagging them and giving me a way to filter out those reviews (should I need to) would be enough a precise moment in time.
I suspect that if once Yelp/Amazon/App Store get bad enough, another better system will come along that's more trustworthy (at least for a short time) and will slowly siphon away many of their customers away. Which brings me to my last point, no system is perfect, no system is game-proof, it just needs to be good enough and slightly better than other potential alternatives.
Here is a 15 second clip of the most recent prototype. From the looks of it, it just seems they're about halfway done. A billion dollars in R&D should easily get them higher clearances.
After all, if your expensive replacable-ink-cartridge pen fails to operate it must be defective, no matter what sort of ink cartridge is used, right? The fact that the printer might be a little bit more complicated and have different tolerences would never occur to most people. It certainly would not occur to most attorneys.
[citation needed]
Please cite just one instance of where a manufacturer was found legally liable for a knock off one of its competitors made.
That's right. I don't think you can. Besides, if the knock off manufacturer upstream is unreachable, the store that sold you the defective cartridge is the one that's on the hook legally. That's one of the reasons you should never buy ink cartridges from a guy who sells ink cartridges from the back of his car, or that you should never buy an ink cartridge from an online store that you've never heard off before and that's most likely a fly-by-night operation.
However, open source hasn't been a serious (as in market share) competitor in the areas where Microsoft traditionally makes most of its money.
What about SQL Server? A traditional cash cow for Microsoft. A license for SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition used to cost $10,000. When SQL Server 2005 came out, it was more like a couple of hundred dollars for SQL Server 2005 for the Workgroup Edition (which is really just as good as the Standard Edition used to be).
In the Windows-based web Startup I used to work for, the cost of adding new Windows servers (with all the requisite licenses for the proprietary software we were using) became increasingly worrisome for us. When our competitor's traffic grew, they just added linux boxes. For us when our traffic grew, our expenses just kept on growing linearly just in licensing costs.
This is not to say that Microsoft lost significant marketshare, I honestly don't know if they did, but at least, I'm pretty sure that they lost revenue by selling their brand new versions of existing software for pennies on the dollar. And this change in pricing structure is not isolated just to SQL Server either. For almost every Microsoft product out there, there is at least one or more open source alternatives.
And in a startup, or even in a large corporation that's not doing too well, IT is looking to cut costs whatever way they can. It doesn't mean that they have to switch to open source software to save money, for Microsoft just the implied threat that their customers might switch to open source software is enough to make them slash their prices down to almost nothing.
This being LA and this being a showcase school, they might be going for the Bay Watch-Big Brother look. The pool will have lifeguards who can't swim, but that come with their own silicon flotation devices. All the high school students will be at least 30 years old, and there will be cameras in the pool, cameras in the changing rooms, basically cameras everywhere.
Suddenly, the California residents who don't want to have electric smart-meters (that report their electricity remotely in real-time) don't seem to be overly paranoid anymore. Since electricity is also a government subsidized commodity, it's just a matter of time before we have inspectors with fining authority control us in real-time in that area as well.
Yeah, I think Pvt Manning was moved recently. This is not to say that your main point isn't valid. It was certainly peculiar that an American soldier and an American citizen was held in Kuwait for so long. He was most likely tortured for a very long time over there.
Slashdot Mirror
When the market changes, and most people are viewing the sites on mobile devices, it'll make sense to change.
Speak for yourself, that video plays just fine on my HTC 4G Evo.
And then, there is the opposite problem: Guys who are so deathly afraid of what others think of them, that they are some of the most boring people around. No doubt, some of them can be great employees as well, but too much blandness can also be considered a bad thing.
What I was also going to say is: If I was a counter-intelligence chief and particularly one in a country where the government could force their will internally easier than the US, and I was concerned about a device being used to spy, I'd push to have the device banned. We'd work to get rid of them and run public education campaigns letting people know that they could be spied on using them.
This is actually what France did three years ago, not that this worked very well. Some French officials (and heads of companies) are still using their Blackberries in secret, because the replacements the French government gave them didn't even work properly. Plus, there is also the problem of family members and mistresses using Blackberries. Those may not directly leak national/trade secrets, but they can leak information that could still be leveraged against the officials/CEOs they're connected to.
Google is giving out free ice cream! Where do I sign-up???
Your argument is silly. There is actually not one central authority that's in charge of issuing press passes. Press passes are just permission slips, they can be issued by a host of organizations, government agencies, companies, etc, for different jurisdictions, events, purposes, etc.
Many bloggers do get press passes (especially if their audience is large enough and the topic they specialize in is relevant enough). And many "real" journalists don't always get press passes (again, this is has to do with the size of their audience, the topic they tend to specialize in, and also whether or not they write articles that the powers that be liked).
Now you just have to make it rhyme and post it on Youtube. You have a good chance of getting the popular vote at least!!
If everyone who puts up a post about what they had for lunch is suddenly a journalist, then everyone will have those privileges.
This is a Strawman argument. No one has ever argued that, and no one will ever argue that. In South America for instance, there has been several documented court cases of bloggers risking their lives for bringing up important news that traditional journalists were just too afraid to publish through any of the more traditional outlets.
Part of the reason is that if you blog something of serious concern, you might put up your own life and your own family's life at risk, but if you publish something through a traditional newspaper, you're not just risking your own life, you're also risking the financial well-being of your newspaper, and you're risking the lives of all your co-workers and all their families as well. You can have a much smaller footprint as a blogger.
In fact in at least one case that I can remember in South America, a blogger won the same protection and privileges of a journalist, purely based on the content of what he was publishing. To the judge in question, based on the content of what the blogger was publishing (and no, he wasn't publishing what he "had for lunch" either), there was no doubt in the judge's mind that the blogger was providing a valuable public service for his country, risking his life for doing it, and as such deserved every protection a real journalist could get.
Then they are going to get taken away from everyone, including the real journalists.
To tell you the truth, if Wikileaks can't have those protections, I'd rather have not anything else get passed right now. The current laws will have to do for now (if that means Wikileaks can not be protected in any of the future laws, that will mean the protection of Cheney/Lewis "Scooter" Libby as anonymous sources for classified CIA materials will have to wait as well).
Imagine having a base station where you have to require a partition for the source.
Are you saying that posting the source code on github or posting it on their asterisks server wouldn't qualify??? Are we both even reading the same license, because it doesn't seem like we are. Please tell me which key paragraph/phrase I've missed, assuming I'm the one who's read the license incorrectly.
Or people with broken cell phones saying you're not providing an equal opportunity to download the software source.
Now, I know you're just joking. You really have to work on your humor, a few of the mods actually took your post at face value.
Couldn't they just have said it Slashdot style? The people being photographed at Burning Man own the copyright of their own image. And please, since we can not determine who is sober and who is not during the event, for any non-personal publication of those photographs, do not make anyone sign any model release form until well after the event has ended. Get their email address, or contact information instead.
The problem is that, of all the economic growth over the last thirty years or so, almost all of it has gone to the top one percent.
A similar problem occurs if we just compare physical performance results between couch potatoes and Olympic athletes. As the number of options, both good and bad, increases for everyone in our modern society. It only makes sense that this gap in outcomes of performance would widen over time.
And the real problem may be the expectation that an equality of outcomes should be maintained all the time. By the way, I also disagree with the bank bailout (so I think we're in agreement there). No bank is too big too fail in my book. In fact, for this system to work, we must allow for the failures of banks (that were too big to succeed) for them to be broken up and recycled back into the system.
Those old Graflex are so bright, are you sure you're just not using them for deer-hunting??
who was actually correct about the facts of the matter? sight unseen, i bet Wikipedia.
Yes, but the lawyer could just have had someone change the content of the Wikipedia article itself. It wouldn't have really mattered if a couple of hours later, someone had reverted the change back to its correct form. The damage would have been done.
Not that this happened in this case, but if the court did start accepting evidence from "Wikipedia", it would also make the incentive that much stronger for paid shills to falsify Wikipedia entries. And just imagine what happened with Comcast and its paid shills in real life, if a company like Comcast can bus in one hundred shills to preemptively occupy all of the seats in an FCC hearing on 'net neutrality' 90 minutes before it even starts, imagine what such a company could do if it had hired one hundred people (from god knows where on the internet) to make sure one phrase in a relatively obscure Wikipedia article stays incorrect for a certain period of time.
Since this license doesn't force the publication/inclusion of the source code with the binary, couldn't he just have used an Attribution-NonCommercial Creative Commons License??? Of course, that Creative Commons License doesn't include the YELLING-AT-YOU indemnification clause, but may be that clause should be rewritten anyway, he forgot to include the standard iTunes app store clause: You shall not use my app for the "development, design, manufacture or production of missiles, or nuclear, chemical or biological weapons."
Ok, how many "violations" have these scanners found that could be linked to something serious.
No doubt at least one, child pornography, since they chose not to test these x-ray vans on themselves, but on random samples of the general population instead. It's a very high probability that they've essentially strip-searched, recorded, and taken naked unauthorized snapshots of a number of random children.
This program must have been the bright idea of another Mark Foley pervert.
Perhaps they could be countered by emitting an EM burst or EMP in the direction X-rays were detected in.
No need to get so fancy. Just make me a cheap small device that can alert and detect accurately when an anonymous truck has a powered X-ray machine pointed at me, and I'll be sure to supply my own shot-gun.
PS: To the FBI, this is not a threat, unless you choose to come at me with such a device in my backyard or on the road without a warrant and without probable cause. Having such devices at airports, ports, and border control, I may not like, but I can accept those, especially since those locations are clearly marked. It's the places where you guys have no business scanning, with X-ray trucks that have no clear X-ray "Hey we're scanning you" markings, which in my opinion completely crosses my personal line in the sand.
No, they just want their emails/texts to stop being routed through the NSA's white-anglo Echelon program, they're just too afraid to say it openly. In 2007, France wasn't that shy about their complaints against RIM, the French government asserted that the US/UK/Canadian/Australian spying coalition was obtaining French corporate trade secrets that it could only have gotten through the RIM network (and considering the interesting anecdotes of the French leaking false information everywhere like the false plans of their planes and helicopters to everybody and their mother, it's not that far fetched to assume that (1) their claims against RIM are also completely made up (may be that's what they do, they're compulsive liars?) and they're trying to damage an Anglo-Canadian company or (2) that they identified the RIM leak by leaking easily identifiable false information through there as well and that's why they believe that the leak came from there.
So considering those two equally possible scenarios, and the fact that the European Union has also taken the prudent approach of also believing France's claims, it may also be prudent for other countries (that the US is also interested in) to also turn off all the traffic that gets unnecessarily routed through RIM's own proprietary servers on UK/US/Canadian/Australian soil (after all, phones like Nokia and Android can also do very strong end-to-end encryption, but it's not like those platforms force their traffic to go through any hub in particular). On those platforms, you're not forced to use gmail's/sms servers if you don't want to, and you're not forced to use Ovi/Nokia's mail/sms servers if you don't want to. And the same goes with the iPhone, the instant an SMS/email leaves your iPhone it's not absolutely necessary that it gets routed through Apple's own proprietary servers (just like for every email that leaves your Windows-powered computer, it's not absolutely necessary that all those emails go through Microsoft's proprietary servers either).
How is the FTC actually able to deduce which are from a firm and which are legit anyway?
I think they're going for the low hanging fruits first, many of which will be some of the worst offenders. Disgruntled former employees will be their primary source of information. And I'm guessing there will be a good number of them since this is not going to be a good job for anyone to have. The next ring down would be stupid PR firms that either brag/advertise what they're doing, or post suspect reviews from an ip address block that can easily be traced back to them.
After that, I think it will be in the hands of the web sites/app stores themselves. For instance, Amazon has a verified real person flag for customer reviews. The next step would be to flag who amongst the reviewers, has officially paid for the merchandise/books/apps in question that they're reviewing. There is no need to prevent anonymous reviewers or unverified reviewers from posting reviews, for me just flagging them and giving me a way to filter out those reviews (should I need to) would be enough a precise moment in time.
I suspect that if once Yelp/Amazon/App Store get bad enough, another better system will come along that's more trustworthy (at least for a short time) and will slowly siphon away many of their customers away. Which brings me to my last point, no system is perfect, no system is game-proof, it just needs to be good enough and slightly better than other potential alternatives.
Perhaps Garmin should also issue a software update that diverts drivers to their nearest fire station?
Lamest joke ever.
Here is a 15 second clip of the most recent prototype. From the looks of it, it just seems they're about halfway done. A billion dollars in R&D should easily get them higher clearances.
After all, if your expensive replacable-ink-cartridge pen fails to operate it must be defective, no matter what sort of ink cartridge is used, right? The fact that the printer might be a little bit more complicated and have different tolerences would never occur to most people. It certainly would not occur to most attorneys.
[citation needed]
Please cite just one instance of where a manufacturer was found legally liable for a knock off one of its competitors made.
That's right. I don't think you can. Besides, if the knock off manufacturer upstream is unreachable, the store that sold you the defective cartridge is the one that's on the hook legally. That's one of the reasons you should never buy ink cartridges from a guy who sells ink cartridges from the back of his car, or that you should never buy an ink cartridge from an online store that you've never heard off before and that's most likely a fly-by-night operation.
However, open source hasn't been a serious (as in market share) competitor in the areas where Microsoft traditionally makes most of its money.
What about SQL Server? A traditional cash cow for Microsoft. A license for SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition used to cost $10,000. When SQL Server 2005 came out, it was more like a couple of hundred dollars for SQL Server 2005 for the Workgroup Edition (which is really just as good as the Standard Edition used to be).
In the Windows-based web Startup I used to work for, the cost of adding new Windows servers (with all the requisite licenses for the proprietary software we were using) became increasingly worrisome for us. When our competitor's traffic grew, they just added linux boxes. For us when our traffic grew, our expenses just kept on growing linearly just in licensing costs.
This is not to say that Microsoft lost significant marketshare, I honestly don't know if they did, but at least, I'm pretty sure that they lost revenue by selling their brand new versions of existing software for pennies on the dollar. And this change in pricing structure is not isolated just to SQL Server either. For almost every Microsoft product out there, there is at least one or more open source alternatives.
And in a startup, or even in a large corporation that's not doing too well, IT is looking to cut costs whatever way they can. It doesn't mean that they have to switch to open source software to save money, for Microsoft just the implied threat that their customers might switch to open source software is enough to make them slash their prices down to almost nothing.
This being LA and this being a showcase school, they might be going for the Bay Watch-Big Brother look. The pool will have lifeguards who can't swim, but that come with their own silicon flotation devices. All the high school students will be at least 30 years old, and there will be cameras in the pool, cameras in the changing rooms, basically cameras everywhere.
1. First they ignore you
2. then they laugh at you,
3. then they fight you,
4. then you quote Gandhi
5. ???
6. Karma!
Suddenly, the California residents who don't want to have electric smart-meters (that report their electricity remotely in real-time) don't seem to be overly paranoid anymore. Since electricity is also a government subsidized commodity, it's just a matter of time before we have inspectors with fining authority control us in real-time in that area as well.
Yeah, I think Pvt Manning was moved recently. This is not to say that your main point isn't valid. It was certainly peculiar that an American soldier and an American citizen was held in Kuwait for so long. He was most likely tortured for a very long time over there.