So you punish the corporate executives and the general shareholders who, without inside information, had no capability to learn that the company was violating the law? Don't they take enough of a hit when the scandal emerges?
I'm a general shareholder of a lot of companies. Most of my retirement is based on it. While I try to invest (and hence limit my potential returns) by picking companies whose public policies I support, I have no ability to execute contracts or make policy decisions at any of them, including the one I work for.
How about your death penalty focus on the executives who either had a duty to know, or can be shown to have known about the crime, and then charge and punish them directly? Then prevent someone who used a company to cause a crime from receiving any financial benefit from that company again - all stocks, deferred earnings, and pension can be siphoned into a victim's fund or donated to charity.
If that means there aren't enough executives left to run the company, then the government can temporarily fill the gap. But this way the only people convicted of a crime are those that, you know, committed or abetted it.
That's like saying a cell phone isn't an off-the-shelf part because, before you get it, someone has to build the PCB, install the components and the shell, test it, package it in a box, and put it on a shelf for you.
It doesn't matter what happens in the factory if the product in the hands of the consumer is zero configuration.
I recently bought a new car that has bluetooth-supporting radio, I can pair my Nokia phone with it, and so can my friend with his Samsung phone. The thing can also import names to the hands-free operated phonebook using the SIM access profile.
Yeah, this has been trickling down through the car market for a few years. My 2005 can do the pairing and the phonebook, and with the car's voice command system I can just push a button then say "Call Home" or "Call Victor" or "Call CowboyNeal" and it finds and dials the number.
Also, with phones, bluetooth makes a bit more sense to me
Indeed. I don't need to use my car's mic/speaker system with my cell phone while the phone is 50 to 100 feet (or more) from the car, but I do want to squeeze as long of life out of my cell phone's battery as I can.
The same applies to my laptop's mouse, or my Wiimotes, or indeed anything else that I have that currently uses Bluetooth.
Mesh WiFi sounds good if it means I can leech WiFi off generous people acting as mobile bridges to their cell provider's unlimited data plan. But in terms of revolutionizing devices, it doesn't.
I realized halfway through the comments that all of the posts with anecdotes about never seeing someone with a laptop in a theater were from you. =p
In my case more than half the movies I see during a year are at festivals, so it's more of a regular need than exceptional circumstances. That's my anecdote.
I take my laptop regularly into the movie theater during film festivals, because I have it with me for the day for between screenings. Only when there's a big-budget Hollywood film are we ever ordered to put them in a car or check them at the front desk.
Same is true for my DSLR camera. That one I have to whip out during the Q&A, since it can take decent pictures without a flash so I can practice a hobby without being an ass (i.e. using a flash).
Apple, on the other hand, releases a product. Say, the iPod. They MIGHT fix bugs, eventually. Or not. They give you a few selectable options and NEVER, EVER add features. To get new features, you have to buy iPod 2.0 and throw away the old one.
Tell that to my iPod Touch, which has been upgraded from 1.x to 3.2.
Yeah, my parents had an old Beatles LP with a flexible OLED display on the sleeve. When you picked it up, touching the capacitive sensors would cause a "making of" video to start playing automatically.
It was rather annoying, really, when you just wanted to use the built-in wifi to look up the lyrics for the song playing on your RCA Victor.
So do like I did, find a discount electronics store, and buy another 15-year-old printer. I have an HP LaserJet 4M Plus, with a JetDirect card and a nearly-full toner cartridge, which I bought for $100 three years ago. I don't print much so I still haven't replaced the original toner, and it hangs directly off my home network and works with all machines (Ubuntu, Snow Leopard, XP).
We have a cheap color inkjet that came free with my last Mac, but I rarely use it since the ink is so expensive, it will probably break if used too much, and it hangs off my wife's XP machine so it's a bit of hassle to print to (have to turn her machine on and let it boot).
The moment however when the "law" becomes so complicated and ambiguous that it requires someone to "interpret it" (i.e. twist it to whatever whim of the moment is fanciful) the whole concept breaks. In short a society which needs lawyers, is by definition lawless, as "law" has morphed from the universal code of conduct to a byzantine, convoluted, religious scripture which requires a career priesthood to worship, massage, "interpret" and twist to the needs of whatever power caste is running the place at the time.
These two sentences contradict each other. When the law is simply enough to be read by anyone, it's vague enough to be interpreted differently by each reader, each judge, and each town. Specific law written in a common language is the only way to ensure consistency in the application of said law, and like any other specialty language the language of law requires someone trained in it to read it correctly.
I would add that preventing third-party contractors from using any pre-existing work to complete state projects would be prohibitively expensive, so prohibiting the using of FOSS or anything else under copyright wouldn't be feasable for taxpayers.
If the state hires a third party to create something for them, and the third party does so, does that thing enter the public domain automatically?
If yes, what if the government hired a third party to create a piece of software, and the third party utilized FOSS code to complete the project. Would citizens of the state then have the right to claim the FOSS code was in the public domain and use it as they saw fit?
If no, what prevents the government from hiring third-party contractors to do almost everything, then keeping most all of it under copyright. Note that this is basically the situation now.
The law, which needs to be changed, needs to be sufficiently nuanced so that substantively original works created for the government enter the public domain, but that preexisting works used by the government can retain independent rights.
Even this needs to be limited, though, to avoid things like private documents becoming law. I would think that the legal code and anything it refers to should by definition be in the public domain, but other documents utilized by the government could be free or under copyright based on the originator.
My wife's a psychologist and we have discussed such people. The answer to what it's like to be one is depressingly simple. They have no morals to trouble them at all; no conscience, no guilt. They're happy as if they had ethics and compassion.
There are people who are simply not like us; just not the same.
I think it comes down to a lack of empathy. Ethics and morals are derived from culture, but empathy is both cultural and instinctive. I wouldn't be surprised if some day they start linking both genetic markers and industrial chemicals found in pregnant women and babies to levels of empathy as an adult.
Of course it's not entirely instinctive. We have the ability to train ourselves (or be trained) to overcome a lot of our instincts. So someone born with empathy could become a "bad person" by convincing themselves that they aren't hurting anyone through their action, but they are helping provide more for their loved ones. Likewise, someone born with low empathy might never become a criminal, as society also applies fear (of the Law and/or eternal damnation) to keep people in line.
The early Ikea bulbs (bought 6-8 years ago) were totally shit. They were the first round of CFLs we bought, and almost every one has failed (with the rest an awful color at this point). Newer ones bought from Ikea have been better, but it's hard to tell that they're new and improved when they're labeled identically to the thing that screwed you once.
(This relates to the best description of "business ethics" I've heard: Ethical business requires that you balance the needs of and try to act in the best interest of your owners, employees and customers. Otherwise, in the long run, you will find yourself without capital, labor, or revenue. Thus, business ethics is about long term self-interest, not some kind of abstract altruism.
So something sort of like this then? (See graph on page four of the presentation.)
Or I can just go about my business knowing that communication during the normal course of commerce or idle chat is harmless when recorded. The only type of speech that could get me in trouble is the kind I can choose not to say.
With video, however, the opportunities for abuse are much, much greater, because it can more readily identify me and then correlate my mere presence, much less actions, with other video to create a larger database.
I can magically avoid detection on an audio tape by keeping my damn mouth shut.
I can't yet magically avoid detection on a video tape by turning invisible. And no, wearing a ski mask to avoid recognition isn't a reasonable alternative.
Slashdot Mirror
Disable and uninstall were there and working on day fucking 1 for my XP machines.
Anecdote.
Both are grayed out TODAY on my fully-patched XP work machine. Anecdote #2.
We cancel out.
So you punish the corporate executives and the general shareholders who, without inside information, had no capability to learn that the company was violating the law? Don't they take enough of a hit when the scandal emerges?
I'm a general shareholder of a lot of companies. Most of my retirement is based on it. While I try to invest (and hence limit my potential returns) by picking companies whose public policies I support, I have no ability to execute contracts or make policy decisions at any of them, including the one I work for.
How about your death penalty focus on the executives who either had a duty to know, or can be shown to have known about the crime, and then charge and punish them directly? Then prevent someone who used a company to cause a crime from receiving any financial benefit from that company again - all stocks, deferred earnings, and pension can be siphoned into a victim's fund or donated to charity.
If that means there aren't enough executives left to run the company, then the government can temporarily fill the gap. But this way the only people convicted of a crime are those that, you know, committed or abetted it.
That's like saying a cell phone isn't an off-the-shelf part because, before you get it, someone has to build the PCB, install the components and the shell, test it, package it in a box, and put it on a shelf for you.
It doesn't matter what happens in the factory if the product in the hands of the consumer is zero configuration.
I recently bought a new car that has bluetooth-supporting radio, I can pair my Nokia phone with it, and so can my friend with his Samsung phone. The thing can also import names to the hands-free operated phonebook using the SIM access profile.
Yeah, this has been trickling down through the car market for a few years. My 2005 can do the pairing and the phonebook, and with the car's voice command system I can just push a button then say "Call Home" or "Call Victor" or "Call CowboyNeal" and it finds and dials the number.
Also, with phones, bluetooth makes a bit more sense to me
Indeed. I don't need to use my car's mic/speaker system with my cell phone while the phone is 50 to 100 feet (or more) from the car, but I do want to squeeze as long of life out of my cell phone's battery as I can.
The same applies to my laptop's mouse, or my Wiimotes, or indeed anything else that I have that currently uses Bluetooth.
Mesh WiFi sounds good if it means I can leech WiFi off generous people acting as mobile bridges to their cell provider's unlimited data plan. But in terms of revolutionizing devices, it doesn't.
I realized halfway through the comments that all of the posts with anecdotes about never seeing someone with a laptop in a theater were from you. =p
In my case more than half the movies I see during a year are at festivals, so it's more of a regular need than exceptional circumstances. That's my anecdote.
You need to patronize theaters where, if you use a cell phone, they'll TAKE YOUR ASS OUT.
I take my laptop regularly into the movie theater during film festivals, because I have it with me for the day for between screenings. Only when there's a big-budget Hollywood film are we ever ordered to put them in a car or check them at the front desk.
Same is true for my DSLR camera. That one I have to whip out during the Q&A, since it can take decent pictures without a flash so I can practice a hobby without being an ass (i.e. using a flash).
In Oklahoma and a few other states (Connecticut for sure) all adults are required by law to have photo identification on them at all times.
[Citation Needed]
Apple, on the other hand, releases a product. Say, the iPod. They MIGHT fix bugs, eventually. Or not. They give you a few selectable options and NEVER, EVER add features. To get new features, you have to buy iPod 2.0 and throw away the old one.
Tell that to my iPod Touch, which has been upgraded from 1.x to 3.2.
Yeah, my parents had an old Beatles LP with a flexible OLED display on the sleeve. When you picked it up, touching the capacitive sensors would cause a "making of" video to start playing automatically.
It was rather annoying, really, when you just wanted to use the built-in wifi to look up the lyrics for the song playing on your RCA Victor.
It's starting to look more and more like it's going to be my generations plastic.
I, too, look forward to the giant raft of entangled nanoparticles polluting the middle of the Pacific.
You mean entangled nanoparticles like water molecules? They already pollute the WHOLE Pacific.
and thousands of hippies descended upon Woodstock for 3 days of peace & music,
Except this year it was called the ACL Music Festival.
So do like I did, find a discount electronics store, and buy another 15-year-old printer. I have an HP LaserJet 4M Plus, with a JetDirect card and a nearly-full toner cartridge, which I bought for $100 three years ago. I don't print much so I still haven't replaced the original toner, and it hangs directly off my home network and works with all machines (Ubuntu, Snow Leopard, XP).
We have a cheap color inkjet that came free with my last Mac, but I rarely use it since the ink is so expensive, it will probably break if used too much, and it hangs off my wife's XP machine so it's a bit of hassle to print to (have to turn her machine on and let it boot).
The moment however when the "law" becomes so complicated and ambiguous that it requires someone to "interpret it" (i.e. twist it to whatever whim of the moment is fanciful) the whole concept breaks. In short a society which needs lawyers, is by definition lawless, as "law" has morphed from the universal code of conduct to a byzantine, convoluted, religious scripture which requires a career priesthood to worship, massage, "interpret" and twist to the needs of whatever power caste is running the place at the time.
These two sentences contradict each other. When the law is simply enough to be read by anyone, it's vague enough to be interpreted differently by each reader, each judge, and each town. Specific law written in a common language is the only way to ensure consistency in the application of said law, and like any other specialty language the language of law requires someone trained in it to read it correctly.
I would add that preventing third-party contractors from using any pre-existing work to complete state projects would be prohibitively expensive, so prohibiting the using of FOSS or anything else under copyright wouldn't be feasable for taxpayers.
If the state hires a third party to create something for them, and the third party does so, does that thing enter the public domain automatically?
If yes, what if the government hired a third party to create a piece of software, and the third party utilized FOSS code to complete the project. Would citizens of the state then have the right to claim the FOSS code was in the public domain and use it as they saw fit?
If no, what prevents the government from hiring third-party contractors to do almost everything, then keeping most all of it under copyright. Note that this is basically the situation now.
The law, which needs to be changed, needs to be sufficiently nuanced so that substantively original works created for the government enter the public domain, but that preexisting works used by the government can retain independent rights.
Even this needs to be limited, though, to avoid things like private documents becoming law. I would think that the legal code and anything it refers to should by definition be in the public domain, but other documents utilized by the government could be free or under copyright based on the originator.
My wife's a psychologist and we have discussed such people. The answer to what it's like to be one is depressingly simple. They have no morals to trouble them at all; no conscience, no guilt. They're happy as if they had ethics and compassion.
There are people who are simply not like us; just not the same.
I think it comes down to a lack of empathy. Ethics and morals are derived from culture, but empathy is both cultural and instinctive. I wouldn't be surprised if some day they start linking both genetic markers and industrial chemicals found in pregnant women and babies to levels of empathy as an adult.
Of course it's not entirely instinctive. We have the ability to train ourselves (or be trained) to overcome a lot of our instincts. So someone born with empathy could become a "bad person" by convincing themselves that they aren't hurting anyone through their action, but they are helping provide more for their loved ones. Likewise, someone born with low empathy might never become a criminal, as society also applies fear (of the Law and/or eternal damnation) to keep people in line.
I'm not going to keep a pack of 10 around the house, I'm going to go out and have to buy one whenever a bulb burns out.
...except you won't be able to buy them pretty soon. Better stock up.
The early Ikea bulbs (bought 6-8 years ago) were totally shit. They were the first round of CFLs we bought, and almost every one has failed (with the rest an awful color at this point). Newer ones bought from Ikea have been better, but it's hard to tell that they're new and improved when they're labeled identically to the thing that screwed you once.
(This relates to the best description of "business ethics" I've heard: Ethical business requires that you balance the needs of and try to act in the best interest of your owners, employees and customers. Otherwise, in the long run, you will find yourself without capital, labor, or revenue. Thus, business ethics is about long term self-interest, not some kind of abstract altruism.
So something sort of like this then? (See graph on page four of the presentation.)
Or I can just go about my business knowing that communication during the normal course of commerce or idle chat is harmless when recorded. The only type of speech that could get me in trouble is the kind I can choose not to say.
With video, however, the opportunities for abuse are much, much greater, because it can more readily identify me and then correlate my mere presence, much less actions, with other video to create a larger database.
I'll resist the marketing pressure by refusing to read the story or participate in the discussion.
NO, wait, aww shit...
12/50 = 24/100
Doesn't sound like exactly 20% to me. Closer to exactly 24% (or ~25%)
Am I missing something?
Canada? Western Europe? Iraq?
I can magically avoid detection on an audio tape by keeping my damn mouth shut.
I can't yet magically avoid detection on a video tape by turning invisible. And no, wearing a ski mask to avoid recognition isn't a reasonable alternative.