I remember watching an environmental video in 1994 or so that featured the horseshoe crab for precisely this reason. They're actually a remarkable creature - I think they're only indigenous to the Delmarva region and they're basically living fossils. The blood is collected without harming the crab.
I remember seeing an environmental lobbying video 20 years ago that featured the LAL assay (the assay in TFA). Horseshoe crabs do not need to be killed to harvest their blood, and at least at that time they were a threatened species.
I have no idea where PITA falls into this, but environmentalists in general should be all for properly managing and caring for this renewable resource.
I'm well-aware of all of this. The 3/5ths compromise made perfect sense in the context of slavery being legal. Really the issue is with the legalization of slavery in the first place.
My point is that the Constitution isn't some kind of documented state of perfection. Freedom of association can be abused, just like many other freedoms.
Yup. Hams don't really have all that much spectrum, especially in the regions everybody cares about (low enough in frequency that you don't get multipath/directionality, high enough that you don't need a backpack and whip antenna). Sure, there is some space that others could use, but it isn't all that much.
I think a better solution is getting municipal wifi and such deployed so that people don't need huge gobs of data for when they're just sitting in one place or because they don't want to hand the local cable monopoly $80/month. Short-range wireless combined with wired backbone will get you a lot farther than ANY cellular technology, even if we allocated the entire spectrum to cellular. There will still be a need for cellular, but we can offload a good chunk of the demand with other technologies when you don't really need to be "mobile."
Unless you are, you know, wearing no shirt or no shoes. Then it's OK for a public business to discriminate.
Sexual orientation is not a choice but one's attire is.
Honestly, whether it is a choice isn't really the main issue. You can't choose whether you're born blind, but it makes sense to not allow blind people to drive (though it would not make sense to prohibit them from riding unaccompanied in self-driving cars in the future).
Attire in a restaurant isn't about preference - it is about hygiene and usually regulated by law. If it were just about preference it would be an unjustified rule.
...I can't make a logical argument against the business that doesn't get into businesses being dependent on roads and police and fire and other government services, and as such, the government can make rules that force you to cater to your enemies.
That's exactly the point though. Why should a business have the right to choose who they provide services to, but the police not have the right to decide which crimes they investigate? Why do the people need to recognize the rights of that business to own property in the first place?
Either others have a say in what your rights are, or we're living in a society where your rights are whatever you can defend with the barrel of a gun.
You're fucking crazy. Any business should be able to refuse service to anyone they like. It's called "freedom of association", pretty sure it's somewhere in the Constitution.
I've always wanted to see real competition between social systems. The original idea of the US had the potential to do just this, but alas, it did not happen. The central government should have insured only free travel and commerce between the states, defense and perhaps a few critical infrastructures and that's it. Then let the people move to the state which has the system closest to their attitude.
The problem with this is that it is a race to the bottom. You can't have things like public healthcare and worker protections unless you also have tariffs and restrictions on immigration. Otherwise people who consume more of these things can elect to do so, and those who do not need to consume them can elect to move out, and then the whole system collapses. Companies can manufacture goods where worker protections are weak and sell them freely in areas where they are strong, thus destroying local industry.
Whether socialism is right or not is beside the point. It can exist in competition with other social systems, but not if there is free travel and commerce.
Why are you bundling in race in every mention. The civil rights act precludes this law from racial discrimination. Be honest and drop 'race' from your phrasing.
I see, so beating your slave is OK as long as it is legal? We're talking about unjust laws here - the fact that the laws are legal has no bearing whatsoever. Just about all unjust laws are legal, whatever that even means.
That was 50 years ago and 1000 miles away. Why are you living in the past? The wedding cake bakers didn't own any old south restaurants from 60 years ago. They are not guilty of whatever happened back then.
They're quite guilty of what they're trying to do right now. They're the ones living in the past. Just because they constitute a majority in some geographic area doesn't mean that they ought to be allowed to behave in this way.
Nobody cares if they're the descendants of slave owners. This is about their own sins.
Anyhow, it was a business arrangement, generally enforced by whatever secular law there was in that time and place, that essentially said A) I have a right to this woman B) I have a right to her children C) Those (male) children have a right to inherit from me.
Setting aside history, I'm not aware of any US state that considers marital state in dealing with any of those questions today. Marriage does not convey a legal right to a spouse. People have legal rights to their children regardless of marriage. The inheritance of children isn't really impacted by marriage either, though inheritance does work differently for a spouse (I'm not convinced that we need marriage to make that work).
As long as marriage is legalized I fully support the right of any pair of adults to become legally married or not married at any time (the former requiring mutual consent, the latter not requiring mutual consent). However, I think we'd be better off if neither civil unions nor marriage were legally recognized.
From what I've read some states practically do just this. I think it was California that has a law that bans any device with a display capable of presenting a movie forward of the back of the driver's seat. That means that simply having a phone in your pocket while driving is illegal, as is a phone in the passenger's pocket.
Maybe this will be an object lesson for the libertarians (a very expensive lesson, for some of them). In the real financial world, we used to have "bank panics" all the time. People could lose their life savings if a bank was run poorly or crookedly.
The problem with this analogy is that the whole point of Bitcoin is that you DON'T NEED BANKS! The whole design of the currency is such that you can keep your money "under your own mattress" safely.
That isn't to say that Bitcoin can't support banks - it certainly could. However, if you actually hand your money to somebody else then of course you're taking the risk that they won't pay you back. Even with the FDIC you're taking the very small risk that the US government won't pay you back.
The point of Bitcoin is that it operates by consensus only, and nobody is in a position to unilaterally seize your money. However, that isn't true if you hand it to them.
The problem here is that people treated MtGOX as a bank, when nobody was standing behind them. Something like that is bound to not end well. If I buy a lot of stuff at Amazon I don't write a check for $10k to maintain a credit on their website and then charge my purchases against it. I keep the money in a bank that is trustworthy and only give it to Amazon as I actually spend it. If people did the same with MtGOX (only paying them Bitcoins a few minutes before withdrawing cash) then there wouldn't be any problems. Of course, for many months MtGOX didn't even give people that option - they wanted payment weeks before getting cash out. Would you buy something from a small store whose policy was that they take cash in advance and that you'd be given the item you bought in a few months? The only time people do that in real life is with big corps that are unlikely to go bankrupt (WAY bigger than MtGOX), or more typically using a credit card which under US law you're not responsible for the charges if the goods aren't delivered (so now the bank which is again a huge company is standing behind it).
Simple: they are because of the chance to score big, if what they create scores big with the demographic that's in demand. If you grab even just 10% or so of the current user base of SnapChat, perhaps FB will offer you a cool beeeellion $s for your company. Makes you wonder how smart it was of SnapChat to turn down these multibillion $ offers; things can only go downhill from here.
They're certainly not the first company to turn down offers and go downhill. Owners get greedy, and maybe they really think that their company could become the next Google. Most social media companies are much more likely to become the next myspace, and they should get out while the going is good before their fickle user base jumps to the next fad.
No, they are genuine cuts in the armed forces. There will be substantial cuts on the civilian side, and overall funding. Sequestration started it.
Future attacks on the US will be handled by diplomatic notes form Secretary of State Kerry expressing strong disapproval.
Uh, when exactly was the last attack on the US? In a conventional military sense, I think that was in WWII. Sure, there have been terrorist incidents since then, and there will be in the future. I don't really see a big military as doing much to deter terrorism. What it mostly seems to be needed for is being the world police, or for being pushy with foreign policy.
"Computers are useless. They can only give you answers." - Pablo Picasso. The same goes for ultra-intelligent computers. The hard questions - dealing with creativity, intuition or infirmities will remain the domain of organics for the foreseeable future.
"Foreseeable" depends on your foresight. I could easily envision a future in which computers deal with all the hard questions. Indeed, we know little more about them today than we did centuries ago, which suggest to me that perhaps it will take a computer which outstrips human intelligence in every way to make any progress.
You come across as very arrogant. Have you ever managed a group of low level employees who spent more time chatting, visiting facebook or conducting online personal shopping than they did actual work? How do I explain to the guy/gal across the hall that everyone is losing their jobs because the company is folding due to the other half just plain not doing their jobs.
Are they getting their work done or not? Whether they're spending more time doing other things isn't really relevant to their performance as an employee. Assign work to be done and a timeframe to do it in. If they are getting it done, then what they're doing in their spare time isn't your concern. If you're paying them more to do the work than the work is worth, then you're steadily putting yourself out of business with every assignment you give. Set the timeframe of the job to something where the job is a money-maker for the company. If nobody gets the job done in that time, then either you need to find another way to get the jobs done (change the work, change how it is done, or find somebody else to do it who can get it done at a reasonable cost), or you might as well close shop now as you're just wasting money.
How about an analogy. Imagine a small business that takes the cost they produce their product at, adds 10%, and sells the product at that price. That is not a good recipe for staying in business - it might happen to work in some cases, but it completely neglects just about every principle of microeconomics. Instead you look at the supply/demand of that product, and set the price based on that. If that price is cost+100% then you rake in cash like Apple until the rest of the market catches up. If that price is lower than the cost, then you don't bother to make the product at all, or you change what product you make so that you can find something that you can actually sell for more than it costs to make. You don't just go out with a product that you need to sell at some price hoping that wishing will make it so, and then maybe try to make incremental changes when it isn't going so well.
The costs come down to the supply chain, and employees are just one part of that. If the price of a part in your product was too high you would either find a better way to source that part, find a way to make do without the part, or stop making that product. Well, employees are really no different. If their work output per dollar of spend isn't cutting it then you need to get more out of them (telling them to work harder usually doesn't work), find a way to do the job without them, or stop doing the business that requires those employees.
If you're the employee then you need to think about what value you're adding to your employer. If that value is significant compared to your pay, then it really doesn't matter how busy you are, what liberties you take, and so on. If your manager isn't very business savvy maybe you need to try to look busy, or you need to find somebody to work for who understands your value. On the other hand, if you don't have a good sense of the value that you do add at work, then success is going to be a matter of luck, much like the business owner who doesn't understand the actual value of their products.
Seriously, wait till you get home, theres really no justification for it.
Where is this wonderful place where an employer distinguishes between time at home and time at work? I think what you wrote makes about as much sense as refusing to give your cell phone number to your boss or refusing to take your laptop home.
If you're an exempt employee then there is no distinction between company and personal time. You're being paid to get something done, and whether you could have gotten more done in the same time isn't legally your boss's concern. If they want to hire you for your time then legally they need to pay you for your time, including all of the labor law provisions that requires, which your employer most likely doesn't want to deal with. Oh, and if they do that, then you can call anybody you want to on your 15-min breaks, and if on one of those breaks the boss tells you the server just went down you can tell him what to go do with himself. That is, if we're living in that fantasyland you're talking about where employers respect labor laws and employees respect their employers as a result.
Your mother apparently neglected to teach you to not do things to people that they don't want you to do to them.
Well, of course you should respect the preferences of others within reason. However, simply wearing a display and camera isn't doing anything to anybody. Their paranoia that you might be secretly recording them doesn't really change that.
I'm not too worked up about this stuff though - it is just a matter of time until this sort of thing is so ubiquitous that trying to stop it won't make any sense at all. I think my employer still has a policy on the books that nobody is allowed to bring a camera into work, but they wouldn't dare to enforce it in a day where everybody from the CEO to the janitor carries a cell phone camera.
Once upon a time you could go someplace and not have the fact that you did it logged in a database somewhere. Those days are long gone. Soon those databases will be accessible to everybody. There really isn't anything that anybody can do about it - that's the nature of Pandora's box. Pass all the laws you like, and punch as many people in the face as you care to. History marches on...
If you take someone's picture or record them without permission, you ARE an asshole. Didn't your mother teach you any manners?
Uh, my mother never taught me anything about getting model releases before taking photos. Apparently neither did the mothers of those who deployed the approx 30M security cameras currently in use across the US...
So, Microsoft forks Android, makes it proprietary, and that does what for Android? Exactly?
The license doesn't permit that. They can make their additions proprietary, but not the base OS. So the real question is what it's supposed to do for Microsoft.
The license isn't copyleft. They would have to include a copy of the APL, but: You may add Your own copyright statement to Your modifications and may provide additional or different license terms and conditions for use, reproduction, or distribution of Your modifications, or for any such Derivative Works as a whole, provided Your use, reproduction, and distribution of the Work otherwise complies with the conditions stated in this License.
That means that while they have to include a copy of the APL, they don't have to license the new derivative OS under the APL or provide the source for it. They just have to inform the consumer that parts of it started out APL.
And really, that is what Google does already, they just stick it all in a blob called the Google Services Framework...
Care to define the term, "glasshole?" I'd tend to think that to be one you'd have to at least own a Google Glass.
There is a word used to describe somebody who takes a discussion about the merits and need for privacy and peppers it with personal attacks, and that would be "asshole."
I suppose if there was not such a thing as 'guilt', then it could not be used as power against other people. Not sure if 100% sociopathy is an acceptable outcome, though.
So, is the issue that people do certain things all the time, or is the issue that we can't pretend like we don't?
Slashdot Mirror
I remember watching an environmental video in 1994 or so that featured the horseshoe crab for precisely this reason. They're actually a remarkable creature - I think they're only indigenous to the Delmarva region and they're basically living fossils. The blood is collected without harming the crab.
Does PITA know about this? /ducks and covers
I remember seeing an environmental lobbying video 20 years ago that featured the LAL assay (the assay in TFA). Horseshoe crabs do not need to be killed to harvest their blood, and at least at that time they were a threatened species.
I have no idea where PITA falls into this, but environmentalists in general should be all for properly managing and caring for this renewable resource.
I'm well-aware of all of this. The 3/5ths compromise made perfect sense in the context of slavery being legal. Really the issue is with the legalization of slavery in the first place.
My point is that the Constitution isn't some kind of documented state of perfection. Freedom of association can be abused, just like many other freedoms.
Yup. Hams don't really have all that much spectrum, especially in the regions everybody cares about (low enough in frequency that you don't get multipath/directionality, high enough that you don't need a backpack and whip antenna). Sure, there is some space that others could use, but it isn't all that much.
I think a better solution is getting municipal wifi and such deployed so that people don't need huge gobs of data for when they're just sitting in one place or because they don't want to hand the local cable monopoly $80/month. Short-range wireless combined with wired backbone will get you a lot farther than ANY cellular technology, even if we allocated the entire spectrum to cellular. There will still be a need for cellular, but we can offload a good chunk of the demand with other technologies when you don't really need to be "mobile."
Unless you are, you know, wearing no shirt or no shoes. Then it's OK for a public business to discriminate.
Sexual orientation is not a choice but one's attire is.
Honestly, whether it is a choice isn't really the main issue. You can't choose whether you're born blind, but it makes sense to not allow blind people to drive (though it would not make sense to prohibit them from riding unaccompanied in self-driving cars in the future).
Attire in a restaurant isn't about preference - it is about hygiene and usually regulated by law. If it were just about preference it would be an unjustified rule.
...I can't make a logical argument against the business that doesn't get into businesses being dependent on roads and police and fire and other government services, and as such, the government can make rules that force you to cater to your enemies.
That's exactly the point though. Why should a business have the right to choose who they provide services to, but the police not have the right to decide which crimes they investigate? Why do the people need to recognize the rights of that business to own property in the first place?
Either others have a say in what your rights are, or we're living in a society where your rights are whatever you can defend with the barrel of a gun.
You're fucking crazy. Any business should be able to refuse service to anyone they like. It's called "freedom of association", pretty sure it's somewhere in the Constitution.
Probably right next to the 3/5ths clause...
I've always wanted to see real competition between social systems. The original idea of the US had the potential to do just this, but alas, it did not happen. The central government should have insured only free travel and commerce between the states, defense and perhaps a few critical infrastructures and that's it. Then let the people move to the state which has the system closest to their attitude.
The problem with this is that it is a race to the bottom. You can't have things like public healthcare and worker protections unless you also have tariffs and restrictions on immigration. Otherwise people who consume more of these things can elect to do so, and those who do not need to consume them can elect to move out, and then the whole system collapses. Companies can manufacture goods where worker protections are weak and sell them freely in areas where they are strong, thus destroying local industry.
Whether socialism is right or not is beside the point. It can exist in competition with other social systems, but not if there is free travel and commerce.
Why are you bundling in race in every mention. The civil rights act precludes this law from racial discrimination. Be honest and drop 'race' from your phrasing.
I see, so beating your slave is OK as long as it is legal? We're talking about unjust laws here - the fact that the laws are legal has no bearing whatsoever. Just about all unjust laws are legal, whatever that even means.
That was 50 years ago and 1000 miles away. Why are you living in the past? The wedding cake bakers didn't own any old south restaurants from 60 years ago. They are not guilty of whatever happened back then.
They're quite guilty of what they're trying to do right now. They're the ones living in the past. Just because they constitute a majority in some geographic area doesn't mean that they ought to be allowed to behave in this way.
Nobody cares if they're the descendants of slave owners. This is about their own sins.
Anyhow, it was a business arrangement, generally enforced by whatever secular law there was in that time and place, that essentially said
A) I have a right to this woman
B) I have a right to her children
C) Those (male) children have a right to inherit from me.
Setting aside history, I'm not aware of any US state that considers marital state in dealing with any of those questions today. Marriage does not convey a legal right to a spouse. People have legal rights to their children regardless of marriage. The inheritance of children isn't really impacted by marriage either, though inheritance does work differently for a spouse (I'm not convinced that we need marriage to make that work).
As long as marriage is legalized I fully support the right of any pair of adults to become legally married or not married at any time (the former requiring mutual consent, the latter not requiring mutual consent). However, I think we'd be better off if neither civil unions nor marriage were legally recognized.
From what I've read some states practically do just this. I think it was California that has a law that bans any device with a display capable of presenting a movie forward of the back of the driver's seat. That means that simply having a phone in your pocket while driving is illegal, as is a phone in the passenger's pocket.
Maybe this will be an object lesson for the libertarians (a very expensive lesson, for some of them). In the real financial world, we used to have "bank panics" all the time. People could lose their life savings if a bank was run poorly or crookedly.
The problem with this analogy is that the whole point of Bitcoin is that you DON'T NEED BANKS! The whole design of the currency is such that you can keep your money "under your own mattress" safely.
That isn't to say that Bitcoin can't support banks - it certainly could. However, if you actually hand your money to somebody else then of course you're taking the risk that they won't pay you back. Even with the FDIC you're taking the very small risk that the US government won't pay you back.
The point of Bitcoin is that it operates by consensus only, and nobody is in a position to unilaterally seize your money. However, that isn't true if you hand it to them.
The problem here is that people treated MtGOX as a bank, when nobody was standing behind them. Something like that is bound to not end well. If I buy a lot of stuff at Amazon I don't write a check for $10k to maintain a credit on their website and then charge my purchases against it. I keep the money in a bank that is trustworthy and only give it to Amazon as I actually spend it. If people did the same with MtGOX (only paying them Bitcoins a few minutes before withdrawing cash) then there wouldn't be any problems. Of course, for many months MtGOX didn't even give people that option - they wanted payment weeks before getting cash out. Would you buy something from a small store whose policy was that they take cash in advance and that you'd be given the item you bought in a few months? The only time people do that in real life is with big corps that are unlikely to go bankrupt (WAY bigger than MtGOX), or more typically using a credit card which under US law you're not responsible for the charges if the goods aren't delivered (so now the bank which is again a huge company is standing behind it).
Simple: they are because of the chance to score big, if what they create scores big with the demographic that's in demand. If you grab even just 10% or so of the current user base of SnapChat, perhaps FB will offer you a cool beeeellion $s for your company. Makes you wonder how smart it was of SnapChat to turn down these multibillion $ offers; things can only go downhill from here.
They're certainly not the first company to turn down offers and go downhill. Owners get greedy, and maybe they really think that their company could become the next Google. Most social media companies are much more likely to become the next myspace, and they should get out while the going is good before their fickle user base jumps to the next fad.
No, they are genuine cuts in the armed forces. There will be substantial cuts on the civilian side, and overall funding. Sequestration started it.
Future attacks on the US will be handled by diplomatic notes form Secretary of State Kerry expressing strong disapproval.
Uh, when exactly was the last attack on the US? In a conventional military sense, I think that was in WWII. Sure, there have been terrorist incidents since then, and there will be in the future. I don't really see a big military as doing much to deter terrorism. What it mostly seems to be needed for is being the world police, or for being pushy with foreign policy.
"Computers are useless. They can only give you answers." - Pablo Picasso.
The same goes for ultra-intelligent computers. The hard questions - dealing with creativity, intuition or infirmities will remain the domain of organics for the foreseeable future.
"Foreseeable" depends on your foresight. I could easily envision a future in which computers deal with all the hard questions. Indeed, we know little more about them today than we did centuries ago, which suggest to me that perhaps it will take a computer which outstrips human intelligence in every way to make any progress.
You come across as very arrogant. Have you ever managed a group of low level employees who spent more time chatting, visiting facebook or conducting online personal shopping than they did actual work? How do I explain to the guy/gal across the hall that everyone is losing their jobs because the company is folding due to the other half just plain not doing their jobs.
Are they getting their work done or not? Whether they're spending more time doing other things isn't really relevant to their performance as an employee. Assign work to be done and a timeframe to do it in. If they are getting it done, then what they're doing in their spare time isn't your concern. If you're paying them more to do the work than the work is worth, then you're steadily putting yourself out of business with every assignment you give. Set the timeframe of the job to something where the job is a money-maker for the company. If nobody gets the job done in that time, then either you need to find another way to get the jobs done (change the work, change how it is done, or find somebody else to do it who can get it done at a reasonable cost), or you might as well close shop now as you're just wasting money.
How about an analogy. Imagine a small business that takes the cost they produce their product at, adds 10%, and sells the product at that price. That is not a good recipe for staying in business - it might happen to work in some cases, but it completely neglects just about every principle of microeconomics. Instead you look at the supply/demand of that product, and set the price based on that. If that price is cost+100% then you rake in cash like Apple until the rest of the market catches up. If that price is lower than the cost, then you don't bother to make the product at all, or you change what product you make so that you can find something that you can actually sell for more than it costs to make. You don't just go out with a product that you need to sell at some price hoping that wishing will make it so, and then maybe try to make incremental changes when it isn't going so well.
The costs come down to the supply chain, and employees are just one part of that. If the price of a part in your product was too high you would either find a better way to source that part, find a way to make do without the part, or stop making that product. Well, employees are really no different. If their work output per dollar of spend isn't cutting it then you need to get more out of them (telling them to work harder usually doesn't work), find a way to do the job without them, or stop doing the business that requires those employees.
If you're the employee then you need to think about what value you're adding to your employer. If that value is significant compared to your pay, then it really doesn't matter how busy you are, what liberties you take, and so on. If your manager isn't very business savvy maybe you need to try to look busy, or you need to find somebody to work for who understands your value. On the other hand, if you don't have a good sense of the value that you do add at work, then success is going to be a matter of luck, much like the business owner who doesn't understand the actual value of their products.
Seriously, wait till you get home, theres really no justification for it.
Where is this wonderful place where an employer distinguishes between time at home and time at work? I think what you wrote makes about as much sense as refusing to give your cell phone number to your boss or refusing to take your laptop home.
If you're an exempt employee then there is no distinction between company and personal time. You're being paid to get something done, and whether you could have gotten more done in the same time isn't legally your boss's concern. If they want to hire you for your time then legally they need to pay you for your time, including all of the labor law provisions that requires, which your employer most likely doesn't want to deal with. Oh, and if they do that, then you can call anybody you want to on your 15-min breaks, and if on one of those breaks the boss tells you the server just went down you can tell him what to go do with himself. That is, if we're living in that fantasyland you're talking about where employers respect labor laws and employees respect their employers as a result.
Your mother apparently neglected to teach you to not do things to people that they don't want you to do to them.
Well, of course you should respect the preferences of others within reason. However, simply wearing a display and camera isn't doing anything to anybody. Their paranoia that you might be secretly recording them doesn't really change that.
I'm not too worked up about this stuff though - it is just a matter of time until this sort of thing is so ubiquitous that trying to stop it won't make any sense at all. I think my employer still has a policy on the books that nobody is allowed to bring a camera into work, but they wouldn't dare to enforce it in a day where everybody from the CEO to the janitor carries a cell phone camera.
Once upon a time you could go someplace and not have the fact that you did it logged in a database somewhere. Those days are long gone. Soon those databases will be accessible to everybody. There really isn't anything that anybody can do about it - that's the nature of Pandora's box. Pass all the laws you like, and punch as many people in the face as you care to. History marches on...
Wearing Google Glass is the same as a t-shirt saying "I'm an asshole, please kick my ass."
Whatever. I guess the kids in high school have to go somewhere after high school is over...
If you take someone's picture or record them without permission, you ARE an asshole. Didn't your mother teach you any manners?
Uh, my mother never taught me anything about getting model releases before taking photos. Apparently neither did the mothers of those who deployed the approx 30M security cameras currently in use across the US...
So, Microsoft forks Android, makes it proprietary, and that does what for Android? Exactly?
The license doesn't permit that. They can make their additions proprietary, but not the base OS. So the real question is what it's supposed to do for Microsoft.
The license isn't copyleft. They would have to include a copy of the APL, but:
You may add Your own copyright statement to Your modifications and may provide additional or different license terms and conditions for use, reproduction, or distribution of Your modifications, or for any such Derivative Works as a whole, provided Your use, reproduction, and distribution of the Work otherwise complies with the conditions stated in this License.
That means that while they have to include a copy of the APL, they don't have to license the new derivative OS under the APL or provide the source for it. They just have to inform the consumer that parts of it started out APL.
And really, that is what Google does already, they just stick it all in a blob called the Google Services Framework...
Try a redneck bar and see how your asshole glass turns out.
There is probably a reason that most people stay away from redneck bars.
Don't take my fucking picture without permission, and don't even make me THINK you're taking my picture without permission.
Sounds like the solution to your problem is a REALLY big guy with a camera and a holster. Apparently testosterone makes right...
Welcome to Orwell's dystopia, glasshole.
Care to define the term, "glasshole?" I'd tend to think that to be one you'd have to at least own a Google Glass.
There is a word used to describe somebody who takes a discussion about the merits and need for privacy and peppers it with personal attacks, and that would be "asshole."
I suppose if there was not such a thing as 'guilt', then it could not be used as power against other people. Not sure if 100% sociopathy is an acceptable outcome, though.
So, is the issue that people do certain things all the time, or is the issue that we can't pretend like we don't?