This would essentially ban anyone from stating political opinions, except anonymously. Otherwise, the politician could reward you for your public support. If you're a rich guy who hangs out with Al Gore every day, isn't it pretty clear where your money is going? If ABC broadcasts the "Al Gore Show" every night about how great Al Gore is, would this be allowed even if their donation is anonymous?
Besides, corporations give to both sides rather heavily these days. Disney could say "We donated $10 million to the presidential race this year," or, more likely, some euphemism like"Disney heavily supports the democratic process at every level," and both candidates would be in the company's debt.
Apple has not sued As the Apple Turns, and their site is much more Mac-like than this. In fact, a simple search will reveal dozens of Mac news sites using some variation of the "Aqua' appearance. Apple does not need to sue everyone who makes shiny objects with rounded edges in order to protect their trademark.
"Leonardo da Vince is well-known was history's greatest integrator of art and science, " writes Wilson, but he was by no means unique in having interests that spanned art and science. Educated people of his time were expected to. But, says Wilson, by the 20th century, science and art had already become distinct and separate fields.
Google allows the source to opt out of being cached. If there's any legal challenge, Google takes stuff down. They're on safe legal ground, and you would be if also you obeyed every cease and desist order.
Nothing about Google really makes much of a basis for legal argument, because they're always willing to back down. Same deal with www.archive.org.
I agree. In the past, all you would have to do is burn down a village's grain silo or block a couple critical trade routes. Modern societies are more robust and better able to withstand and recover from an attack. Technology neither helps nor hurts attackers; it's agnostic. The main things that change are the targets and methods.
Like I said, if someone knows their stuff well enough, there's no way to stop them. Oh, I suppose you could return to the Stone Age so that no one can use your own technology against you, but that's an idea that only the Unabombers of the world take seriously.
What we can do is stop the suicidal 16 year-old who wants to blow up his whole city. Or the right-wing nut who wants to blow up a federal building with fertilizer. Those kinds of attacks are preventable.
I'm of the opinion that it's impossible to fend off every sufficiently sophisticated attack. What we can do is implement basic security measures that prevent any old lunatic from causing mass destruction. And I think that's (rightly) been the focus of the security of the community for some time.
It's the same deal with software piracy. Determined crackers will always be able to get free software. Software companies are better off making sure Grandma can't get their programs for free on Kazaa.
I think that's a rather alarmist and elitist viewpoint. There are countless specialists in the world, and learning all of their crafts would be impossible. I wouldn't even know how to do something simple like paving a road. The complex world we live in necessitates using technology we don't fully understand. There are great programmers out there who have zero concept of machine code. The beauty of division of labor is that we don't need 50 years of education to contribute to the world.
Whether or not the profit was "real" is more or less a moot point. Amazon's got the name recognition needed to stay afloat for a little while even while bleeding cash. I'll be the first to admit that I didn't think Amazon.com would ever profit by even the most arcane of maths. The first-quarter profit is therefore an important landmark for the company, but is not necessarily, as they say, "indicative of future results."
Your assertion that "Online retailing has not come of age" is a gross generalization. "Retail" encompasses a vast economic area. Certainly some computer company stores (Dell, Apple) have been profitable on the web, as well as some tech-oriented resellers. On the other hand, take the example of online grocers. These gleefully came about during the glory days of the "web bubble", but never made sense to the consumer. Whether or not it has "come of age", the web makes good sense for some trade, and certain quarters make visionary (but risky) investments.
In Amazon's specific case, I think the company's own ambition was simultaneously its greatest asset and liability. Bezos pushed that thing to where it is on sheer willpower, but as the company expanded far beyond books, it took on greater and greater expense. The convenience, potential market, and low inital overhead of Amazon's brand of online shopping put it in a much safer position than traditional catalog retailers. If it sinks, it will be because of putting vision before focus.
Most of NASA's political logjam exists further upstream... in the Congress that authorizes NASA's funding. In recent years, Congress has been less ambitious, pushing NASA into pursuing relatively risk-free, low-excitement endeavors. NASA's massive bureaucracy exists in part to appease Congress, which demands detailed accountability.
Another problem with Congress is that representatives tend to only authorize projects which bring jobs to their state or district.
NASA is a governmental entity, so it's little surprise that it's finally acting like one. If NASA is to become fun again, it will have to grow more autonomous. During its heyday, it had free rein to do whatever it wanted to beat the Russians. It was expensive to do so, but at least it got results. These days, NASA is still expensive, but its lackluster performace of late leaves the public wondering why they fund it at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Bell Labs is part of Lucent, but still exists as a distinct entity. It's Lucent's R&D division.
...and already released for OS X. And if memory serves me correctly, Unreal Tournament, a non-Blizzard product, is also older than Diablo II.
This would essentially ban anyone from stating political opinions, except anonymously. Otherwise, the politician could reward you for your public support. If you're a rich guy who hangs out with Al Gore every day, isn't it pretty clear where your money is going? If ABC broadcasts the "Al Gore Show" every night about how great Al Gore is, would this be allowed even if their donation is anonymous?
Besides, corporations give to both sides rather heavily these days. Disney could say "We donated $10 million to the presidential race this year," or, more likely, some euphemism like"Disney heavily supports the democratic process at every level," and both candidates would be in the company's debt.
Apple has not sued As the Apple Turns, and their site is much more Mac-like than this. In fact, a simple search will reveal dozens of Mac news sites using some variation of the "Aqua' appearance. Apple does not need to sue everyone who makes shiny objects with rounded edges in order to protect their trademark.
"Leonardo da Vince is well-known was history's greatest integrator of art and science, " writes Wilson, but he was by no means unique in having interests that spanned art and science. Educated people of his time were expected to. But, says Wilson, by the 20th century, science and art had already become distinct and separate fields.
Hardly a counterpoint.
Nothing about Google really makes much of a basis for legal argument, because they're always willing to back down. Same deal with www.archive.org.
I agree. In the past, all you would have to do is burn down a village's grain silo or block a couple critical trade routes. Modern societies are more robust and better able to withstand and recover from an attack. Technology neither helps nor hurts attackers; it's agnostic. The main things that change are the targets and methods.
Like I said, if someone knows their stuff well enough, there's no way to stop them. Oh, I suppose you could return to the Stone Age so that no one can use your own technology against you, but that's an idea that only the Unabombers of the world take seriously.
What we can do is stop the suicidal 16 year-old who wants to blow up his whole city. Or the right-wing nut who wants to blow up a federal building with fertilizer. Those kinds of attacks are preventable.
I'm of the opinion that it's impossible to fend off every sufficiently sophisticated attack. What we can do is implement basic security measures that prevent any old lunatic from causing mass destruction. And I think that's (rightly) been the focus of the security of the community for some time.
It's the same deal with software piracy. Determined crackers will always be able to get free software. Software companies are better off making sure Grandma can't get their programs for free on Kazaa.
I think that's a rather alarmist and elitist viewpoint. There are countless specialists in the world, and learning all of their crafts would be impossible. I wouldn't even know how to do something simple like paving a road. The complex world we live in necessitates using technology we don't fully understand. There are great programmers out there who have zero concept of machine code. The beauty of division of labor is that we don't need 50 years of education to contribute to the world.
Whether or not the profit was "real" is more or less a moot point. Amazon's got the name recognition needed to stay afloat for a little while even while bleeding cash. I'll be the first to admit that I didn't think Amazon.com would ever profit by even the most arcane of maths. The first-quarter profit is therefore an important landmark for the company, but is not necessarily, as they say, "indicative of future results."
Your assertion that "Online retailing has not come of age" is a gross generalization. "Retail" encompasses a vast economic area. Certainly some computer company stores (Dell, Apple) have been profitable on the web, as well as some tech-oriented resellers. On the other hand, take the example of online grocers. These gleefully came about during the glory days of the "web bubble", but never made sense to the consumer. Whether or not it has "come of age", the web makes good sense for some trade, and certain quarters make visionary (but risky) investments.
In Amazon's specific case, I think the company's own ambition was simultaneously its greatest asset and liability. Bezos pushed that thing to where it is on sheer willpower, but as the company expanded far beyond books, it took on greater and greater expense. The convenience, potential market, and low inital overhead of Amazon's brand of online shopping put it in a much safer position than traditional catalog retailers. If it sinks, it will be because of putting vision before focus.
Most of NASA's political logjam exists further upstream... in the Congress that authorizes NASA's funding. In recent years, Congress has been less ambitious, pushing NASA into pursuing relatively risk-free, low-excitement endeavors. NASA's massive bureaucracy exists in part to appease Congress, which demands detailed accountability.
Another problem with Congress is that representatives tend to only authorize projects which bring jobs to their state or district.
NASA is a governmental entity, so it's little surprise that it's finally acting like one. If NASA is to become fun again, it will have to grow more autonomous. During its heyday, it had free rein to do whatever it wanted to beat the Russians. It was expensive to do so, but at least it got results. These days, NASA is still expensive, but its lackluster performace of late leaves the public wondering why they fund it at all.