Now the more interesting question is how you enforce this.
For starters, I think they're going to have to punish managers who want their people available 24x7x365. If you ban cell phone use and texting by federal employees while driving, and the federal employees in question are driving home, you're just going to have to wait. Which shouldn't be a problem - if it is a real problem then you haven't properly trained backup personnel to cover for the guy who's driving home, which means that if he slams into a tree due to texting you're all going to be in much bigger trouble.
This came up in a discussion on another site, and a doctor pointed out "If I can get to the side of the road and stop to handle what could easily be a life-or-death emergency, you can get to the side of the road and stop to handle whatever you're dealing with."
Of course the published research is peer reviewed. Otherwise it doesn't count. Heck, if we eliminate the peer review process then SciGen would have tenure.
The professors that write these books will simply reject the U.S. funds and get money from other places like IBM, Microsoft, Ford, and so on.
A couple more reasons why this won't happen: 1. Most professors aren't after cash for their personal bank account. They may be after cash for their research and teaching projects. That's because in academia the primary currency isn't the Almighty Buck but the Almighty Published Research. Among other things, they're usually smart enough that they could make a lot more money working on Wall St, Madison Ave, or a top-notch law firm if they'd been motivated primarily by personal income. A professor motivated by prestige rather than cash would be happy to see their work spread as far and wide as possible to as many people as possible as cheaply as possible.
2. Many professors who are listed as authors of textbooks don't write the books, and almost never create the new editions. The books are typically written by ghostwriters at the textbook publishing house, and the professor acts as a subject-matter consultant.
A good response that a lot of colleges are doing is placing course textbooks in the college library on reserve (which means they can't be checked out but can be read and photocopied in the library for an hour or so). Just that makes it at least possible for students to manage without buying the textbooks.
But it is a complete scam, no question. Among other things, most textbooks are not written by their purported authors.
I don't know about the specific venue he filed in, but the unofficial rule in NH (according to a lawyer relative) was that the judge and court clerk must be able to read your complaint without cracking up for it to go forward.
In most US jurisdictions, the formal request for an initial review is a "motion to dismiss" (arguing that the case should not go forward on legal or procedural grounds) or a "motion for summary judgment" (arguing that the claim is legal but should not go forward on factual grounds).
That's not to say there's no protection for the little guy exactly: the judge has the option of awarding the victorious party attorney's fees, and a lot of judges are willing to give that out if the losing side appears to have been taking advantage of the fact that lawsuits cost money.
The trouble is that the little guy might have already been driven broke by the attorney's fees before that award can occur, and if the big guy doesn't pay might not even be able to move for contempt. So it's not a perfect remedy unless you have trial lawyers willing to work on contingency (which brings along a whole different set of problems).
Autodesk would probably lose due to the first-sale doctrine if this actually gets anywhere near a courtroom. As it is, the cost of Vernor proving that he has the right to resell his CD far outweighs the price he could get for it, so Autodesk is banking that he won't fight it. The really unpleasant part of the DMCA is that it puts the burden of proof on the party who wants to have the material up on the web rather than the party who wants it removed.
As with the parent, I'm not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Perhaps the media companies who stand to lose quite a bit if the Pirate Party gains real traction are not exactly keen on giving it a lot of attention?
Assume you were born poor. With a single parent who was so busy working she rarely had time to teach you anything. Your education consisted of Sesame Street and similar television before you were 5, and inner-city public school after that. You probably get fair-to-middling grades in school, somewhere in the B-C range, and graduate from a voc tech high school specializing in cooking (putting you ahead of a significant percentage of your peers).
Where in that education did you learn anything about interest, principle, and how to manage a loan? Where in that education did you study exponential growth? Chances are the answer is nowhere. Not because you did anything wrong, really (you did the best you could in school), but because of the circumstances you were born into.
So you get a job working as a cook, and through a lot of hard work as a cook manage to save up some money. You start thinking "If I work hard and play by the rules I can have the American dream" which for you is a car and a house of your own. You go buy the car with the extra cash you saved, and after 5 years of hard work pay off the car. So now you even think you've got this whole loan thing (which remember, you were never taught anything about) figured out: the key thing is to find out what your monthly payment is and how long you will need to pay it.
And this is where you get caught, because you're now thinking of buying a home. So you go out shopping for homes, find one you like, and then go talk to a bank about getting a loan. The bank says they won't give you a loan. Your real estate agent is still hopeful about a deal, though. Then you see an ad on TV about a company that can get you a loan even if the bank says no, so you give them a call. You go into an office where a nice man in a suit explains everything to you, gives you a loan summary with a nice low monthly payment that's even lower than you paid for your car loan, and some papers to sign which the nice man in a suit explains is standard legal boilerplate. You sign the papers and are overjoyed at the prospect of actually achieving the life for yourself and your kids that you wanted.
Should they be more diligent? Sure. Should caveat emptor be the rule of the day? Yes. But the simple fact is that someone in that position doesn't know any better. Not only do they not know, but they don't even know that they don't know.
The worldwide financial collapse had a lot to do with a large number of idiots deciding to buy homes they knew they couldn't afford
Most of the people buying the homes they couldn't afford didn't know they couldn't afford them. In fact, their mortgage broker almost definitely told them they could afford those homes, because the mortgage broker would collect a commission if the buyer could afford the home, and wouldn't if the buyer couldn't. A responsible banker, by contrast, would never have given these folks loans and would have made sure to explain that the home they wanted could not be reasonably purchased with the income and savings available.
This would seem like the mortgage brokers had a stupid strategy for figuring out who to loan money to (since there was a good chance they were going to default), and it would be, except that the mortgage brokerage could then take the bad loan, build an MBS that appeared to be a good loan, and sell it to somebody else who didn't really know what it was (taking advantage of investor ignorance).
This wasn't a case of irresponsible home buyers (who were acting on information given to them by people they thought were experts), but a whole industry swarming with well paid con-men.
I must be missing the part where the FSF became the evil empire who wanted to control the world of computing, rather than a rebel alliance who wanted the users in control of the code running on their own computers. And the part where the FSF did anything to actively stop FreeBSD from doing its thing.
The Ubuntu project, the Linux project, and the FreeBSD project all have the same basic goal: create freely shareable really awesome (fast, effective, efficient, robust, useful, and as bug-free as possible) code that solves problems for people. Can't we all just get along?
What I'd recommend for displaying this data is switching from charts to tables, and use alternating light green and white rows (little holes on either end for dot-matrix printer alignment optional).
Sure you can. They might not all be big Hollywood blockbusters, but to say that religion is necessarily disqualified from film is incorrect. For instance, Stanley Kubrick, hardly a Christian-oriented filmmaker, made Christianity a key part of the film A Clockwork Orange. And films about biblical events are regularly quite popular and successful, whether we're talking about The Passion of the Christ or Prince of Egypt.
I'm not exactly sure though that Mark Whitacre's Christianity would be one I'd take for inspiration. It might be one thing if he'd taken all of his ill-gotten gains and given them away to charity, but he didn't. And I distinctly remember something about camels not being able to get through eyes of needles.
don't have the talents to serve as an effective executive in the first place
You're absolutely right: I lack the "talent" to ruin people's careers, casually rip off customers, embezzle, not give a rat's behind about anyone but myself, and deny reality whenever that reality would be bad for me. Yes, there are executives who don't engage in that sort of behavior, but far more that do (especially at larger firms like ADM).
The liberal types out there complaining about free speech zones have a point: The basic problem in Pittsburgh right now (and most other events that have attracted large numbers of protesters) is that police officers almost inevitably treat the protesters as enemies, as criminals, and otherwise as a force that should be minimized, destroyed, and shut down.
So to the police - the vast majority of protesters aren't going to hurt anyone. They're going to say their bit, and go home. That's it. That's all they want.
Re:Let's be honest here.
on
Why Games Cost $60
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Actually, what the publishers typically do in order to maximize revenue: Release day price: $60 6 months after release: $55 1 year after release: $45 2 years after release: $30 3 years after release: $15 4 years after release: $5
That way, they get the early adopters paying $60, and also get the people they just priced out of the market with their 3-4 year old titles. That's because the timing allows market segmentation, which allows them to capture a greater portion of the consumer surplus.
Actually, it's an unsettled legal question whether what the telecoms did was legal, because the immunity that was part of the Patriot Act renewal, not the original Patriot Act, applying retroactively to the period between Patriot I and Patriot II. That immunity was put in place specifically to stop cases by the ACLU and similar organizations from going forward (which would have settled the question as to the legality of the telecom's actions).
So this isn't exactly a case of "A was legal, now it's not", it's more a case of "A may not be legal, and we said we weren't going to do anything about it, but we've changed our minds", which isn't the same thing.
I would have thought that by 2004 it would have been clear that the Bush administration didn't give 2 pairs of dingos kidneys about protecting you. Actually, one could conceivably have figured that out in 2000 when you realized what Bush, Gore, and McCain were all doing in the late 60's.
The image of Democrats not having the balls to protect you is simply unfounded.
The point of a company is to make money, not to further ethical causes.
Companies are bound by the rule of law. That's why GE doesn't have a division responsible for selling crack despite the high profitability of that market.
The reason why they "violate" is because they just do not care.
There's an easy way to make the companies care about OSS license violations: the C&D letter (followed by the appropriate legal action if they don't comply). It's been held up in the cases where it's gone to court. The FSF has a portion of their organization devoted to doing just that sort of wrangling.
Ultimately, you need to also ask if it really matters at all. How often do you think this provided source code is really going to be useful to a mass audience?
Absolutely it matters. And yes the code can be useful - not just for the specific hardware device (which could be around much longer than the manufacturer thought), but for any similar devices that come onto the market.
Slashdot Mirror
Now the more interesting question is how you enforce this.
For starters, I think they're going to have to punish managers who want their people available 24x7x365. If you ban cell phone use and texting by federal employees while driving, and the federal employees in question are driving home, you're just going to have to wait. Which shouldn't be a problem - if it is a real problem then you haven't properly trained backup personnel to cover for the guy who's driving home, which means that if he slams into a tree due to texting you're all going to be in much bigger trouble.
This came up in a discussion on another site, and a doctor pointed out "If I can get to the side of the road and stop to handle what could easily be a life-or-death emergency, you can get to the side of the road and stop to handle whatever you're dealing with."
Of course the published research is peer reviewed. Otherwise it doesn't count. Heck, if we eliminate the peer review process then SciGen would have tenure.
public private partnership(n): The public gets the bills, a private owner (who happens to be a county commissioner's brother-in-law) gets the profits.
At least, that's usually how it works.
The professors that write these books will simply reject the U.S. funds and get money from other places like IBM, Microsoft, Ford, and so on.
A couple more reasons why this won't happen:
1. Most professors aren't after cash for their personal bank account. They may be after cash for their research and teaching projects. That's because in academia the primary currency isn't the Almighty Buck but the Almighty Published Research. Among other things, they're usually smart enough that they could make a lot more money working on Wall St, Madison Ave, or a top-notch law firm if they'd been motivated primarily by personal income. A professor motivated by prestige rather than cash would be happy to see their work spread as far and wide as possible to as many people as possible as cheaply as possible.
2. Many professors who are listed as authors of textbooks don't write the books, and almost never create the new editions. The books are typically written by ghostwriters at the textbook publishing house, and the professor acts as a subject-matter consultant.
A good response that a lot of colleges are doing is placing course textbooks in the college library on reserve (which means they can't be checked out but can be read and photocopied in the library for an hour or so). Just that makes it at least possible for students to manage without buying the textbooks.
But it is a complete scam, no question. Among other things, most textbooks are not written by their purported authors.
Oh, come on, like anything good ever came out of making homebrew computers.
I don't know about the specific venue he filed in, but the unofficial rule in NH (according to a lawyer relative) was that the judge and court clerk must be able to read your complaint without cracking up for it to go forward.
In most US jurisdictions, the formal request for an initial review is a "motion to dismiss" (arguing that the case should not go forward on legal or procedural grounds) or a "motion for summary judgment" (arguing that the claim is legal but should not go forward on factual grounds).
That's not to say there's no protection for the little guy exactly: the judge has the option of awarding the victorious party attorney's fees, and a lot of judges are willing to give that out if the losing side appears to have been taking advantage of the fact that lawsuits cost money.
The trouble is that the little guy might have already been driven broke by the attorney's fees before that award can occur, and if the big guy doesn't pay might not even be able to move for contempt. So it's not a perfect remedy unless you have trial lawyers willing to work on contingency (which brings along a whole different set of problems).
Autodesk would probably lose due to the first-sale doctrine if this actually gets anywhere near a courtroom. As it is, the cost of Vernor proving that he has the right to resell his CD far outweighs the price he could get for it, so Autodesk is banking that he won't fight it. The really unpleasant part of the DMCA is that it puts the burden of proof on the party who wants to have the material up on the web rather than the party who wants it removed.
As with the parent, I'm not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Perhaps the media companies who stand to lose quite a bit if the Pirate Party gains real traction are not exactly keen on giving it a lot of attention?
Ignorance is absolutely no excuse.
Why not?
Assume you were born poor. With a single parent who was so busy working she rarely had time to teach you anything. Your education consisted of Sesame Street and similar television before you were 5, and inner-city public school after that. You probably get fair-to-middling grades in school, somewhere in the B-C range, and graduate from a voc tech high school specializing in cooking (putting you ahead of a significant percentage of your peers).
Where in that education did you learn anything about interest, principle, and how to manage a loan? Where in that education did you study exponential growth? Chances are the answer is nowhere. Not because you did anything wrong, really (you did the best you could in school), but because of the circumstances you were born into.
So you get a job working as a cook, and through a lot of hard work as a cook manage to save up some money. You start thinking "If I work hard and play by the rules I can have the American dream" which for you is a car and a house of your own. You go buy the car with the extra cash you saved, and after 5 years of hard work pay off the car. So now you even think you've got this whole loan thing (which remember, you were never taught anything about) figured out: the key thing is to find out what your monthly payment is and how long you will need to pay it.
And this is where you get caught, because you're now thinking of buying a home. So you go out shopping for homes, find one you like, and then go talk to a bank about getting a loan. The bank says they won't give you a loan. Your real estate agent is still hopeful about a deal, though. Then you see an ad on TV about a company that can get you a loan even if the bank says no, so you give them a call. You go into an office where a nice man in a suit explains everything to you, gives you a loan summary with a nice low monthly payment that's even lower than you paid for your car loan, and some papers to sign which the nice man in a suit explains is standard legal boilerplate. You sign the papers and are overjoyed at the prospect of actually achieving the life for yourself and your kids that you wanted.
Should they be more diligent? Sure. Should caveat emptor be the rule of the day? Yes. But the simple fact is that someone in that position doesn't know any better. Not only do they not know, but they don't even know that they don't know.
The worldwide financial collapse had a lot to do with a large number of idiots deciding to buy homes they knew they couldn't afford
Most of the people buying the homes they couldn't afford didn't know they couldn't afford them. In fact, their mortgage broker almost definitely told them they could afford those homes, because the mortgage broker would collect a commission if the buyer could afford the home, and wouldn't if the buyer couldn't. A responsible banker, by contrast, would never have given these folks loans and would have made sure to explain that the home they wanted could not be reasonably purchased with the income and savings available.
This would seem like the mortgage brokers had a stupid strategy for figuring out who to loan money to (since there was a good chance they were going to default), and it would be, except that the mortgage brokerage could then take the bad loan, build an MBS that appeared to be a good loan, and sell it to somebody else who didn't really know what it was (taking advantage of investor ignorance).
This wasn't a case of irresponsible home buyers (who were acting on information given to them by people they thought were experts), but a whole industry swarming with well paid con-men.
(I know, old thread)
Sorry, I made a slight mistake, and intended to say "less than 3 years of experience".
the big bad FSF
I must be missing the part where the FSF became the evil empire who wanted to control the world of computing, rather than a rebel alliance who wanted the users in control of the code running on their own computers. And the part where the FSF did anything to actively stop FreeBSD from doing its thing.
The Ubuntu project, the Linux project, and the FreeBSD project all have the same basic goal: create freely shareable really awesome (fast, effective, efficient, robust, useful, and as bug-free as possible) code that solves problems for people. Can't we all just get along?
What I'd recommend for displaying this data is switching from charts to tables, and use alternating light green and white rows (little holes on either end for dot-matrix printer alignment optional).
Obviously, you can't put that in modern films
Sure you can. They might not all be big Hollywood blockbusters, but to say that religion is necessarily disqualified from film is incorrect. For instance, Stanley Kubrick, hardly a Christian-oriented filmmaker, made Christianity a key part of the film A Clockwork Orange. And films about biblical events are regularly quite popular and successful, whether we're talking about The Passion of the Christ or Prince of Egypt.
I'm not exactly sure though that Mark Whitacre's Christianity would be one I'd take for inspiration. It might be one thing if he'd taken all of his ill-gotten gains and given them away to charity, but he didn't. And I distinctly remember something about camels not being able to get through eyes of needles.
don't have the talents to serve as an effective executive in the first place
You're absolutely right: I lack the "talent" to ruin people's careers, casually rip off customers, embezzle, not give a rat's behind about anyone but myself, and deny reality whenever that reality would be bad for me. Yes, there are executives who don't engage in that sort of behavior, but far more that do (especially at larger firms like ADM).
Similar to the uniforms of the storm troopers in Star Wars, only in black.
Wait, those inspire fear? (Actually, on second thought, they do - for everyone standing near the person they're aiming at.)
The liberal types out there complaining about free speech zones have a point: The basic problem in Pittsburgh right now (and most other events that have attracted large numbers of protesters) is that police officers almost inevitably treat the protesters as enemies, as criminals, and otherwise as a force that should be minimized, destroyed, and shut down.
So to the police - the vast majority of protesters aren't going to hurt anyone. They're going to say their bit, and go home. That's it. That's all they want.
Actually, what the publishers typically do in order to maximize revenue:
Release day price: $60
6 months after release: $55
1 year after release: $45
2 years after release: $30
3 years after release: $15
4 years after release: $5
That way, they get the early adopters paying $60, and also get the people they just priced out of the market with their 3-4 year old titles. That's because the timing allows market segmentation, which allows them to capture a greater portion of the consumer surplus.
I was glad to see how many people thought the "Patriot Act" should have been renamed "Enabling Act" (look it up).
Actually, it's an unsettled legal question whether what the telecoms did was legal, because the immunity that was part of the Patriot Act renewal, not the original Patriot Act, applying retroactively to the period between Patriot I and Patriot II. That immunity was put in place specifically to stop cases by the ACLU and similar organizations from going forward (which would have settled the question as to the legality of the telecom's actions).
So this isn't exactly a case of "A was legal, now it's not", it's more a case of "A may not be legal, and we said we weren't going to do anything about it, but we've changed our minds", which isn't the same thing.
I would have thought that by 2004 it would have been clear that the Bush administration didn't give 2 pairs of dingos kidneys about protecting you. Actually, one could conceivably have figured that out in 2000 when you realized what Bush, Gore, and McCain were all doing in the late 60's.
The image of Democrats not having the balls to protect you is simply unfounded.
No they aren't. They're owned by slightly different sets of campaign contributors:
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/mems.php?party=D&cycle=2010
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/mems.php?party=R&cycle=2010
The point of a company is to make money, not to further ethical causes.
Companies are bound by the rule of law. That's why GE doesn't have a division responsible for selling crack despite the high profitability of that market.
The reason why they "violate" is because they just do not care.
There's an easy way to make the companies care about OSS license violations: the C&D letter (followed by the appropriate legal action if they don't comply). It's been held up in the cases where it's gone to court. The FSF has a portion of their organization devoted to doing just that sort of wrangling.
Ultimately, you need to also ask if it really matters at all. How often do you think this provided source code is really going to be useful to a mass audience?
Absolutely it matters. And yes the code can be useful - not just for the specific hardware device (which could be around much longer than the manufacturer thought), but for any similar devices that come onto the market.