I accept the retraction and don't worry too much about the judgment and condemnation. If I were in fact being hypocritical and happily living richly off of my grandfather's work, I'd expect someone to say what GP said and completely deserve it.
And for what it's worth, we're also not talking about all that much money: Last I checked, it was less than $100 a year. (I don't actually manage it, my aunt currently handles it.)
- Administration and student services. For example,
Oops - For example, writing tutors to ensure you finish your sentence before you hit "Submit".
Actually, where I was going with that is that a lot of schools have doubled or tripled the number of Deans of Students, counselors, Student Affairs staff, and so on.
When this happens, I guarantee that some people are bilking the system.
We also know that whoever it is isn't the faculty: If you adjust for inflation, the change in faculty salaries over the last 5 years is somewhere between 0 and -5%.
The costs that have been going up dramatically include: - Buildings, specifically the kinds of buildings that help sell a college to potential students like gyms and newer dorms that are more like living off campus rather than a small room to yourself + a roommate. - Administration and student services. For example, - Athletics, which are in some schools a huge business. In many states, the highest paid government employee is the head coach of the state university's football team (e.g. Ohio State's Urban Meyer rakes in $4.3 million a year, approximately 30 times the salary of the governor).
Also quite relevant for publicly funded institutions is that public funding for those institutions has been dropping like a rock.
There are 4 reasons we don't: 1. If we release the copyright we have on the text of the song, all that really happens is that the company who owns the copyright to the recordings of the song (also mostly from the 1950's - a 1957 version by Lonnie Donnegan actually reached #1 on the charts at one point) simply gets to keep what they're currently paying us.
2. ASCAP is involved in the legal side of things. I'm not exactly sure how it works, but they're usually pretty vicious about hanging onto the songs they have a right to (and sometimes the songs they don't). Again, it might be that whatever we don't see simply goes to ASCAP.
3. We don't take any kind of steps to enforce it against small performances or individual recordings. So Paul McCartney might have to pay someone who pays someone who eventually pays us, but a high school chorus or a traveling folk singer is not going to run into a problem if they download it from somewhere.
4. My family gives away the money we get to a charitable organization in the region where my grandfather collected the song.
In short, renouncing the copyright only benefits some big corporations at the expense of charity.
Here's an example of the silliness of copyright law: Because my late grandfather collected and arranged a folk song in upstate New York in the 1950's that eventually became a skiffle hit in the UK, my family gets a check each year from sales of recordings we had basically nothing to do with creating, for work done about 60 years ago by someone who has been dead for over 30 years. Now, it's not a very large check these days, but still, there's no good reason why the song shouldn't be public domain.
On the upside, it is also the song that is on the first known recording of the Quarrymen, so I'd at least have something to talk about if I ended up face to face with Paul McCartney for some reason.
But Katy Pery or whoever the next anonymous pretty face is will make more money off of one single than someone like a Tony Mac or Vic Wooten or Seree Lee or (take your pick) will make in their multi-decade careers.
That's really simple to explain: Katy Perry's real product isn't music, it's holding forth the believe that women who hear her can be like her, and men who hear her can bang her, without actually fulfilling either one. That's pretty much the job of female pop stars between the ages of 16 and 35 or so, along with dancing and acting. (And this isn't specifically about Katy Perry: Madonna, Britney Spears, Beyonce, etc all did exactly the same thing at that stage in their careers.)
I'm not convinced the red-light cameras are about enforcing the law. I have 2 major reasons for thinking this:
1. Red-light cameras are sold to governments as non-tax revenue sources. That means the purpose the politicians care about is raising money without dealing with the controversy of raising taxes.
2. The placement of red-light cameras, at least near where I live, correlates not with the locations with the highest violation of red light laws, but with the most politically powerless residents. In other words, you find the red light cameras all over the ghetto, but nowhere near the rich neighborhoods where people routinely take city streets at 45-50 mph.
Yep, he sure did, saving thousands of lives, preventing a major war between the US and Russia and Iran, and securing a large cache of chemical weapons without firing a shot in the process. What a jerk!
Colin Powell gets partial credit: He apparently led the anti-war faction within the Bush administration, but when Bush decided against him he didn't do what he ought to have done (resign in protest) but instead did what he was ordered to do.
But it is no wonder companies have so much anymosity towards employees when they pick the busiest time of the year to stop work.
Of course they did: If you're going to strike, you pick the time that will have the most impact. Just like how a corporation tends to have lockouts and contract negotiations when there is high unemployment in the region near the factory.
As far as the animosity towards employees, the fact is that workers and management have an inherently adversarial relationship: The worker wants to maximize the amount they are paid for the work they do, and minimize the work they have to do to earn it. Management wants to maximize the amount of work performed, and minimize how much they have to pay to get it done. To pretend that these are other than diametrically opposed is just plain silly. And if you feel thoroughly dedicated to your job, know that management loves people like you because you'll work those 16-hour days without complaining or demanding any kind of compensation.
Why should a worker be grateful to their employers? They do work, they get paid for part of the value of their work (if they got paid the full value of their work, it wouldn't be profitable for their employer to hire them). While this might be a mutually beneficial business arrangement, I'm hard-pressed to see why the employer is doing the worker a favor or otherwise giving them something that they aren't earning, which is my usual standard for being grateful.
Yes, precisely. And some smart people have also pointed out that they may have tried to do the exact same thing with Syria, since an apparent chemical weapons attack came shortly after Obama said that the use of chemical weapons would trigger a US military response.
You get the impression at least some of these guys are the modern version of Vizzini from the Princess Bride: "I'm trying to start a war here! It's a prestigious line of work, with a long and glorious tradition."
I wonder, sometimes, how much less safe we'd really, actually be if the NSA or a like-organization didn't exist, or at least didn't get access to anything domestically without explicit court order.
In theory, they don't have access to anything domestically without explicit court order.
In practice, they have access to whatever they damn well please, believing that nobody can stop them. They're probably right.
My guess on why Snowden didn't go to the Inspectors General is that he knew somebody else who had in fact gone to the IG, and observed that the only result was that his colleague was subject to more scrutiny by management.
They don't. They can't. So the surreptitious, illicit actions of a US spy agency can undermine the diplomatic work of months and years.
For example, imagine what would happen if the spooks simply made up a story that a country had (and/or had recently used) weapons of mass destruction, and provided what appeared to be actionable intelligence to the politicians who were theoretically in charge. I mean, there's no way the wise politicians wouldn't see through that and overwhelmingly move to start a war over nothing, right?
Yes, that is completely true. Instead of buying 10 bulbs for $2.50, you'll have to spend $16 or so on a 12-pack of CFLs. If you're like most/.ers, that will not break the bank.
The flip side of this: Your $2.50 incandescents burn out about 15 times faster than your $16 CFLs. So a fair comparison notices that over a 10,000 hour period, incandescents cost you $37.50 versus the $16 for the CFLs, meaning that biting the bullet and paying the extra $13.50 now saves you $11.50 over the year in replacement bulbs. Plus you don't have the annoyance of having to change your light bulbs so frequently by comparison. Oh, and they use less power too, lowering your electric bill.
Anecdotally, I bought CFLs about 8 years ago, and haven't had a single one burn out of me since then. That was money well-spent.
So where exactly did you get the idea that the feminist position is that male is always bad, and female is always good, and women should dominate men?
Because most of the big names in feminism don't do that. For example, Betty Friedan (The Feminine Mystique, first president of NOW, founder of NARAL) specifically wrote in her later years a book explaining exactly why feminists would be wrong to take on that position, and how that was unfair to men. Gloria Steinem has been very clear that for her liberation of women is in no way trying to oppress men, in fact quite the opposite. Andrea Dworkin, one of the more radical of that generation of feminists, made it abundantly clear that her primary goal was protecting women from sexual violence, rape, and prostitution.
Both are unacceptable to me. I was responding to the fact that GGP's argument turned "women complaining about what they saw as mysogyny" into "harpies".
Who is more respectful, 1) The guy who is honest, even when it offends some women? 2) The guy who hides his true opinion in order to 'have a quality relationship'?
How about the guy who's honest opinion is supporting the feminist position, that women are men's equals, with all sorts of hopes and dreams just like I have?
You have a right to say whatever you like online. You don't have a right to use somebody else's servers to say it. Github says in its terms of use that it can take stuff down if they find it offensive. They found this offensive. They're well within their rights to take it down if they like.
Also, I find your statement offensive. To demonstrate why, I'll just change a few words around to give you an idea of how you come across: "It's not in GitHub's mission to be laid into by uppity Negros. The professionally thin-skinned have presence and numbers online now, and many places are simply taking anything that might be denouced as 'offensive' down to avoid trouble." Or how about: "It's not in GitHub's mission to be laid into by Hebrew money-grubbers. The professionally thin-skinned have presence and numbers online now, and many places are simply taking anything that might be denouced as 'offensive' down to avoid trouble."
Why you would think the problem was with "the professionally thin-skinned" rather than with people who would think it's funny to say nasty things about large groups of other people is beyond me. Oh, and good luck having quality relationships with women if, whenever you find one who stands up for herself, you consider her a "feminist harpy". And for the record, I'm a guy.
You seem to have misunderstood the point of insurance. The way it works is that you pay more than you need to most of the time on the off chance that something goes horribly wrong.
For example, you probably pay for car insurance. Most of the time, that's simply an expense with no benefit to you whatsoever. The reason you have it, though, is that the insurance company eats almost all of the expense if some idiot slams into your car at 90 mph on the highway.
Ditto for homeowners or renters insurance: Most of the time, it's purely expense. But if your house burns down, guess who you're going to be calling?
Medical insurance isn't really that different: Most of the time, you pay in more than you pay out. That's to offset your expenses when you discover that you have leukemia (as a generally pretty healthy friend of mine did just last Sunday). Or do you really think you have the cash on hand to just pay a $450,000 hospital bill?
An example of the effects of propaganda: People in Kentucky who have been signing up on Kentucky's state-run exchange have been reported saying things like "This is so much better than Obamacare, thank goodness that Kentucky set up their own program!" This is of course idiocy, since Kentucky's state-run exchange is simply a part of precisely what is being derisively referred to as "Obamacare".
But yes, Frank Luntz in particular is very very good at getting poll numbers that say whatever he wants them to say.
If we have servers somewhere in the office building, "inside the perimeter" includes: Physical access to the server room itself, a server subnet, with a firewall to the office as well as the outside, and designated workstations in the server room accessible only to sysadmins and with no outside network access that allow them to modify the firewall and otherwise work inside the perimeter when they need to. If the servers aren't somewhere in the office building, then you set up a way for your sysadmins to get a backdoor to the firewall between your office and the server racks in the data center.
The goal here is to have it so somebody could walk in with an infected iPhone, plug it into your network, and while the office may be in horrible shape in a matter of hours your servers are just fine.
I would give them two days before they were guilty of trespass, theft, assault, and battery.
Heck, they'd probably be done in for indecent exposure in a matter of hours.
This is animal rights groups being really stupid. Smart animal rights groups focus on things like protecting endangered wild animals, putting a stop to puppy mills, rescuing pets, and ensuring humane treatment of captive animals, because those are what most people are comfortable supporting.
My thinking on this is a bit different, and boils down to this principle: There's still a perimeter, but most of the office is outside of the perimeter.
Slashdot Mirror
I accept the retraction and don't worry too much about the judgment and condemnation. If I were in fact being hypocritical and happily living richly off of my grandfather's work, I'd expect someone to say what GP said and completely deserve it.
And for what it's worth, we're also not talking about all that much money: Last I checked, it was less than $100 a year. (I don't actually manage it, my aunt currently handles it.)
- Administration and student services. For example,
Oops - For example, writing tutors to ensure you finish your sentence before you hit "Submit".
Actually, where I was going with that is that a lot of schools have doubled or tripled the number of Deans of Students, counselors, Student Affairs staff, and so on.
When this happens, I guarantee that some people are bilking the system.
We also know that whoever it is isn't the faculty: If you adjust for inflation, the change in faculty salaries over the last 5 years is somewhere between 0 and -5%.
The costs that have been going up dramatically include:
- Buildings, specifically the kinds of buildings that help sell a college to potential students like gyms and newer dorms that are more like living off campus rather than a small room to yourself + a roommate.
- Administration and student services. For example,
- Athletics, which are in some schools a huge business. In many states, the highest paid government employee is the head coach of the state university's football team (e.g. Ohio State's Urban Meyer rakes in $4.3 million a year, approximately 30 times the salary of the governor).
Also quite relevant for publicly funded institutions is that public funding for those institutions has been dropping like a rock.
There are 4 reasons we don't:
1. If we release the copyright we have on the text of the song, all that really happens is that the company who owns the copyright to the recordings of the song (also mostly from the 1950's - a 1957 version by Lonnie Donnegan actually reached #1 on the charts at one point) simply gets to keep what they're currently paying us.
2. ASCAP is involved in the legal side of things. I'm not exactly sure how it works, but they're usually pretty vicious about hanging onto the songs they have a right to (and sometimes the songs they don't). Again, it might be that whatever we don't see simply goes to ASCAP.
3. We don't take any kind of steps to enforce it against small performances or individual recordings. So Paul McCartney might have to pay someone who pays someone who eventually pays us, but a high school chorus or a traveling folk singer is not going to run into a problem if they download it from somewhere.
4. My family gives away the money we get to a charitable organization in the region where my grandfather collected the song.
In short, renouncing the copyright only benefits some big corporations at the expense of charity.
Here's an example of the silliness of copyright law: Because my late grandfather collected and arranged a folk song in upstate New York in the 1950's that eventually became a skiffle hit in the UK, my family gets a check each year from sales of recordings we had basically nothing to do with creating, for work done about 60 years ago by someone who has been dead for over 30 years. Now, it's not a very large check these days, but still, there's no good reason why the song shouldn't be public domain.
On the upside, it is also the song that is on the first known recording of the Quarrymen, so I'd at least have something to talk about if I ended up face to face with Paul McCartney for some reason.
But Katy Pery or whoever the next anonymous pretty face is will make more money off of one single than someone like a Tony Mac or Vic Wooten or Seree Lee or (take your pick) will make in their multi-decade careers.
That's really simple to explain: Katy Perry's real product isn't music, it's holding forth the believe that women who hear her can be like her, and men who hear her can bang her, without actually fulfilling either one. That's pretty much the job of female pop stars between the ages of 16 and 35 or so, along with dancing and acting. (And this isn't specifically about Katy Perry: Madonna, Britney Spears, Beyonce, etc all did exactly the same thing at that stage in their careers.)
Are bagpipes even compatible with digital music?
Bagpipes are not compatible with any kind of music!
(Just kidding: One of the best gigs I've ever had was with an uilleann piper)
I'm not convinced the red-light cameras are about enforcing the law. I have 2 major reasons for thinking this:
1. Red-light cameras are sold to governments as non-tax revenue sources. That means the purpose the politicians care about is raising money without dealing with the controversy of raising taxes.
2. The placement of red-light cameras, at least near where I live, correlates not with the locations with the highest violation of red light laws, but with the most politically powerless residents. In other words, you find the red light cameras all over the ghetto, but nowhere near the rich neighborhoods where people routinely take city streets at 45-50 mph.
Kerry dropped the ball on that one.
Yep, he sure did, saving thousands of lives, preventing a major war between the US and Russia and Iran, and securing a large cache of chemical weapons without firing a shot in the process. What a jerk!
Colin Powell gets partial credit: He apparently led the anti-war faction within the Bush administration, but when Bush decided against him he didn't do what he ought to have done (resign in protest) but instead did what he was ordered to do.
But it is no wonder companies have so much anymosity towards employees when they pick the busiest time of the year to stop work.
Of course they did: If you're going to strike, you pick the time that will have the most impact. Just like how a corporation tends to have lockouts and contract negotiations when there is high unemployment in the region near the factory.
As far as the animosity towards employees, the fact is that workers and management have an inherently adversarial relationship: The worker wants to maximize the amount they are paid for the work they do, and minimize the work they have to do to earn it. Management wants to maximize the amount of work performed, and minimize how much they have to pay to get it done. To pretend that these are other than diametrically opposed is just plain silly. And if you feel thoroughly dedicated to your job, know that management loves people like you because you'll work those 16-hour days without complaining or demanding any kind of compensation.
Why should a worker be grateful to their employers? They do work, they get paid for part of the value of their work (if they got paid the full value of their work, it wouldn't be profitable for their employer to hire them). While this might be a mutually beneficial business arrangement, I'm hard-pressed to see why the employer is doing the worker a favor or otherwise giving them something that they aren't earning, which is my usual standard for being grateful.
Yes, precisely. And some smart people have also pointed out that they may have tried to do the exact same thing with Syria, since an apparent chemical weapons attack came shortly after Obama said that the use of chemical weapons would trigger a US military response.
You get the impression at least some of these guys are the modern version of Vizzini from the Princess Bride: "I'm trying to start a war here! It's a prestigious line of work, with a long and glorious tradition."
I wonder, sometimes, how much less safe we'd really, actually be if the NSA or a like-organization didn't exist, or at least didn't get access to anything domestically without explicit court order.
In theory, they don't have access to anything domestically without explicit court order.
In practice, they have access to whatever they damn well please, believing that nobody can stop them. They're probably right.
My guess on why Snowden didn't go to the Inspectors General is that he knew somebody else who had in fact gone to the IG, and observed that the only result was that his colleague was subject to more scrutiny by management.
They don't. They can't. So the surreptitious, illicit actions of a US spy agency can undermine the diplomatic work of months and years.
For example, imagine what would happen if the spooks simply made up a story that a country had (and/or had recently used) weapons of mass destruction, and provided what appeared to be actionable intelligence to the politicians who were theoretically in charge. I mean, there's no way the wise politicians wouldn't see through that and overwhelmingly move to start a war over nothing, right?
Yes, that is completely true. Instead of buying 10 bulbs for $2.50, you'll have to spend $16 or so on a 12-pack of CFLs. If you're like most /.ers, that will not break the bank.
The flip side of this: Your $2.50 incandescents burn out about 15 times faster than your $16 CFLs. So a fair comparison notices that over a 10,000 hour period, incandescents cost you $37.50 versus the $16 for the CFLs, meaning that biting the bullet and paying the extra $13.50 now saves you $11.50 over the year in replacement bulbs. Plus you don't have the annoyance of having to change your light bulbs so frequently by comparison. Oh, and they use less power too, lowering your electric bill.
Anecdotally, I bought CFLs about 8 years ago, and haven't had a single one burn out of me since then. That was money well-spent.
No she didn't. She has been asked about it, and specifically said that she doesn't.
So where exactly did you get the idea that the feminist position is that male is always bad, and female is always good, and women should dominate men?
Because most of the big names in feminism don't do that. For example, Betty Friedan (The Feminine Mystique, first president of NOW, founder of NARAL) specifically wrote in her later years a book explaining exactly why feminists would be wrong to take on that position, and how that was unfair to men. Gloria Steinem has been very clear that for her liberation of women is in no way trying to oppress men, in fact quite the opposite. Andrea Dworkin, one of the more radical of that generation of feminists, made it abundantly clear that her primary goal was protecting women from sexual violence, rape, and prostitution.
Both are unacceptable to me. I was responding to the fact that GGP's argument turned "women complaining about what they saw as mysogyny" into "harpies".
Who is more respectful,
1) The guy who is honest, even when it offends some women?
2) The guy who hides his true opinion in order to 'have a quality relationship'?
How about the guy who's honest opinion is supporting the feminist position, that women are men's equals, with all sorts of hopes and dreams just like I have?
You have a right to say whatever you like online. You don't have a right to use somebody else's servers to say it. Github says in its terms of use that it can take stuff down if they find it offensive. They found this offensive. They're well within their rights to take it down if they like.
Also, I find your statement offensive. To demonstrate why, I'll just change a few words around to give you an idea of how you come across:
"It's not in GitHub's mission to be laid into by uppity Negros. The professionally thin-skinned have presence and numbers online now, and many places are simply taking anything that might be denouced as 'offensive' down to avoid trouble."
Or how about:
"It's not in GitHub's mission to be laid into by Hebrew money-grubbers. The professionally thin-skinned have presence and numbers online now, and many places are simply taking anything that might be denouced as 'offensive' down to avoid trouble."
Why you would think the problem was with "the professionally thin-skinned" rather than with people who would think it's funny to say nasty things about large groups of other people is beyond me. Oh, and good luck having quality relationships with women if, whenever you find one who stands up for herself, you consider her a "feminist harpy". And for the record, I'm a guy.
You seem to have misunderstood the point of insurance. The way it works is that you pay more than you need to most of the time on the off chance that something goes horribly wrong.
For example, you probably pay for car insurance. Most of the time, that's simply an expense with no benefit to you whatsoever. The reason you have it, though, is that the insurance company eats almost all of the expense if some idiot slams into your car at 90 mph on the highway.
Ditto for homeowners or renters insurance: Most of the time, it's purely expense. But if your house burns down, guess who you're going to be calling?
Medical insurance isn't really that different: Most of the time, you pay in more than you pay out. That's to offset your expenses when you discover that you have leukemia (as a generally pretty healthy friend of mine did just last Sunday). Or do you really think you have the cash on hand to just pay a $450,000 hospital bill?
An example of the effects of propaganda: People in Kentucky who have been signing up on Kentucky's state-run exchange have been reported saying things like "This is so much better than Obamacare, thank goodness that Kentucky set up their own program!" This is of course idiocy, since Kentucky's state-run exchange is simply a part of precisely what is being derisively referred to as "Obamacare".
But yes, Frank Luntz in particular is very very good at getting poll numbers that say whatever he wants them to say.
If we have servers somewhere in the office building, "inside the perimeter" includes: Physical access to the server room itself, a server subnet, with a firewall to the office as well as the outside, and designated workstations in the server room accessible only to sysadmins and with no outside network access that allow them to modify the firewall and otherwise work inside the perimeter when they need to. If the servers aren't somewhere in the office building, then you set up a way for your sysadmins to get a backdoor to the firewall between your office and the server racks in the data center.
The goal here is to have it so somebody could walk in with an infected iPhone, plug it into your network, and while the office may be in horrible shape in a matter of hours your servers are just fine.
I would give them two days before they were guilty of trespass, theft, assault, and battery.
Heck, they'd probably be done in for indecent exposure in a matter of hours.
This is animal rights groups being really stupid. Smart animal rights groups focus on things like protecting endangered wild animals, putting a stop to puppy mills, rescuing pets, and ensuring humane treatment of captive animals, because those are what most people are comfortable supporting.
My thinking on this is a bit different, and boils down to this principle: There's still a perimeter, but most of the office is outside of the perimeter.