Anti religious speech is free speech. Discrimination based on regligion is not free speech. Your expressing your support for your religion is free speech. Same with expressing support for different sexual orientations vs. discriminating/treating people differently based on sexual orientation. Accosting someone and forcing them to listen to your religion is a gray area, and tends to fall outside of free speech. (My freedom starts where yours ends... And you as the "aggressor" HAS to fall on the short side of that stick).
As for politics, it would be simpler to use the rule of perlchild: politics is free speech only when uttered by a non-politician, and should a non-politician ever become a policitian, his speech becomes non-free retroactively.
The problem with games(and ads too, but that's already legislated about, I'm also moving away from replying to your post, and more into a reply to the article), especially those targeted to children, is that children are known to be vulnerable to the ideas in those games in what could be considered Propaganda. The targeting of vulnerable people through such methods is quite like what laws there are to protect compulsive gamblers: if someone is known to be vulnerable to something, they can request to be protected from it... In this particular case, parents of children request the state protect their children from some speech they might not be able to protect their children from, plausibly because of two reasons: 1) they might not know the speech is contained in the game 2) they are unable to resist the peer pressure associated with the game (remember that peer pressure considers an "Adult-only, with especially tasty bits" almost irresistible, and a mark of passage.
What's sad about this is that those parent groups effort show more that 1) they haven't tried to control what their children watch(a lot more common than you might think) or 2) they tried and failed, and hope the state can do what they couldn't. 2) tends to inspire a lot of ultra-conservative groups to get the state to ban everything, in the spirit of "If I can't prevent exposure of my child to something, someone else should". It's more sad than anything else.
The definition of freedom probably still makes sense, it's application's plagued with inconsistencies, such is "real life".
Another idea would be to replace antivirus/firewalls with comprehensive update/security solutions. I know quite a few (usually on the less informed part of the clientele) people actually EXPECT this from tech people. They see security as a single problem, which should have a single solution. Of course, for such a thing to work, OS, policy management, software packaging, and network configuration changes might be required to a great extent.
I like the "survival of the fittest" aspect of capitalism, but I would rather have the citizens survive than a business. Outsourcing is painful, but I think eventually, as the author of one of the articles says, equilibrium will be reached. Hopefully few of us Americans get hurt in the process.
There are safeguards to make sure the little guys get hurt, but the little guys keep crying that it's too much work to punish the big bad guys for taking advantage of them. The fact that political parties caught in corruption scandals survive the scandals could be taken as one of them, so are the Enron, etc.. scandals.
The system is very finely balanced, and "tends" to work. The only problem is that it ain't big enough on education, motivation and participation.
Anyone else notice how hard it is to find games that fit in the original poster's requirements strictly?
Let me clarify: how many games are sold on the value of the game itself, vs how many games are sold on the value of the franchise and/or publisher? That is, a truly original game that you'd hear from through word of mouth, and not advertisment from it's rich publishing company...
(It's apparently also a trend in other forms of entertainment: they call it something pre-aware)
-- Warning: it doesn't pay to be original anymore
Re:Yeah, that's interesting until you consider...
on
Japan's Empire of Cool
·
· Score: 1
This brings up an interesting question: Why are the Japanese so keen to take, modify and integrate other cultures to suit their needs, yet they're still incredibly racist of other cultures?
Two reasons: 1) you don't have to give up a sense of superiority you have, just to accept a product/service from someone else 2) By integrating it themselves, they keep control over what's integrated It's exactly why Japanese culture, which integrates western values through Japanese artists through Japanese control isn't eroding as fast as say, some Middle-Eastern cultures which reject "western" values outright. It's must easier to shut someone up in one's home, than it is to gag someone in the street in front of your house... Japanese culture has been managing the integration of foreign elements into their culture, which is a long-term culture survival strategy. Rejecting "western" values outright is a short term strategy, that only works as long as the "benefits" (If one can call the prosperity of visible elements of a culture group a "benefit") aren't too visible, or superior to the prosperity of the group you're trying to protect. i.e. "It's bad and a corrupting influence on our youth." Lasts until... "Maybe it's bad and corrupting, but it sure works for them!" YMMV
I'm sure Americans would think we have funny ideas about right of publicity here in Canada, especially during election time(like forcing them to take the site down until after the election, in some extreme cases: not this one, wrong jurisdiction). I happen to like some of those ideas.
-- Only in Canada can the LPC be considered Liberal
I really don't understand how people could either not understand the way the government works at this basic level, or disagree with a Liberal leadership and want an election right now. If there were to be an election, the conservative parties are currently in the middle of working themselves out and wouldn't be able to put up a fight.
Disclaimer: I used to be pro-Martin
And the liberal party used internal political pressure to have noone run against M. Martin so as not to weaken itself before next election.
I'll grant such tactics are legal, but surrounding conditions(timing, # of candidates, etc..) have become so important, as opposed to say, the ideas of each candidate, that I feel someone has stolen my choice. I could vote... but it's like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic...
-- Only in Canada can a party as conservative as the LPC can be called liberal.
We can agree to disagree on that one, I think. I felt the value of the scourging of the shire was EXACTLY to prove that the destruction of one source of evil(the ring) did not fix "the whole world" and that the forces of good(the fellowship) had to keep working at it.
I guess it's also a tribute to Jackson's talent that I could enjoy a Movie focused on casual viewers at all, since what interested me in the three movies required reading the book and the Silmarillion...
Unless Microsoft has radically changed the installation procedure since I last used windows (win98), their "package management" is pathetic.
windows 2000 uses.msi technology, which is rather similar in features to.rpm or freebsd.pkg
apt-get rules! It's almost as good as yum (see below):)
I remember saying that... before I switched to Debian... Now I say it the other way... Simply because the apt-get does have a single point for which most dependancies come from... so anyone who adds repositories doesn't need to include "standard" dependancies which are incompatible with each other.
I use apt-get from rpm, and I can't go over how few choices I have, since only a few apt-rpm repository exist, most of them tied to one distro or another. With dpkg, you can have say, an alternate ftp or http daemon with its own apt repository, and that allows for easier updates etc... I did notice, and that's purely a judgement on my part, that.dpkg upgrades go smoother than in the rpm world, partly from having a system(ucf ?) do deal with this particular case.
Of course, both yum and apt-rpm blow.msi out of the water, simply for the fact that windows update doesn't cover most of the applications one might want to update, and each antivirus/database/utility/tool ends up with its own update schedule and update utility under windows, despite the fact that some of the.msi info seems to indicate an online update like yum might be possible(in about 10 years to get through the red tape of course)
You have it backwards, Diebold(in a semi-getting-close-to-maybe-becoming-a-better[as in works better] kinda way) should have to PROVE their trustworthiness, simply because an untrusted(in the TCPA sense, how ironic) voting system, one side could cleverly imply the system is rigged, and influence the elections illegally.
IANAL, but that Diebold didn't get sued out of existence for using "untrustable" or "untrusted" software is just sign of how individual-unfriendly, and big-corporation-friendly the USA have become. Of course, in truly democratic countries, the person who installed untrusted software in a voting machine would automatically commit a felony, and do hard jail time. The fact that it was not an isolated incident would compound that into conspiracy to commit a felony, and probably send 10-20 people in jail, and 5 people in the witness protection program for blowing the whistle on the others.
But then, where I live, while not perfect, certainly our rules(Quebec's) makes our politicians work a little harder not to appear to be corrupt, their success at this, is mitigated...
You might want to make sure the contract for the security assessment makes sure they cannot bid for security-related products, (only other audits) for the next 20(or 50) years. That should keep the problem under control.
What, you mean you bought auditing services without a contract??? I rest my case.
LOTR:ROTK and the rest of the series were in a rather tight bind, they had to respect the books enough(and the most-sold ever set of books of fiction in english literature kinda deserves a little). They also had to fit 5 books(in three volumes) into a three-movie set(and cut enough stuff to make it fit in the time constraints). They managed to alienate the true purists by cutting essential scenes from the movies, yet make it a wide-audience series that generated wide interest.
The cutting out of Tom Bombadil, for one example, was a perfect example of mass-marketing(it would helped to understand the world of Tolkien better, the mythology, and the role the Ring had with regards to the powers that be). It didn't include a fight scene, and the potential for special effects was minimal, so it was cut. The equivalent part with Galadriel, which served the same purpose, but to understand the relationship between the Elves' head honchos and the ring, didn't include a fight scene, but had more special effects/pizazz potential, was kept. I imagine that Saruman's invasion of The Shire(my term for it) was cut because it was hard getting that many male hobbits in uniform as to compose two opposing army units.
As for the books not standing out on their own, you're kinda missing the point... The books already are a hit, the idea is to translate the books into visual medium, for a different audience(how many people do you know would buy, then read a set of 3 800 page volumes? ), not make a related, but different product.
Is the era of pull-marketing going to replace pushers?
in a word, no
pull-marketing is more efficient, and user-centric, so the push-marketers will be more and more aggressive, so they don't lose their business model, in five years, they'll be the next RIAA.
--
In North America, your Business Model chooses you, and won't ever let go.
now you know why it's not enough to have customer-protection advertising laws, you gotta make sure there's a consumer group that actually has the time to read the ads...
was to cover a portion of the Old Dominion University campus
Am I the only one who thinks a maglev might have been an idea to replace the metroliner, or some large-metropolis-to-large-metropolis high-business traffic lane.
Whereas using expensive technology to move about cost-conscious people is a bad idea?
A commuter train between Las Vegas-San Fran I can believe, but a university network?
As mr. don't points out, the agencies receiving an actual failing grade are "the U.S. Department of Justice, as well as the departments of Energy, Health and Human Services, Interior, Agriculture, Housing and Urban Development, and State.
so let me get this straight, if all those failed security provisions are hacked, you'd get: 1) hacked into the place that controls whether or not you go to prison(funny they're also the ones that investigate election fraud if I recall, I could be wrong, I'm Canadian) 2) hacked into the place that controls nuclear power plants 3) hacked into debt(identity theft) through the place that controls employment, etc... 4) hacked into the place that determines if there is war or not (agriculture, interior, and "housing and urban development weren't good targets)
*notices how Canada doesn't announce that kind of thing, I think they're embarassed at how badly they do*
Why TiVo has a problem with this, but allows others to sell the same images for profit is beyond me."
That one's obvious, because the "for-pay" images channel parts of the profit back to TiVo somehow, either through advertising, or commission on sales, etc...
You're making a valid point: not every "desktop software environment" is used for the same purpose, and the data's value depends on what the computer's used for
In theory the legality of such action depends on which state you are in. Also, most reseller agreements work in a similar, yet legal(at least in my jurisdiction) way. Apple can refuse to sell to you if you go below a certain price. That means if you can find someone else who'll beat apple's price, you can still sell at the lower price. But apple can refuse to be part of you lowering the price of that item.
The "legality" of this depends on large distributors not being controlled by the manufacturer, a reassuring fiction invented by lobbyists for local politicians.
Just having that kind of a desire to be ethical is a step in the right direction.
Yes it is, but a really ethical company is ethical EVEN if it costs them money... The problem is that a lot of companies who were previously ethical, were ethical, as long as they made money through a Dam's water entrance.
And now that they struggle to survive, they eject the Ethics, while the regular citizens expect the ethics to sink them, or at least, that the Ethics is so important to company culture, that they are willing to die with it.
Slashdot Mirror
Am I the only one who also notices that the UK has a central place, where all such information is "publically accessible".
Whereas the US has a law, where such information "can be made accessible if enough people ask for it"?
Am I the only one who sees a HUGE difference? Are all FOIA documents AUTOMATICALLY filed in the Library of Congress?
--
Disclaimers:
IANAL
IAC(I am Canadian, well sorta)
Anti religious speech is free speech.
Discrimination based on regligion is not free speech. Your expressing your support for your religion is free speech. Same with expressing support for different sexual orientations vs. discriminating/treating people differently based on sexual orientation.
Accosting someone and forcing them to listen to your religion is a gray area, and tends to fall outside of free speech. (My freedom starts where yours ends... And you as the "aggressor" HAS to fall on the short side of that stick).
As for politics, it would be simpler to use the rule of perlchild: politics is free speech only when uttered by a non-politician, and should a non-politician ever become a policitian, his speech becomes non-free retroactively.
The problem with games(and ads too, but that's already legislated about, I'm also moving away from replying to your post, and more into a reply to the article), especially those targeted to children, is that children are known to be vulnerable to the ideas in those games in what could be considered Propaganda. The targeting of vulnerable people through such methods is quite like what laws there are to protect compulsive gamblers: if someone is known to be vulnerable to something, they can request to be protected from it... In this particular case, parents of children request the state protect their children from some speech they might not be able to protect their children from, plausibly because of two reasons:
1) they might not know the speech is contained in the game
2) they are unable to resist the peer pressure associated with the game (remember that peer pressure considers an "Adult-only, with especially tasty bits" almost irresistible, and a mark of passage.
What's sad about this is that those parent groups effort show more that 1) they haven't tried to control what their children watch(a lot more common than you might think) or 2) they tried and failed, and hope the state can do what they couldn't. 2) tends to inspire a lot of ultra-conservative groups to get the state to ban everything, in the spirit of "If I can't prevent exposure of my child to something, someone else should". It's more sad than anything else.
The definition of freedom probably still makes sense, it's application's plagued with inconsistencies, such is "real life".
Another idea would be to replace antivirus/firewalls with comprehensive update/security solutions. I know quite a few (usually on the less informed part of the clientele) people actually EXPECT this from tech people.
They see security as a single problem, which should have a single solution.
Of course, for such a thing to work, OS, policy management, software packaging, and network configuration changes might be required to a great extent.
There are safeguards to make sure the little guys get hurt, but the little guys keep crying that it's too much work to punish the big bad guys for taking advantage of them. The fact that political parties caught in corruption scandals survive the scandals could be taken as one of them, so are the Enron, etc.. scandals.
The system is very finely balanced, and "tends" to work. The only problem is that it ain't big enough on education, motivation and participation.
Anyone else notice how hard it is to find games that fit in the original poster's requirements strictly?
Let me clarify: how many games are sold on the value of the game itself, vs how many games are sold on the value of the franchise and/or publisher? That is, a truly original game that you'd hear from through word of mouth, and not advertisment from it's rich publishing company...
(It's apparently also a trend in other forms of entertainment: they call it something pre-aware)
--
Warning: it doesn't pay to be original anymore
I'm sure Americans would think we have funny ideas about right of publicity here in Canada, especially during election time(like forcing them to take the site down until after the election, in some extreme cases: not this one, wrong jurisdiction). I happen to like some of those ideas.
--
Only in Canada can the LPC be considered Liberal
Disclaimer: I used to be pro-Martin
And the liberal party used internal political pressure to have noone run against M. Martin so as not to weaken itself before next election.
I'll grant such tactics are legal, but surrounding conditions(timing, # of candidates, etc..) have become so important, as opposed to say, the ideas of each candidate, that I feel someone has stolen my choice. I could vote... but it's like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic...
--
Only in Canada can a party as conservative as the LPC can be called liberal.
We can agree to disagree on that one, I think. I felt the value of the scourging of the shire was EXACTLY to prove that the destruction of one source of evil(the ring) did not fix "the whole world" and that the forces of good(the fellowship) had to keep working at it.
I guess it's also a tribute to Jackson's talent that I could enjoy a Movie focused on casual viewers at all, since what interested me in the three movies required reading the book and the Silmarillion...
windows 2000 uses
I remember saying that... before I switched to Debian... Now I say it the other way... Simply because the apt-get does have a single point for which most dependancies come from... so anyone who adds repositories doesn't need to include "standard" dependancies which are incompatible with each other.
I use apt-get from rpm, and I can't go over how few choices I have, since only a few apt-rpm repository exist, most of them tied to one distro or another. With dpkg, you can have say, an alternate ftp or http daemon with its own apt repository, and that allows for easier updates etc...
I did notice, and that's purely a judgement on my part, that
Of course, both yum and apt-rpm blow
*rotflmao* I'm not sure I should even dignify that with an answer... Last I checked, we exported both those things...
--
Geography is the lost science...
You have it backwards, Diebold(in a semi-getting-close-to-maybe-becoming-a-better[as in works better] kinda way) should have to PROVE their trustworthiness, simply because an untrusted(in the TCPA sense, how ironic) voting system, one side could cleverly imply the system is rigged, and influence the elections illegally.
IANAL, but that Diebold didn't get sued out of existence for using "untrustable" or "untrusted" software is just sign of how individual-unfriendly, and big-corporation-friendly the USA have become. Of course, in truly democratic countries, the person who installed untrusted software in a voting machine would automatically commit a felony, and do hard jail time. The fact that it was not an isolated incident would compound that into conspiracy to commit a felony, and probably send 10-20 people in jail, and 5 people in the witness protection program for blowing the whistle on the others.
But then, where I live, while not perfect, certainly our rules(Quebec's) makes our politicians work a little harder not to appear to be corrupt, their success at this, is mitigated...
You forgot it can update itself (add features online) at user's request... Hmm Download a bluetooth software modem into your driver's license anyone?
--
Disclaimer:
I will not willingly say bad things about perl unless I'm royally pissed, so consider me biased
You might want to make sure the contract for the security assessment makes sure they cannot bid for security-related products, (only other audits) for the next 20(or 50) years. That should keep the problem under control.
What, you mean you bought auditing services without a contract???
I rest my case.
LOTR:ROTK and the rest of the series were in a rather tight bind, they had to respect the books enough(and the most-sold ever set of books of fiction in english literature kinda deserves a little). They also had to fit 5 books(in three volumes) into a three-movie set(and cut enough stuff to make it fit in the time constraints). They managed to alienate the true purists by cutting essential scenes from the movies, yet make it a wide-audience series that generated wide interest.
The cutting out of Tom Bombadil, for one example, was a perfect example of mass-marketing(it would helped to understand the world of Tolkien better, the mythology, and the role the Ring had with regards to the powers that be). It didn't include a fight scene, and the potential for special effects was minimal, so it was cut. The equivalent part with Galadriel, which served the same purpose, but to understand the relationship between the Elves' head honchos and the ring, didn't include a fight scene, but had more special effects/pizazz potential, was kept. I imagine that Saruman's invasion of The Shire(my term for it) was cut because it was hard getting that many male hobbits in uniform as to compose two opposing army units.
As for the books not standing out on their own, you're kinda missing the point... The books already are a hit, the idea is to translate the books into visual medium, for a different audience(how many people do you know would buy, then read a set of 3 800 page volumes? ), not make a related, but different product.
in a word, no
pull-marketing is more efficient, and user-centric, so the push-marketers will be more and more aggressive, so they don't lose their business model, in five years, they'll be the next RIAA.
--
In North America, your Business Model chooses you, and won't ever let go.
it's interesting, but why did they take only three newspaper sites as their source? Wouldn't that skew the sample towards daily readers?
now you know why it's not enough to have customer-protection advertising laws, you gotta make sure there's a consumer group that actually has the time to read the ads...
was to cover a portion of the Old Dominion University campus
Am I the only one who thinks a maglev might have been an idea to replace the metroliner, or some large-metropolis-to-large-metropolis high-business traffic lane.
Whereas using expensive technology to move about cost-conscious people is a bad idea?
A commuter train between Las Vegas-San Fran I can believe, but a university network?
so let me get this straight, if all those failed security provisions are hacked, you'd get:
1) hacked into the place that controls whether or not you go to prison(funny they're also the ones that investigate election fraud if I recall, I could be wrong, I'm Canadian)
2) hacked into the place that controls nuclear power plants
3) hacked into debt(identity theft) through the place that controls employment, etc...
4) hacked into the place that determines if there is war or not
(agriculture, interior, and "housing and urban development weren't good targets)
*notices how Canada doesn't announce that kind of thing, I think they're embarassed at how badly they do*
Why TiVo has a problem with this, but allows others to sell the same images for profit is beyond me." That one's obvious, because the "for-pay" images channel parts of the profit back to TiVo somehow, either through advertising, or commission on sales, etc...
You're making a valid point:
not every "desktop software environment"
is used for the same purpose, and the data's value depends on what the computer's used for
In theory the legality of such action depends on which state you are in. Also, most reseller agreements work in a similar, yet legal(at least in my jurisdiction) way. Apple can refuse to sell to you if you go below a certain price. That means if you can find someone else who'll beat apple's price, you can still sell at the lower price. But apple can refuse to be part of you lowering the price of that item.
The "legality" of this depends on large distributors not being controlled by the manufacturer, a reassuring fiction invented by lobbyists for local politicians.
developers who need a project manager are less "valuable" than those who manage themselves(less people, less expense) 'nuff said
Yes it is, but a really ethical company is ethical EVEN if it costs them money... The problem is that a lot of companies who were previously ethical, were ethical, as long as they made money through a Dam's water entrance.
And now that they struggle to survive, they eject the Ethics, while the regular citizens expect the ethics to sink them, or at least, that the Ethics is so important to company culture, that they are willing to die with it.