If you're being paid to do work, you don't own the work - whoever is paying you does. If the schools don't have clauses in those teachers' contracts to that effect, then the school boards are allowing taxpayer money to fund "side work" for these teachers.
What you would have to offset is the value gained by employing people with little or no credentials in their area of expertise.
The whole argument supporting H1B visas is that there aren't enough qualified people for the jobs - and that's counting the meaningless credentials as actual qualifications. The addition of a professional society that will undoubtedly set the bar higher than it is now will only shrink the pool of "qualified" (and I mean that in the most liberal sense) persons.
However, it is still an "end around" of one of the central principles of a non-totalitarian government. I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying, but it's an obvious head-first dive down the slippery slope.
It seems closer to the "If I can't do it, it must be impossible" argument - the fallacy in this argument should be apparent. What I have found is that the people who back the anti-phone arguments fit a particular pattern:
1.) They hang on to the idea that a cell phone is a luxury and, thus, anyone using one while driving is flaunting theirs
2.) They ignore how many distractions come from the radio in the car - they would never move to ban radios
3.) They ignore how many distractions come from passengers/pets - they would never more to ban passengers/pets
4.) They hold on to the idea that if a phone was in the car, it caused the accident, no matter what the actual cause was
5.) To such people, the citing of a couple of personal examples shows what all of humankind is like
6.) They fit into the general pattern of those who want to tell others what to do
The truth is that when bad things happen, people inevitably seek to blame whatever thing/behavior that they don't like but think they have good enough chances of hanging the blame on. Aren't there any studies on actual distraction level and human tolerance for such? Statistics taken at the scene of accidents are just as unreliable as they were in the 80's when any car with any amount of alcohol in it, regardless of form (groceries, sealed bottles, etc) was considered an "alcohol-related" accident.
If it were the case that an unfortunate side effect of the upgrade was the loss of interoperability with a competitor product, I would agree with you. However, the situation we find ourselves in is one where we purchase hardware with the manufacturer's fingers still in it. They are able to modify the product after the original purchase (read: modify the deal after the money changes hands) and able to exercise some direct legal rights to prevent the owner of the hardware from modifying the behavior of the device (DMCA in the case of circumvention) as well as use some indirect strongarm tactics such as loss of online service should the owner of the hardware refuse a firmware upgrade. (I have seen this on the Sony PSP)
It would be a simple matter to hide behind the "unfortunate side effect" argument if the manufacturer really was using their dominant position in one product to edge out competition in another product.
- The lesson to be learned here is not to purchase proprietary hardware.
I think it would be interesting to see if there is anything in this arrangement that could be used to legally strip the manufacturers of their DMCA protections. I know that this is the exact reason companies push for "tort reform" that eliminates class action lawsuits - they don't want their customers able to organize a posse to come after them when they do actually cross a legal boundary.
It's probably the materials difference. Custom composites, titanium and aircraft aluminum (fighter jet bodies) are expensive - so is the ruggedized computing equipment (aka avionics).
I work for a defense contractor (not LM) - the profit margins are not the bonanza that everyone makes them out to be.
This job is mostly labor - probably not much in the way of parts.
I read the article yesterday at Yahoo - the one thing that kept coming to mind was this:
The best way to avoid being the victim of false accusations is to not be in the subset of people eligible to be accused. With a system like this, everyone's inclusion is automatic unless you're willing to be an "unperson".
Maybe I'm making my self a target for ageism, but aren't a lot of FOSS activities typically conducted by your handle (i.e. not your name)? How could anyone know your gender with any certainty? I suppose someone could say that a person's choice of a handle speaks to their gender, but I've seen quite a few people who manipulate others by intentionally choosing a misleading handle.
This is great for games set in the current day, but if the game is set in, say, 1942 - Microsoft, BMW, Google, Mitsubishi and Sony are probably not good choices for in-game advertisements (well, BMW and Mitsubishi were around then but the ads would not have the desired effect). Likewise, you wouldn't want to advertise the "all new 2010 Camero" in a game set in 2112.
And how long before some dumbass makes an antimatter bomb - and then we have antimatter antiproliferation treaties and the UN has to put together a watchdog group and the whole thing goes to hell in a handbasket.
Next we'll be having to worry about terrorists getting their hands on antimatter - remember, some of these morons don't have an escape plan.
This isn't condemnation - this is putting people in groups that operate with similar speed and direction. As for learning to deal with "less intelligent undisciplined" people, I agree that everyone needs to do that, but I disagree that the academic environment is the proper place for that.
It's the fundamental problem with schools - divide the students along two lines - intelligence and discipline.
High IQ/Disciplined - fast track to higher learning
Low IQ/Disciplined - fast track to skilled job training
High IQ/Undisciplined - try to salvage them but not at the expense of those above - there may be diamonds in the rough here, but don't mess up the good ones finding them.
Low IQ/Undisciplined - just keep them away from the rest
There needs to be a method of changing groups as well. A student wanting to change their category needs to prove that they belong in the category of their desire. Students in the different categories should not have contact with each other while in school. Sure, everyone needs to learn to deal with idiots and assholes, but that's not what school is for.
Most students will fit into the top 2 categories, the fewest in the third category - thresholds as to what High and Low are would need to be set to produce the maximum number of non-screwups to be produced by the school system.
Teachers should also be divided - better teachers should have more choice of which students they work with. Of course the problem here is determining an objective criteria for grading a teacher.
I don't know what country you are from, and/. does have readers from many countries, but in my country there are 3 sections of government that presumably operate in a "checks and balances" configuration. The cops are not the lowest on the ladder - they are the Executive branch, whose check on the Legislative branch is to say: "No, I won't enforce that ridiculous law". The remaining branch is the Judicial, whose check on the Executive is to say: "there was no law broken here - leave that man alone".
When people refer to "activist judges", they may be referring to the Judicial branch covering for the Executive's (forgive the pun) cop-out at using their check against the legislature.
What you don't see is the truckloads of snakes that are being brought in through the back door. That's where the oil is likely going to come from.
Call me a skeptic, but when someone starts talking about $10/barrel oil made from trash, well let's just say we have a saying here in Missouri: "Show me".
Seriously, what does it do for me to have a knowledge of science? Playing with science is a fast track to trouble with the law in many respects:
bio = drugs or terrorist
encryption = terrorist
decryption = pirate
non-medicinal chemistry = terrorist
electricity = safety hazard (building/fire codes, etc.)
I'm sure the list can go on and on and on.
Those with the desire to pursue science are no longer satisfied by using baking soda and vinegar to shoot a cork out of a glass bottle. The old tricks are just that - old. In order for science to progress, we need new things to try that aren't copyrighted, patented or outlawed. Prohibitions are not all bad, but they need to be worth their cost.
In order to be "cool" science must be accessible to everyone and they must be free to create new uses. We are in a state of over-regulation where anything "new" is considered too dangerous to put into the hands of common man. I somewhat understand this given what I've seen of "average" people. However, the people who would be drawn to this stuff are being held out due to fears of losing what little freedom they have left. How many of us made our own fireworks when we were young? - Ok, they really were just small bombs - but you can be sure there are risks associated with playing with science, and there comes a point where you just need to stand back and let Darwin do his job.
Science will never be "cool" as long as it's considered a tool limited to those with connections to wealth, corporations or the government.
I'm always right and I'm a big jerk, and yet nobody wants to listen to me until after the trainwreck. - I end up cleaning up the messes made by the "nice" people.
But seriously, cleaning up the messes made by anyone, nice or jerk, tends to make one into a jerk. Nice, competent people often become less competent jerks when they are used as a "fix all" for everyone else's screw-ups.
What about his right to reasonable bail? I know it's commonplace to outright deny someone their 8th amendment rights, but I think we've slid down the slippery slope on that one quite a ways. My understanding of the case law that allows someone to be held without bail was for violent offenders that will continue until they are physically stopped. Anymore, it seems, any crime that makes it into the news has either no bail or a bail equal to 10x or more of the defendant's net worth.
This is why you don't wait until an offense becomes egregious before you speak up.
Which could get him in deeper trouble since a copy of Office is tied to a machine. If that license is on the contested machine and he claims that he created the work on another machine, he has admitted to pirating Office, correct?
Slashdot Mirror
If you're being paid to do work, you don't own the work - whoever is paying you does. If the schools don't have clauses in those teachers' contracts to that effect, then the school boards are allowing taxpayer money to fund "side work" for these teachers.
What you would have to offset is the value gained by employing people with little or no credentials in their area of expertise.
The whole argument supporting H1B visas is that there aren't enough qualified people for the jobs - and that's counting the meaningless credentials as actual qualifications. The addition of a professional society that will undoubtedly set the bar higher than it is now will only shrink the pool of "qualified" (and I mean that in the most liberal sense) persons.
Whoever it was apparently bought a smartphone without an unlimited data plan - what do you think?
However, it is still an "end around" of one of the central principles of a non-totalitarian government. I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying, but it's an obvious head-first dive down the slippery slope.
I liked your response - I don't necessarily agree with some of it, but your response was pretty well thought through.
As of the writing of this post, I see 3 responses to my post and apparently I got marked down as a "troll".
I would encourage all who have posted about about what "studies" say to read:
http://www.aaafoundation.org/resources/index.cfm?button=cellphone
This is an actual study. While it does point out that cell phone usage is a problem, it is not the boogie man that some make it out to be.
It seems closer to the "If I can't do it, it must be impossible" argument - the fallacy in this argument should be apparent. What I have found is that the people who back the anti-phone arguments fit a particular pattern:
1.) They hang on to the idea that a cell phone is a luxury and, thus, anyone using one while driving is flaunting theirs
2.) They ignore how many distractions come from the radio in the car - they would never move to ban radios
3.) They ignore how many distractions come from passengers/pets - they would never more to ban passengers/pets
4.) They hold on to the idea that if a phone was in the car, it caused the accident, no matter what the actual cause was
5.) To such people, the citing of a couple of personal examples shows what all of humankind is like
6.) They fit into the general pattern of those who want to tell others what to do
The truth is that when bad things happen, people inevitably seek to blame whatever thing/behavior that they don't like but think they have good enough chances of hanging the blame on. Aren't there any studies on actual distraction level and human tolerance for such? Statistics taken at the scene of accidents are just as unreliable as they were in the 80's when any car with any amount of alcohol in it, regardless of form (groceries, sealed bottles, etc) was considered an "alcohol-related" accident.
Let's hope that they got permission from the patients' doctors first.
I would think that getting the patients' permission would be a little more important.
If it were the case that an unfortunate side effect of the upgrade was the loss of interoperability with a competitor product, I would agree with you. However, the situation we find ourselves in is one where we purchase hardware with the manufacturer's fingers still in it. They are able to modify the product after the original purchase (read: modify the deal after the money changes hands) and able to exercise some direct legal rights to prevent the owner of the hardware from modifying the behavior of the device (DMCA in the case of circumvention) as well as use some indirect strongarm tactics such as loss of online service should the owner of the hardware refuse a firmware upgrade. (I have seen this on the Sony PSP)
It would be a simple matter to hide behind the "unfortunate side effect" argument if the manufacturer really was using their dominant position in one product to edge out competition in another product.
- The lesson to be learned here is not to purchase proprietary hardware.
I think it would be interesting to see if there is anything in this arrangement that could be used to legally strip the manufacturers of their DMCA protections. I know that this is the exact reason companies push for "tort reform" that eliminates class action lawsuits - they don't want their customers able to organize a posse to come after them when they do actually cross a legal boundary.
It's probably the materials difference. Custom composites, titanium and aircraft aluminum (fighter jet bodies) are expensive - so is the ruggedized computing equipment (aka avionics).
I work for a defense contractor (not LM) - the profit margins are not the bonanza that everyone makes them out to be.
This job is mostly labor - probably not much in the way of parts.
I read the article yesterday at Yahoo - the one thing that kept coming to mind was this:
The best way to avoid being the victim of false accusations is to not be in the subset of people eligible to be accused. With a system like this, everyone's inclusion is automatic unless you're willing to be an "unperson".
Maybe I'm making my self a target for ageism, but aren't a lot of FOSS activities typically conducted by your handle (i.e. not your name)? How could anyone know your gender with any certainty? I suppose someone could say that a person's choice of a handle speaks to their gender, but I've seen quite a few people who manipulate others by intentionally choosing a misleading handle.
If the game was set in 2112, you'll have a bit of a wait - the factory hasn't been built yet.
This is great for games set in the current day, but if the game is set in, say, 1942 - Microsoft, BMW, Google, Mitsubishi and Sony are probably not good choices for in-game advertisements (well, BMW and Mitsubishi were around then but the ads would not have the desired effect). Likewise, you wouldn't want to advertise the "all new 2010 Camero" in a game set in 2112.
And how long before some dumbass makes an antimatter bomb - and then we have antimatter antiproliferation treaties and the UN has to put together a watchdog group and the whole thing goes to hell in a handbasket.
Next we'll be having to worry about terrorists getting their hands on antimatter - remember, some of these morons don't have an escape plan.
This isn't condemnation - this is putting people in groups that operate with similar speed and direction. As for learning to deal with "less intelligent undisciplined" people, I agree that everyone needs to do that, but I disagree that the academic environment is the proper place for that.
It's the fundamental problem with schools - divide the students along two lines - intelligence and discipline.
High IQ/Disciplined - fast track to higher learning
Low IQ/Disciplined - fast track to skilled job training
High IQ/Undisciplined - try to salvage them but not at the expense of those above - there may be diamonds in the rough here, but don't mess up the good ones finding them.
Low IQ/Undisciplined - just keep them away from the rest
There needs to be a method of changing groups as well. A student wanting to change their category needs to prove that they belong in the category of their desire. Students in the different categories should not have contact with each other while in school. Sure, everyone needs to learn to deal with idiots and assholes, but that's not what school is for.
Most students will fit into the top 2 categories, the fewest in the third category - thresholds as to what High and Low are would need to be set to produce the maximum number of non-screwups to be produced by the school system.
Teachers should also be divided - better teachers should have more choice of which students they work with. Of course the problem here is determining an objective criteria for grading a teacher.
I don't know what country you are from, and /. does have readers from many countries, but in my country there are 3 sections of government that presumably operate in a "checks and balances" configuration. The cops are not the lowest on the ladder - they are the Executive branch, whose check on the Legislative branch is to say: "No, I won't enforce that ridiculous law". The remaining branch is the Judicial, whose check on the Executive is to say: "there was no law broken here - leave that man alone".
When people refer to "activist judges", they may be referring to the Judicial branch covering for the Executive's (forgive the pun) cop-out at using their check against the legislature.
Sure, if a sufficiently arrogant and ignorant attorney brings a case against you.....
Don't underestimate the arrogance of an attorney, or the ability of people to be swayed by theatrics over substance.
It's not about what's fair, it's about what one can get away with.
What you don't see is the truckloads of snakes that are being brought in through the back door. That's where the oil is likely going to come from.
Call me a skeptic, but when someone starts talking about $10/barrel oil made from trash, well let's just say we have a saying here in Missouri: "Show me".
Seriously, what does it do for me to have a knowledge of science? Playing with science is a fast track to trouble with the law in many respects:
bio = drugs or terrorist
encryption = terrorist
decryption = pirate
non-medicinal chemistry = terrorist
electricity = safety hazard (building/fire codes, etc.)
I'm sure the list can go on and on and on.
Those with the desire to pursue science are no longer satisfied by using baking soda and vinegar to shoot a cork out of a glass bottle. The old tricks are just that - old. In order for science to progress, we need new things to try that aren't copyrighted, patented or outlawed. Prohibitions are not all bad, but they need to be worth their cost.
In order to be "cool" science must be accessible to everyone and they must be free to create new uses. We are in a state of over-regulation where anything "new" is considered too dangerous to put into the hands of common man. I somewhat understand this given what I've seen of "average" people. However, the people who would be drawn to this stuff are being held out due to fears of losing what little freedom they have left. How many of us made our own fireworks when we were young? - Ok, they really were just small bombs - but you can be sure there are risks associated with playing with science, and there comes a point where you just need to stand back and let Darwin do his job.
Science will never be "cool" as long as it's considered a tool limited to those with connections to wealth, corporations or the government.
*joke*
I'm always right and I'm a big jerk, and yet nobody wants to listen to me until after the trainwreck. - I end up cleaning up the messes made by the "nice" people.
But seriously, cleaning up the messes made by anyone, nice or jerk, tends to make one into a jerk. Nice, competent people often become less competent jerks when they are used as a "fix all" for everyone else's screw-ups.
What about his right to reasonable bail? I know it's commonplace to outright deny someone their 8th amendment rights, but I think we've slid down the slippery slope on that one quite a ways. My understanding of the case law that allows someone to be held without bail was for violent offenders that will continue until they are physically stopped. Anymore, it seems, any crime that makes it into the news has either no bail or a bail equal to 10x or more of the defendant's net worth.
This is why you don't wait until an offense becomes egregious before you speak up.
He's a danger to their network only if no one has yet changed the passwords on the routers and other equipment.
Or if he had previously planted a trojan he could remotely trigger.....
Don't get me wrong, I think this whole thing is out of control - I just think that the argument presented doesn't prove what it was intended to prove.
Is Lockheed going to be selling their stuff to Pakistan?
Just in case that wasn't sarcasm:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PAF_F-16A_Lahore.jpg
Which could get him in deeper trouble since a copy of Office is tied to a machine. If that license is on the contested machine and he claims that he created the work on another machine, he has admitted to pirating Office, correct?