Part of the case that the good Dr. still can't talk about publicly is that he was also a suspect in his wife's death, and hounded about this by the FBI as well. He's still under a gag order on this point, which is why the documentary mentioned in the piece re-enacts those parts of the story with actors.
Given his blatant interest in illegal substances, do you really think that the security personnel should have looked the other way? If you know your stuff is going to be searched by security, maybe you should leave your bong at home. Isn't that just common sense?
I'm pretty sure a book about drug laws and some flashlights with a symbol on them do not constitute drug paraphenalia. And since thought crime is not yet a crime in this country, yeah, they probably should have looked the other way.
Asking an animated question and then voluntarily leaving the microphone is not an invitation to violence. He only kept making noise after that point because the police grabbed him. And as long-winded as his question was, it was a legitimate question, not a confrontational rant.
Tasers are usually issued to law enforcement with the strict instruction that they should never use it if they wouldn't use a gun in the same situation.
Personally, I think a cd is as cheap as a whole industry can make it.
Uh... smaller, usually unsigned bands sell their CDs for $5-$8 dollars, and make a decent profit. I'm pretty sure the $18 you're paying in stores is a bit inflated.
The first game would have been "evolutionary" if they'd released it 2 years earlier on the Mac, instead of scrapping half their work and taking the time to retool it for the xbox.
Programming, on the other hand, can be done by anybody with a Computer Science or related mathematical degree, usually a two year Associate's degree. India is graduating 50,000 people with this training EVERY YEAR.
The part you don't mention is, a lot of them are just crap at it (same as with American schools). Yeah, if you come out with a C+ average and little understanding of the actual things involved in programming and software engineering, you're gonna be in competition with a lot of people, both locally as well as foreign. But if you actually know what you're doing, and can write a function to reverse a string without looking it up online, there are going to be jobs for you.
We've been going through dozens of applicants, and can barely justify hiring 1/10th of the people we see, and that's AFTER an initial screening. There's a serious lack of competent people in both fields, programming and software engineering, and its only going to get worse as far as I can see.
Which leads to my question to prompt discussion: just how the hell do you become a software engineer without being a programmer first, unless you're independently wealthy enough to work in Open Source for 5-10 years?
Again, if you're competent, you don't need years of experience. I graduated from a decent CS program, and hired straight into a software engineering job. If you can show that you actually know what you're doing, there's a lot of places ready to hire you even if you don't meet their "10 years experience" criteria. There just aren't enough people to fill all those jobs at the set requirements.
They WANT you to have the opportunity to click on it, but they won't pay for it, only for the actual clicks. Thus, if you are the type who never clicks on ads, blocking them won't reduce the number of clicks you give the website. Which means it makes literally no difference to the amount of advertising revenue they generate.
As for your argument about the majority, well, you may be right. Except for the fact that there are much better ways to advertise than giant blinking banners at the top of the page. Advertisers will switch to less intrusive, more personal ads, and websites will find better business models that don't rely on flash-spam. And if some sites fail, well hey, there are a lot of crap sites out there right now anyway.
If advertisements frustrate you so much that you've sworn you will never click one in your life, a site with ads loses nothing when you block those ads. Nobody pays per view anymore. And as far as I know, there's not even an implied agreement that you'll click on ads when you're visiting a page.
Conceptual differences such as "one taste is not the same as another" have nothing to do with what you name them. Apparently this kid either A) hasn't tasted both walnuts and pecans, or B) doesn't understand why tastes would matter in cooking. Neither is a function of reading the name of the item.
And by the way, I knew some "hooked on phonics" kids when I was growing up. And wow, was it painful to watch them struggle through a paragraph.
I hate to break it to you, but not understanding why you need to make a distinction between walnuts and pecans in cooking isn't a problem with reading. That kid's just stupid.
Not only is he an asshole, he apparently likes dicking around with c_strs more than writing functional software. I love how he completely misses the point of "a string class would make code more readable" because he's too busy chewing the guy out.
That doesn't seem true at all. Plenty of OSS programs out there release a GPL version for non-commercial uses, and a pay version under a proprietary and for-pay licensing scheme. That would definitely violate the GPL if they didn't own the copyrights on the code, but they're not "losing moral standing in the community" just because they found a way to finance their project.
If it's original work, can't the copyright holder decide to close the source? If it doesn't contain anyone else's work that happens to be GPLd, I don't see a problem here.
True. But Sourceforge only provides hosting for OSS projects. If they're hosting their binary downloads for the new version on their own site with their own non-Sourceforge hosting, they're fine.
Just for the sake of irony, I submitted a "terms of service violation" complaint against the Warriors of Innocence blog. I recommend anyone else who's pissed at this behavior do the same. They're hate-mongering enough that there's a chance it'll do something. And damn, would it be funny.
That's not quite what I was saying... the post I responded to was bemoaning the fact that copyright holders have legal control over your actions while using your data. That implies, to me, that they acknowledge the copyright statute.
Call me crazy, but if Kazaa has uploading turned off, they're not gonna show up as having any files at all. Which means, uploading wasn't turned off, and they really were "making available". Whether that's a crime is another question, but they weren't found guilty just for having a program installed and disabled.
I'm definitely a fan of limited copyright. But at some point, you have to realize that they're only going to have control over "you and 'your' data" as long as 'your' data consists of stuff that they own the copyright to. If you believe data should be free, don't consume data controlled by people who have the extreme opposite view. Even better, create your own data, and license it in a way that you approve of. Take the time you're not spending on consuming copyrighted content, and use it to create copyleft material of higher quality.
The power of the Congress to pass laws and have them enforced does derive from the constitution. That doesn't mean that every law is a "constitutional right".
After all, who cares about the Constitutionally protected rights to control distribution? What use is that in the face of overwhelming demand for free shit?
That's a bit of a mischaracterization. The constitution grants congress the right to pass laws granting control of distribution. This doesn't mean that the right to control distribution is itself constitutionally derived. And the implication that everyone who's against indefinite copyright is equally wrong. The entire point of copyright was to encourage creation of works which would eventually (sooner than later) enter the public domain. The entire point of copyright, as originally written, was to create "free shit".
Slashdot Mirror
Part of the case that the good Dr. still can't talk about publicly is that he was also a suspect in his wife's death, and hounded about this by the FBI as well. He's still under a gag order on this point, which is why the documentary mentioned in the piece re-enacts those parts of the story with actors.
I think they should sue Jack Thompson for illegally reproducing their fiction character... in real life...
No. Tasers are only to be used to prevent bodily harm to an officer. Same as a gun.
Asking an animated question and then voluntarily leaving the microphone is not an invitation to violence. He only kept making noise after that point because the police grabbed him. And as long-winded as his question was, it was a legitimate question, not a confrontational rant.
Tasers are usually issued to law enforcement with the strict instruction that they should never use it if they wouldn't use a gun in the same situation.
Welcome to the internet, where nothing is sacred. Try not to let it bother you.
But this is America. We'd never let a city sink. It's not how we do things around here.
You some kinda terr'ist?
The first game would have been "evolutionary" if they'd released it 2 years earlier on the Mac, instead of scrapping half their work and taking the time to retool it for the xbox.
We've been going through dozens of applicants, and can barely justify hiring 1/10th of the people we see, and that's AFTER an initial screening. There's a serious lack of competent people in both fields, programming and software engineering, and its only going to get worse as far as I can see. Again, if you're competent, you don't need years of experience. I graduated from a decent CS program, and hired straight into a software engineering job. If you can show that you actually know what you're doing, there's a lot of places ready to hire you even if you don't meet their "10 years experience" criteria. There just aren't enough people to fill all those jobs at the set requirements.
They WANT you to have the opportunity to click on it, but they won't pay for it, only for the actual clicks. Thus, if you are the type who never clicks on ads, blocking them won't reduce the number of clicks you give the website. Which means it makes literally no difference to the amount of advertising revenue they generate.
As for your argument about the majority, well, you may be right. Except for the fact that there are much better ways to advertise than giant blinking banners at the top of the page. Advertisers will switch to less intrusive, more personal ads, and websites will find better business models that don't rely on flash-spam. And if some sites fail, well hey, there are a lot of crap sites out there right now anyway.
If advertisements frustrate you so much that you've sworn you will never click one in your life, a site with ads loses nothing when you block those ads. Nobody pays per view anymore. And as far as I know, there's not even an implied agreement that you'll click on ads when you're visiting a page.
This would probably get ignored as click-fraud, and if it happened often enough might get the page banned from the advertising service altogether.
Conceptual differences such as "one taste is not the same as another" have nothing to do with what you name them. Apparently this kid either A) hasn't tasted both walnuts and pecans, or B) doesn't understand why tastes would matter in cooking. Neither is a function of reading the name of the item.
And by the way, I knew some "hooked on phonics" kids when I was growing up. And wow, was it painful to watch them struggle through a paragraph.
I hate to break it to you, but not understanding why you need to make a distinction between walnuts and pecans in cooking isn't a problem with reading. That kid's just stupid.
Not only is he an asshole, he apparently likes dicking around with c_strs more than writing functional software. I love how he completely misses the point of "a string class would make code more readable" because he's too busy chewing the guy out.
That doesn't seem true at all. Plenty of OSS programs out there release a GPL version for non-commercial uses, and a pay version under a proprietary and for-pay licensing scheme. That would definitely violate the GPL if they didn't own the copyrights on the code, but they're not "losing moral standing in the community" just because they found a way to finance their project.
Just for the sake of irony, I submitted a "terms of service violation" complaint against the Warriors of Innocence blog. I recommend anyone else who's pissed at this behavior do the same. They're hate-mongering enough that there's a chance it'll do something. And damn, would it be funny.
That's not quite what I was saying... the post I responded to was bemoaning the fact that copyright holders have legal control over your actions while using your data. That implies, to me, that they acknowledge the copyright statute.
Call me crazy, but if Kazaa has uploading turned off, they're not gonna show up as having any files at all. Which means, uploading wasn't turned off, and they really were "making available". Whether that's a crime is another question, but they weren't found guilty just for having a program installed and disabled.
I'm definitely a fan of limited copyright. But at some point, you have to realize that they're only going to have control over "you and 'your' data" as long as 'your' data consists of stuff that they own the copyright to. If you believe data should be free, don't consume data controlled by people who have the extreme opposite view. Even better, create your own data, and license it in a way that you approve of. Take the time you're not spending on consuming copyrighted content, and use it to create copyleft material of higher quality.
The power of the Congress to pass laws and have them enforced does derive from the constitution. That doesn't mean that every law is a "constitutional right".