As soon as he's finished it's a never ending grind...
Right. People enjoy what they're good at. He's going for a Ph.D. Those are the kind of people that are good at making an impact. If we were good at "enjoying life", we would have pursued the path of greatest pleasure instead of the path of greatest impact. If he's not happier grinding, he's on the wrong path.
Popular vote is the only method to accurately capture the desire of the entire population.
Nope. No method exists that accurately captures the desire of the entire population. Plurality voting is especially biased by the choices, whether done with electoral colleges, popularity, or any other system of tallying.
It does not matter if you are not retaining that data, you are still copying stuff illegally.
By that logic, the owner of every router through which the data passed is responsible for the activities of the end users. I am not a lawyer, but I suspect intent may actually be relevant sometimes.
If you don't like the fee, tell the credit card company "no, thank you", they're the ones charging it.
Mod parent up. Visa has a near monopoly in taking a cut of all transactions, and you want us to get upset at all the retailers who don't want to submit cheerfully? Think about what you're trying to do for a second. As long as the Visa tax is hidden, no one can ever try to do it for less. Customers will always choose the bigger more-convenient card that works everywhere.
Arguments about the second amendment used to revolve around whether guns keep us free. These days, however, they're all about whether guns keep us safe. Something significant has already been lost, even if we still have the right to bear arms.
The way to kill religion is to laugh and ridicule it to death.
Why do you suppose there is only one way, and what makes you think that one is the most effective? How about acknowledge the points your opponent has right so the debate becomes about the remainder that your opponent cannot defend? All this screaming at each other with neither side listening is why it is taking so darn long. This debate should have been over a century ago.
Why can't the people in charge of making the career decisions for academics take the few days a year to read and judge papers themselves rather the relying on the peer review system to do it for them.
Most places that hire people with PhDs want to cover lots of topics. Hence, none of the doctors are qualified to evaluate each other, and all of them are too busy to take the time to become qualified in each others' areas.
People who are confident in their position do not fear criticism. I interpret all the lashback as an announcement that they are terrified of discovering that they have been wrong all along.
Your are looking at it from the perspective of the company that did NOT write the code and is NOT interested in contributing. The GPL is not good for them. The GPL is "good" for everyone else. It is "good" for the whole world because it is NOT good for moochers. Yeah, it would be nice if we could let everyone, including moochers, use our open source code, but then we would accomplish less good overall. So, it is "good" that the GPL is so bad for NVIDIA.
As a Libertarian, I spent many years preaching that people should vote for a third party. Over time, I started to realize that it wasn't really so much of a social problem as a technical problem. Specifically, plurality voting has a known weakness, and it is gamed by considering only the two most-likely parties, and picking among only them. In other words, even if you manage to bring a third party into popularity, plurality voting will soon "fix" the situation until only two dominant parties remain.
So, the answer, it turns out, is not to try to bring a third party into popularity. It is to pick one of the parties and work to reform it. Yeah, I know, it sounds imppossible, but hey, it's more possible than bringing a third party into popularity (without revising the constitution). You really do have more sway in the primaries than in the main election anyway. So, pick one of the big two, and get active in their primaries. Then don't even waste your time voting among the final two contenders--you cannot make a difference there.
My wife makes all the decisions I couldn't care less about. That makes her happy. I follow her around while thinking about science, technology, philosophy, and all the things that make me happy. She doesn't like making big decisions. That's my area of expertise. She fills my life with diversity and excitement, and best of all, she gives me time to do what matters to me. Jobs, Obama, and Zuckerberg may have a lot of money, but I seem to have something they all desperately lack.
I was once accused of failing to "wear the pants" in my marriage. I just smiled. Pants are overrated. They should only be worn when you care. I like the arrangement exactly the way it is.
...The academic community needs to find another metric for researcher quality other than papers published...
such as?
Number of citations? No, it would take a 30-year probationary period before the trend was reliable.
Have experts evaluate your efforts? No, that would require extra effort on the part of expensive tenured experts.
Roll some dice? Hmm, maybe that could work.
And what evidence is there that proves the safety of those cars, other than taking Google's word for it?
You haven't yet proven that you are unbiased. Please prove that you do not work for Microsoft. Then, please prove that you are an American. We cannot have foreign nations influencing our laws. Then prove that you didn't steal someone else's Slashdot credentials to make that post. Please also prove that you regularly make useful contributions to the world (as Google has) so that we will have some reason to consider your suggestions. Then, perhaps we will consider what you have to say....or maybe we should all just try move forward in good faith without requiring proof at every step along the way.
help make SPAM profitable by sending money to a Nigerian prince scam. So stop supporting companies that use DRM by buying their products! If copying software is like theft, then paying money for software is like being responsible for scams.
The answer to waste in a program isn't always to shut down the program. Sometimes you should get rid of the waste within the program.
If you remove waste, it will return in another form. If you create incentive to reduce waste, it will stay gone. Private industry already has that incentive. Can it really be created withing government programs? The precedent is mixed.
Motorola: You will use the OS we provide and you will like it.
Slashdot: Motorola is evil!
Motorola: Ok, we will allow you to mess with your own phone if you really want to.
oakgrove: Thanks, but please do all the work for us too, and make it convenient to abandon your business interests by simply pushing a single button!
dutchwhizzman: Yeah, that would be oss!
Motorola: Hmm, nevermind, just use the OS that we provide and like it.
Me: you dorks!
Thank you USPTO for gifting another piece of my mind to someone else. If I sell you the moon, does it then belong to you, or are you just an idiot for paying for it?
I am somewhat less confident that Google's money will necessarily prevail. Between the arrogance of the mafiAA, the ignorance of congress, and the depth of their affair together, I wouldn't put it past them to torch the tech industry in a misguided moral stand to preserve what they see as the last stand of art. I'd really like to hear any non-feeling-based arguments about who is likely to actually prevail here. Got any?
How would you propose to "understand" a natural phenomenon better than building a model that explains empirical observations? I argue that building a model that can make accurate predictions is the very definition of understanding something.
First, I say things like that, and I do not pirate music. Please stop insulting us with misguided generalizations. Second, Copyright violation is not theft--it is Copyright violation. Vandalism is not murder. Tax evasion is not littering. I can be specific about a crime without condoning either of them. Third, I most certainly do have a right to own it. By submitting to allow the government to regulate my intellect for a limited time, I have paid the price for that music, even if I never produce it myself. This contribution is what enables artists to sell their music, and it is most certainly a financial contribution. Thus, their works are rightly works-for-hire to the public. Fourth, I do produce music. Fifth, the "limited time" currently associated with Copyright law is not reasonable. As it does not terminate in my lifetime, Copyright law asks me to pay for something I will never receive. If taxation without representation is a violation of unalienable rights, then this certainly is as well. How far do you think people are obligated to tolerate a government that fails to respect their rights?
Slashdot Mirror
As soon as he's finished it's a never ending grind...
Right. People enjoy what they're good at. He's going for a Ph.D. Those are the kind of people that are good at making an impact. If we were good at "enjoying life", we would have pursued the path of greatest pleasure instead of the path of greatest impact. If he's not happier grinding, he's on the wrong path.
Popular vote is the only method to accurately capture the desire of the entire population.
Nope. No method exists that accurately captures the desire of the entire population. Plurality voting is especially biased by the choices, whether done with electoral colleges, popularity, or any other system of tallying.
It does not matter if you are not retaining that data, you are still copying stuff illegally.
By that logic, the owner of every router through which the data passed is responsible for the activities of the end users. I am not a lawyer, but I suspect intent may actually be relevant sometimes.
If you don't like the fee, tell the credit card company "no, thank you", they're the ones charging it.
Mod parent up. Visa has a near monopoly in taking a cut of all transactions, and you want us to get upset at all the retailers who don't want to submit cheerfully? Think about what you're trying to do for a second. As long as the Visa tax is hidden, no one can ever try to do it for less. Customers will always choose the bigger more-convenient card that works everywhere.
Arguments about the second amendment used to revolve around whether guns keep us free. These days, however, they're all about whether guns keep us safe. Something significant has already been lost, even if we still have the right to bear arms.
How reasonable is this concern?
Very reasonable, if your employer is a CA. Not at all reasonable if your employer sells hubcaps. Need more info.
How can this sort of malware be prevented?
Educate employees. (But your next question shows that you already know this.)
Is there a way to educate employees...?
Yes. Employees are not algorithms. That's why we employ them instead of just computers.
This current reality is that people have started to rely on having their smartphones...
Yes, if you want effective employees, you should allow them to use their brains, as well as extensions that make them more effective.
Do you have any questions that lack obvious answers--perhaps something worth discussing in a forum?
The way to kill religion is to laugh and ridicule it to death.
Why do you suppose there is only one way, and what makes you think that one is the most effective? How about acknowledge the points your opponent has right so the debate becomes about the remainder that your opponent cannot defend? All this screaming at each other with neither side listening is why it is taking so darn long. This debate should have been over a century ago.
Why can't the people in charge of making the career decisions for academics take the few days a year to read and judge papers themselves rather the relying on the peer review system to do it for them.
Most places that hire people with PhDs want to cover lots of topics. Hence, none of the doctors are qualified to evaluate each other, and all of them are too busy to take the time to become qualified in each others' areas.
That covers just about everything we object to.
Could you be a little more specific with your plural pronouns? I object to many things this does not cover.
... Apple finds a loophole and sues this developer into oblivion?
...if only there was a similar situation we could use to predict how it might go.
Why waste time asking questions he has already answered?
...radical a suggestion as granting copyright protection for the limited times needed to promote the progress of science and useful arts.
...radical a suggestion as doing what the Constitution says.
*I shake my head slowly.
People who are confident in their position do not fear criticism. I interpret all the lashback as an announcement that they are terrified of discovering that they have been wrong all along.
how is the GPL "good" in this case?
Your are looking at it from the perspective of the company that did NOT write the code and is NOT interested in contributing. The GPL is not good for them. The GPL is "good" for everyone else. It is "good" for the whole world because it is NOT good for moochers. Yeah, it would be nice if we could let everyone, including moochers, use our open source code, but then we would accomplish less good overall. So, it is "good" that the GPL is so bad for NVIDIA.
Or you can vote third party.
As a Libertarian, I spent many years preaching that people should vote for a third party. Over time, I started to realize that it wasn't really so much of a social problem as a technical problem. Specifically, plurality voting has a known weakness, and it is gamed by considering only the two most-likely parties, and picking among only them. In other words, even if you manage to bring a third party into popularity, plurality voting will soon "fix" the situation until only two dominant parties remain.
So, the answer, it turns out, is not to try to bring a third party into popularity. It is to pick one of the parties and work to reform it. Yeah, I know, it sounds imppossible, but hey, it's more possible than bringing a third party into popularity (without revising the constitution). You really do have more sway in the primaries than in the main election anyway. So, pick one of the big two, and get active in their primaries. Then don't even waste your time voting among the final two contenders--you cannot make a difference there.
My wife makes all the decisions I couldn't care less about. That makes her happy. I follow her around while thinking about science, technology, philosophy, and all the things that make me happy. She doesn't like making big decisions. That's my area of expertise. She fills my life with diversity and excitement, and best of all, she gives me time to do what matters to me. Jobs, Obama, and Zuckerberg may have a lot of money, but I seem to have something they all desperately lack.
I was once accused of failing to "wear the pants" in my marriage. I just smiled. Pants are overrated. They should only be worn when you care. I like the arrangement exactly the way it is.
...The academic community needs to find another metric for researcher quality other than papers published...
such as?
Number of citations? No, it would take a 30-year probationary period before the trend was reliable.
Have experts evaluate your efforts? No, that would require extra effort on the part of expensive tenured experts.
Roll some dice? Hmm, maybe that could work.
And what evidence is there that proves the safety of those cars, other than taking Google's word for it?
You haven't yet proven that you are unbiased. Please prove that you do not work for Microsoft. Then, please prove that you are an American. We cannot have foreign nations influencing our laws. Then prove that you didn't steal someone else's Slashdot credentials to make that post. Please also prove that you regularly make useful contributions to the world (as Google has) so that we will have some reason to consider your suggestions. Then, perhaps we will consider what you have to say. ...or maybe we should all just try move forward in good faith without requiring proof at every step along the way.
help make SPAM profitable by sending money to a Nigerian prince scam. So stop supporting companies that use DRM by buying their products! If copying software is like theft, then paying money for software is like being responsible for scams.
The answer to waste in a program isn't always to shut down the program. Sometimes you should get rid of the waste within the program.
If you remove waste, it will return in another form. If you create incentive to reduce waste, it will stay gone. Private industry already has that incentive. Can it really be created withing government programs? The precedent is mixed.
Motorola: You will use the OS we provide and you will like it.
Slashdot: Motorola is evil!
Motorola: Ok, we will allow you to mess with your own phone if you really want to.
oakgrove: Thanks, but please do all the work for us too, and make it convenient to abandon your business interests by simply pushing a single button!
dutchwhizzman: Yeah, that would be oss!
Motorola: Hmm, nevermind, just use the OS that we provide and like it.
Me: you dorks!
Thank you USPTO for gifting another piece of my mind to someone else. If I sell you the moon, does it then belong to you, or are you just an idiot for paying for it?
I am somewhat less confident that Google's money will necessarily prevail. Between the arrogance of the mafiAA, the ignorance of congress, and the depth of their affair together, I wouldn't put it past them to torch the tech industry in a misguided moral stand to preserve what they see as the last stand of art. I'd really like to hear any non-feeling-based arguments about who is likely to actually prevail here. Got any?
How would you propose to "understand" a natural phenomenon better than building a model that explains empirical observations? I argue that building a model that can make accurate predictions is the very definition of understanding something.
First, I say things like that, and I do not pirate music. Please stop insulting us with misguided generalizations. Second, Copyright violation is not theft--it is Copyright violation. Vandalism is not murder. Tax evasion is not littering. I can be specific about a crime without condoning either of them. Third, I most certainly do have a right to own it. By submitting to allow the government to regulate my intellect for a limited time, I have paid the price for that music, even if I never produce it myself. This contribution is what enables artists to sell their music, and it is most certainly a financial contribution. Thus, their works are rightly works-for-hire to the public. Fourth, I do produce music. Fifth, the "limited time" currently associated with Copyright law is not reasonable. As it does not terminate in my lifetime, Copyright law asks me to pay for something I will never receive. If taxation without representation is a violation of unalienable rights, then this certainly is as well. How far do you think people are obligated to tolerate a government that fails to respect their rights?