We used to also stick our hands in beakers of mercury during chemistry class and use lead in paint and asbestos in all kinds of building products. Just because we did something in the past doesn't mean it was smart or the right thing to do.
The problem with this article is that it makes a faulty assumption that many in the United States do. That assumption is that whatever goes on over there is the same for the rest of the world.
The rest of the world is not hung up in the evolution vs creationism argument that seems to plague the U.S. And yet a quick search of journal articles reveals that those non-U.S. articles also don't use the term "evolution" very much.
It seems that the authors have noticed a trend but joined it to the wrong reason. A more plausible reason might be that the term "evolution" has many different levels of meaning, particularly in the scientific community and depending on which particular school you partake of. Since science tries to be exact, using language in publishing that is less ambiguous seems to be the preferable course.
For example, to say that after the microbial colony was exposed to such and such, it evolved by becoming resistant gives no scientific information as to the process. On the other hand, if the colony developed antigens or secondary structures or the like, then that information is presented. Obviously, the bloody things evolved, but why insult the intelligence of the scientific community by writing for a bloody sixth grade audience? These are journal articles, after all.
It seems like there aren't just fanatics trying to discredit evolution over there, but there are scientist trying to discredit anything religious. Unfortunately, all they do is make the rest of us look bad.
I wonder if this article were titled something like "Ubuntu chooses stability over eye-candy" if there would be so many negative comments. Essentially, isn't that what they have decided? The 3D desktop stuff isn't stable enough for everyday use, so they aren't going to make it the default. Since the 3D desktop isn't the default, the requirement to use the proprietary drivers goes away. We all know that the open source drivers, while not as fast, cause fewer problems than the proprietary ones, even for newbies (although they don't do games, etc.). Besides, as others have pointed out, the proprietary drivers are still in the repositories.
It seems that with all of the emphasis on flashy desktops, Ubuntu should be receiving kudos for holding up system stability as a top priority.
Interesting that it doesn't prohibit vmware under Linux! Seriously,though, why prohibit the use of the crippled Home edition of Vista from being used in a virtual machine? Wouldn't it make more sense for Microsoft to disallow the full version to be used from within a virtual machine on other platforms?
It seems that unless the ipod or electronic gadget is somehow self-detonating as one crosses the street, it's not the culprit. Assuming the individual is crossing with the light and is being struck by a vehicle, the problem is that the driver of the vehicle is at fault, not the pedestrian. Granted, it is possible that somebody is stepping in front of a moving vehicle, but, again, if one is crossing with the light at the crosswalk, it's hard to see how they are going to get hit and if they do, how it is their fault.
The article states three people were killed. How many people without ipods were killed while crossing the street? What percentage of ipod users crossing the street are killed vs the percentage of non-ipod users crossing the street who are killed?
If crossing the street is so dangerous in New York, they could always, lower the speed limit to 5 mph or pass a law that cars must stop at each intersection. That way, not only ipod pedestrians would be protected, but all of them would be!
Again, where is the proof that the ipod or electronic gadget user was at fault in these accidents or that said device was the cause of the accident?
So why would I be better off under socialized medicine?
Maybe for the same reason that you are better off with socialized highways and socialized airports and socialized fire departments, etc. Why is it that health care is the only pay as you go item that makes people through up the socialism flag?
It used to be that belonging to a society meant that we all sacrificed a little for the common good of the society. No one individual pays enough to cover the cost of the roads they travel or the cost of building an airport. Yet society benefits as a whole from having good roads and airports (and railroads, although in the US, we seem to ignore them). Why is it so hard to fathom that having basic health care provided would also not benefit all of society?
Those who could afford it would of course still go to their "private" physician, however, for the vast majority of uninsured and underinsured, they could now get health care treatment. Might it take longer than those with private insurance? Possibly, but it would be better than no treatment at all.
The government already provides some health care through various entitlement programs that are funded through taxes (or borrowing). These are usually only available to the poor and not the lower middle class. Those who fall into the uninsured and underinsured who fall through the limited government funding and require treatment for major illnesses either still get the treatment or they die. If they get the treatment, which by law, hospitals must provide, the hospitals pass the costs on to those who can pay (not directly, but through their pricing structure).
So, like it or not, we are all paying for health care via taxes and inflated medical charges already. Going to a universal health insurance plan, just makes it official and above the table. Will it cost any one individual more? Probably. Will it be a benefit to society? Definitely!
If one's goal is to avoid socialism or the appearance of it at all costs, then one better be prepared to quit using all of those government provided resources we take for granted, including roads, airports, police and fire protection, etc., etc.
Well, if your business is not providing you insurance and you aren't paying for it on your own ($1,000/yr is too cheap to be an actual health insurance plan), then what you are actually boasting about is being uninsured and being part of the problem that drives up the cost of coverage for the rest of us, right? Is your plan just to wait until you need major medical, run up $30,000+ in bills and forfeit payment on the bill so the rest of us have to pay for it?
Of course, you could counter with that you have a health savings plan that you are socking money into along with a very high deductible insurance (thus explaining the low premium), but then you should be including the funds you are depositing into the HSP as part of your medical costs each year.
well, I'm just a dumb American with asthma, but my insurance and medical bills (including prescriptions) over the last 5 years have averaged about $1000 / year, which works out to less than 1.5% of my annual income.
Ummm, do you pay the full cost of your insurance or is your employer paying most of it. Even for an individual with just major medical and no prescription coverage, $1,000 is pretty cheap insurance. Chances are you are just paying a small portion of your insurance and your employer is passing it the rest of the cost on to everybody else in prices they charge for goods and services. So in effect, the masses are paying for your healthcare already. It's just not the government running the program.
"People can see how we've mixed together our Office talent and Windows talent to get the best of both worlds..."
Ummm, isn't that what got them in trouble with the DOJ? Wasn't that why one of the remedies for the monopolistic abuses to split them up into multiple companies with the OS company being separate from the applications company? Even though the split-up was eventually overruled, doesn't this show that Microsoft is intentionally using insider information between Office and Windows?
As someone who has worked with "expert" windows driver developers in the past, this is a good thing...
Of course they said the same thing about TNT, it was a good thing, enabled them to build railroads and highways and what have you. Of course, then somebody got the bright idea of using that good thing to build artillery shells turning it into not such a good thing.
DRMed drivers are neither good nor bad. It's how the technology is going to be used that will dictate that. Patenting the idea of having a DRMed drive does not bode well as an indicator as to how the technology will ultimately be used.
Only time will tell whether Microsoft's intent is to a) add a level of security, b) lock out competition, c) provide new revenue streams or d) some combination of all of the above.
Of course, the government can make you turn them in and give 50 cents for fifty of them. Then they turn around and melt them down and sell them for $2.50. Maybe that's part of the new deficit reduction plan going through congress?
People who analyize statistice account for all this, and in face it can be very close.
I believe you, I really do. However, people who analyze statistics also use random samples to generate those statistics. As part of the process a standard error rate is calculated. The article says the author estimated the error rate to be such and such. That would imply that it wasn't a random or statistical sample.
I don't fault your math or the author's. However, if the sample wasn't random, then the only thing that can statistically be said is that of the 2600 people surveyed, X amount downloaded movies. It would be invalid to expand that to 25 million as there is no mathematical foundation to do so.
If the sample isn't random, those 2600 could be disproportionately comprised of,say college kids or AARP members. Either way, the results would be skewed so the data only applies to the sample itself.
What is misleading is that 2600 would be large enough sample to extend to the population if it were truly random. However, you would have to look at the selection method. How the participants selected is one of the primary determinative factors.
Again, statistics, in and of themself aren't hard. However, making sure you have a random representative sample is. That's why statisticians are in such demand.
Of course the teach statistics in the states. On the other hand, binomial stats and standard deviations, etc. only apply if one has taken a random sample. If the data isn't random, then the error rates are meaningless. If they are random, then an actual error rate should be produced via a formula and there should be no estimate or approximation. The fact that there wasn't an actual error rate, but only an estimated error rate seems to be strong evidence that there was a problem with the sample being valid statistically. Most likely, it wasn't random.
These results are meaningless! The article states that the "researcher" estimates the error rate to be plus or minus 2.4%. If it was a statistical sample, there would be no estimate of error rate, but instead an actual error rate. If this wasn't a statistical sample, then all that can be stated is 20% of the 2600 people surveyed.
It's also interesting that a survey that was taken via telephone and online is used to extrapolate to the entire population. Since not everyone has a computer, then they could hardly be included in the population (statistical not US). Furthermore, telephone surveys only include people with listed telephone numbers, so again, your statistical population is skewed. Online surveys do not work if they are voluntary (ie would you like to fill out our survey?) Since there is no indication of how many people who chose not to fill out the survey.
Based on the limited information given, it appears that this is another example of using statistics to get them to say what you want. Since most people are functionally illiterate when it comes to statistics, it's very easy for people to use bogus statistical methods to manipulate the data and ultimately the readers of the article.
For any sample to be legit and extrapolated to an entire population it has to be random and representative. If it's not both of those, then the extrapolated data is meaningless.
I really wish slashdot would quit using such misleading headlines to garner attention, such as "Father of the Internet..." I didn't see any mention of Al Gore in the post!
While all yogurts are made with active cultures, aren't most commercial yogurts that are sold in the U.S. now pasteurized or heat treated to increase shelf life? If so, that process effectively kills off the live culture. If the label says that it's been pasteurized or heat treated it doesn't have any live cultures. Or, put another way, if the label doesn't say that it contains live and active cultures or that it has the live and active culture seal, then it doesn't (or at least any significant amount).
If Windows sucks soooo much, how come more people are familiar with it than Mac OS X?
Maybe he should have asked "If Windows is so great, then why do they have to completely redesign it for each new release?" But to respond to his sophomoric question I would propose an answer along the lines of "Just because many people are familiar with something doesn't mean that thing is good. Child pornography, AIDS, taxes, prostate exams, etc. would be just a few of the things that many people are familiar with that most would probably categorize as not being good."
The point of the article was about removing the certification of meteorologists who continue to hold that global warming is not man made (or at least predominately man made). How would that not be considered silencing the minority?
I just used ID as an example and while I disagree with with ID there were some points that were raised in their argument about potential weaknesses in evolution. By silencing the whole debate, even the legitimate points were silenced as well. That does nothing to further real science.
Now jump ahead to global warming. While to most people, or at least many, global warming seems to be as viable a theory as evolution. The debate centers on whether it is a natural phenomenon or caused by mankind. Many in the scientific community and a lot of the public seem to lean towards mankind being the cause. However, this time, by silencing the minority, we admit we might be ignoring data or at least questions that can lead to a better understanding of the problem.
If you remove the emotionalism of the two different subjects - evolution and global warming, in effect, the only real distinguishing factor in how we are treating the topics is that one of them, global warming, has a financial impact on the way we live our lives now and in the future whereas evolution, at best only creates a philosophical dilemma.
So, if we really want to look at the notion of what drives our conscience as to wanting to uphold the notion of free speech, it seems that, it's not about the actual argument at all, but instead about money and our own self-interest.
Why is it ok to silence those who have opposing views to say evolution but it's not ok to silence those with opposing views to global warming?
Personally, I believe in evolution, however the last time the ID vs evolution debate came up, the slashdot community was pretty emphatic that the ID viewpoint should be silenced. Now, however, the same community feels silencing the a different view as compared to global warming is somehow wrong or unjust.
Assuming that the slashdot community's views on freedom of speech and expression are consistent with the population as a whole (or maybe even more open), I am just curious as to a rational explanation as to why the distaste for one group's view on a topic should lead to a move to censor while on a different topic it leads to an outcry against censorship?
And the only way to prevent all of the is to implement Joel Hefley's ideas on corruption prevention.
Better yet, just wait to the convention (and it doesn't matter which party) and have the RIAA slap them with a violation for whatever their theme song is. Chances are they haven't secured the rights to not only use it at the convention but also play it across every television and cable station covering the convention royalty free.
Let's see, how many million viewers/listeners in aggregate times the $12 each for the loss of the CD purchase plus the punitive damages on top of it.
The problem with what you're proposing is fairly obvious and its implications are the reason he can't win. I could go work for some company as a salaried employee and develop some new piece of software for them. They start using it, so I really work overtime on it and make it really efficient and it becomes a critical part of my employer's business.
The problem is that he is not just working for some company, but for a government agency. Furthermore, that government agency has entered into an agreed upon definition as to what his job duties are as evidenced by the union agreement they have for their highway patrol troopers. In addition to the union agreement, there are also numerous state personnel policies addressing what and how the state must address things. The burden, here is on the state to show that the individual truly is/was working on their behalf.
They (the state) is in a real bind here. If he was working on their behalf, then as an employee of the state, he is entitled to be payed for the "hundreds of hours" he worked on the project, at time and a half, mind you, since it was in addition to his regular duties.
The state, probably doesn't want to do that, so they are saying the overtime was not approved. However, in doing so, they would be admitting that he did it on his own time and therefore it is his code.
So, the state is faced with either saying it violating the union agreement and fair labor standards act, something it doesn't want to do or it is going to have to give up ownership of the code, something else it doesn't want to do. Either one is a problem.
Basically, if the guy was employed to develop software, then maybe your point would be valid, but he wasn't. He did the software on the side and the state decided to use it. That was a business decision they made. Now, it sounds like they don't want to pay the cost of that decision.
Did you miss that the his trooper's union is involved with this, too? It would seem to reason that if there is union representation there is also an agreement as to what constitutes duties as defined under the union agreement and agreed to by the state.
Assuming that such union agreement for state troopers in Wisconsin did not include them developing software as part of their normal duties, then the work he did is outside the scope of his work as a state trooper and is more closely related to a contractor.
Contractors retain copyright to their works all the time, that is nothing new (it's what keeps one state from selling their software to another). If the state did contract with him, as evidenced by they're providing him a computer, then it would seem that he has a leg to stand on.
Unless the union contract would dictate otherwise or there is some other documentation to the contrary, It would appear that Iowa has claims to part of the software and that the individual has claims to his modifications of it, on behalf of his client, the state of Wisconsin.
Because the iPhone is an iPod. Its music functionality will be the same as an iPod's.
Really, officially they didn't say that. Jobs said think of the iphone as a widescreen iPod. However, there have been numerous iPod models and not all have the same features (the iPod shuffle didn't even have a screen). So, to say that the iPhone is an iPod may be true. To say that it will have the same functionality as an iPod is something entirely else and unknowable until the thing actually ships.
Slashdot Mirror
We used to also stick our hands in beakers of mercury during chemistry class and use lead in paint and asbestos in all kinds of building products. Just because we did something in the past doesn't mean it was smart or the right thing to do.
The problem with this article is that it makes a faulty assumption that many in the United States do. That assumption is that whatever goes on over there is the same for the rest of the world.
The rest of the world is not hung up in the evolution vs creationism argument that seems to plague the U.S. And yet a quick search of journal articles reveals that those non-U.S. articles also don't use the term "evolution" very much.
It seems that the authors have noticed a trend but joined it to the wrong reason. A more plausible reason might be that the term "evolution" has many different levels of meaning, particularly in the scientific community and depending on which particular school you partake of. Since science tries to be exact, using language in publishing that is less ambiguous seems to be the preferable course.
For example, to say that after the microbial colony was exposed to such and such, it evolved by becoming resistant gives no scientific information as to the process. On the other hand, if the colony developed antigens or secondary structures or the like, then that information is presented. Obviously, the bloody things evolved, but why insult the intelligence of the scientific community by writing for a bloody sixth grade audience? These are journal articles, after all.
It seems like there aren't just fanatics trying to discredit evolution over there, but there are scientist trying to discredit anything religious. Unfortunately, all they do is make the rest of us look bad.
I wonder if this article were titled something like "Ubuntu chooses stability over eye-candy" if there would be so many negative comments. Essentially, isn't that what they have decided? The 3D desktop stuff isn't stable enough for everyday use, so they aren't going to make it the default. Since the 3D desktop isn't the default, the requirement to use the proprietary drivers goes away. We all know that the open source drivers, while not as fast, cause fewer problems than the proprietary ones, even for newbies (although they don't do games, etc.). Besides, as others have pointed out, the proprietary drivers are still in the repositories.
It seems that with all of the emphasis on flashy desktops, Ubuntu should be receiving kudos for holding up system stability as a top priority.
Interesting that it doesn't prohibit vmware under Linux! Seriously,though, why prohibit the use of the crippled Home edition of Vista from being used in a virtual machine? Wouldn't it make more sense for Microsoft to disallow the full version to be used from within a virtual machine on other platforms?
It seems that unless the ipod or electronic gadget is somehow self-detonating as one crosses the street, it's not the culprit. Assuming the individual is crossing with the light and is being struck by a vehicle, the problem is that the driver of the vehicle is at fault, not the pedestrian. Granted, it is possible that somebody is stepping in front of a moving vehicle, but, again, if one is crossing with the light at the crosswalk, it's hard to see how they are going to get hit and if they do, how it is their fault.
The article states three people were killed. How many people without ipods were killed while crossing the street? What percentage of ipod users crossing the street are killed vs the percentage of non-ipod users crossing the street who are killed?
If crossing the street is so dangerous in New York, they could always, lower the speed limit to 5 mph or pass a law that cars must stop at each intersection. That way, not only ipod pedestrians would be protected, but all of them would be!
Again, where is the proof that the ipod or electronic gadget user was at fault in these accidents or that said device was the cause of the accident?
So why would I be better off under socialized medicine?
Maybe for the same reason that you are better off with socialized highways and socialized airports and socialized fire departments, etc. Why is it that health care is the only pay as you go item that makes people through up the socialism flag?
It used to be that belonging to a society meant that we all sacrificed a little for the common good of the society. No one individual pays enough to cover the cost of the roads they travel or the cost of building an airport. Yet society benefits as a whole from having good roads and airports (and railroads, although in the US, we seem to ignore them). Why is it so hard to fathom that having basic health care provided would also not benefit all of society?
Those who could afford it would of course still go to their "private" physician, however, for the vast majority of uninsured and underinsured, they could now get health care treatment. Might it take longer than those with private insurance? Possibly, but it would be better than no treatment at all.
The government already provides some health care through various entitlement programs that are funded through taxes (or borrowing). These are usually only available to the poor and not the lower middle class. Those who fall into the uninsured and underinsured who fall through the limited government funding and require treatment for major illnesses either still get the treatment or they die. If they get the treatment, which by law, hospitals must provide, the hospitals pass the costs on to those who can pay (not directly, but through their pricing structure).
So, like it or not, we are all paying for health care via taxes and inflated medical charges already. Going to a universal health insurance plan, just makes it official and above the table. Will it cost any one individual more? Probably. Will it be a benefit to society? Definitely!
If one's goal is to avoid socialism or the appearance of it at all costs, then one better be prepared to quit using all of those government provided resources we take for granted, including roads, airports, police and fire protection, etc., etc.
I'm self employed.
Well, if your business is not providing you insurance and you aren't paying for it on your own ($1,000/yr is too cheap to be an actual health insurance plan), then what you are actually boasting about is being uninsured and being part of the problem that drives up the cost of coverage for the rest of us, right? Is your plan just to wait until you need major medical, run up $30,000+ in bills and forfeit payment on the bill so the rest of us have to pay for it?
Of course, you could counter with that you have a health savings plan that you are socking money into along with a very high deductible insurance (thus explaining the low premium), but then you should be including the funds you are depositing into the HSP as part of your medical costs each year.
So what is it? Are you uninsured or what?
well, I'm just a dumb American with asthma, but my insurance and medical bills (including prescriptions) over the last 5 years have averaged about $1000 / year, which works out to less than 1.5% of my annual income.
Ummm, do you pay the full cost of your insurance or is your employer paying most of it. Even for an individual with just major medical and no prescription coverage, $1,000 is pretty cheap insurance. Chances are you are just paying a small portion of your insurance and your employer is passing it the rest of the cost on to everybody else in prices they charge for goods and services. So in effect, the masses are paying for your healthcare already. It's just not the government running the program.
"People can see how we've mixed together our Office talent and Windows talent to get the best of both worlds..."
Ummm, isn't that what got them in trouble with the DOJ? Wasn't that why one of the remedies for the monopolistic abuses to split them up into multiple companies with the OS company being separate from the applications company? Even though the split-up was eventually overruled, doesn't this show that Microsoft is intentionally using insider information between Office and Windows?
As someone who has worked with "expert" windows driver developers in the past, this is a good thing...
Of course they said the same thing about TNT, it was a good thing, enabled them to build railroads and highways and what have you. Of course, then somebody got the bright idea of using that good thing to build artillery shells turning it into not such a good thing.
DRMed drivers are neither good nor bad. It's how the technology is going to be used that will dictate that. Patenting the idea of having a DRMed drive does not bode well as an indicator as to how the technology will ultimately be used.
Only time will tell whether Microsoft's intent is to a) add a level of security, b) lock out competition, c) provide new revenue streams or d) some combination of all of the above.
Of course, the government can make you turn them in and give 50 cents for fifty of them. Then they turn around and melt them down and sell them for $2.50. Maybe that's part of the new deficit reduction plan going through congress?
People who analyize statistice account for all this, and in face it can be very close.
I believe you, I really do. However, people who analyze statistics also use random samples to generate those statistics. As part of the process a standard error rate is calculated. The article says the author estimated the error rate to be such and such. That would imply that it wasn't a random or statistical sample.
I don't fault your math or the author's. However, if the sample wasn't random, then the only thing that can statistically be said is that of the 2600 people surveyed, X amount downloaded movies. It would be invalid to expand that to 25 million as there is no mathematical foundation to do so.
If the sample isn't random, those 2600 could be disproportionately comprised of,say college kids or AARP members. Either way, the results would be skewed so the data only applies to the sample itself.
What is misleading is that 2600 would be large enough sample to extend to the population if it were truly random. However, you would have to look at the selection method. How the participants selected is one of the primary determinative factors.
Again, statistics, in and of themself aren't hard. However, making sure you have a random representative sample is. That's why statisticians are in such demand.
Of course the teach statistics in the states. On the other hand, binomial stats and standard deviations, etc. only apply if one has taken a random sample. If the data isn't random, then the error rates are meaningless. If they are random, then an actual error rate should be produced via a formula and there should be no estimate or approximation. The fact that there wasn't an actual error rate, but only an estimated error rate seems to be strong evidence that there was a problem with the sample being valid statistically. Most likely, it wasn't random.
These results are meaningless! The article states that the "researcher" estimates the error rate to be plus or minus 2.4%. If it was a statistical sample, there would be no estimate of error rate, but instead an actual error rate. If this wasn't a statistical sample, then all that can be stated is 20% of the 2600 people surveyed.
It's also interesting that a survey that was taken via telephone and online is used to extrapolate to the entire population. Since not everyone has a computer, then they could hardly be included in the population (statistical not US). Furthermore, telephone surveys only include people with listed telephone numbers, so again, your statistical population is skewed. Online surveys do not work if they are voluntary (ie would you like to fill out our survey?) Since there is no indication of how many people who chose not to fill out the survey.
Based on the limited information given, it appears that this is another example of using statistics to get them to say what you want. Since most people are functionally illiterate when it comes to statistics, it's very easy for people to use bogus statistical methods to manipulate the data and ultimately the readers of the article.
For any sample to be legit and extrapolated to an entire population it has to be random and representative. If it's not both of those, then the extrapolated data is meaningless.
I really wish slashdot would quit using such misleading headlines to garner attention, such as "Father of the Internet..." I didn't see any mention of Al Gore in the post!
While all yogurts are made with active cultures, aren't most commercial yogurts that are sold in the U.S. now pasteurized or heat treated to increase shelf life? If so, that process effectively kills off the live culture. If the label says that it's been pasteurized or heat treated it doesn't have any live cultures. Or, put another way, if the label doesn't say that it contains live and active cultures or that it has the live and active culture seal, then it doesn't (or at least any significant amount).
In reality, the popular vote doesn't really mean anything. Just ask Al Gore.
If Windows sucks soooo much, how come more people are familiar with it than Mac OS X?
Maybe he should have asked "If Windows is so great, then why do they have to completely redesign it for each new release?" But to respond to his sophomoric question I would propose an answer along the lines of "Just because many people are familiar with something doesn't mean that thing is good. Child pornography, AIDS, taxes, prostate exams, etc. would be just a few of the things that many people are familiar with that most would probably categorize as not being good."
The minority is not being "silenced".
The point of the article was about removing the certification of meteorologists who continue to hold that global warming is not man made (or at least predominately man made). How would that not be considered silencing the minority?
I just used ID as an example and while I disagree with with ID there were some points that were raised in their argument about potential weaknesses in evolution. By silencing the whole debate, even the legitimate points were silenced as well. That does nothing to further real science.
Now jump ahead to global warming. While to most people, or at least many, global warming seems to be as viable a theory as evolution. The debate centers on whether it is a natural phenomenon or caused by mankind. Many in the scientific community and a lot of the public seem to lean towards mankind being the cause. However, this time, by silencing the minority, we admit we might be ignoring data or at least questions that can lead to a better understanding of the problem.
If you remove the emotionalism of the two different subjects - evolution and global warming, in effect, the only real distinguishing factor in how we are treating the topics is that one of them, global warming, has a financial impact on the way we live our lives now and in the future whereas evolution, at best only creates a philosophical dilemma.
So, if we really want to look at the notion of what drives our conscience as to wanting to uphold the notion of free speech, it seems that, it's not about the actual argument at all, but instead about money and our own self-interest.
Why is it ok to silence those who have opposing views to say evolution but it's not ok to silence those with opposing views to global warming?
Personally, I believe in evolution, however the last time the ID vs evolution debate came up, the slashdot community was pretty emphatic that the ID viewpoint should be silenced. Now, however, the same community feels silencing the a different view as compared to global warming is somehow wrong or unjust.
Assuming that the slashdot community's views on freedom of speech and expression are consistent with the population as a whole (or maybe even more open), I am just curious as to a rational explanation as to why the distaste for one group's view on a topic should lead to a move to censor while on a different topic it leads to an outcry against censorship?
And the only way to prevent all of the is to implement Joel Hefley's ideas on corruption prevention.
Better yet, just wait to the convention (and it doesn't matter which party) and have the RIAA slap them with a violation for whatever their theme song is. Chances are they haven't secured the rights to not only use it at the convention but also play it across every television and cable station covering the convention royalty free.
Let's see, how many million viewers/listeners in aggregate times the $12 each for the loss of the CD purchase plus the punitive damages on top of it.
Works for me.
The problem with what you're proposing is fairly obvious and its implications are the reason he can't win. I could go work for some company as a salaried employee and develop some new piece of software for them. They start using it, so I really work overtime on it and make it really efficient and it becomes a critical part of my employer's business.
The problem is that he is not just working for some company, but for a government agency. Furthermore, that government agency has entered into an agreed upon definition as to what his job duties are as evidenced by the union agreement they have for their highway patrol troopers. In addition to the union agreement, there are also numerous state personnel policies addressing what and how the state must address things. The burden, here is on the state to show that the individual truly is/was working on their behalf.
They (the state) is in a real bind here. If he was working on their behalf, then as an employee of the state, he is entitled to be payed for the "hundreds of hours" he worked on the project, at time and a half, mind you, since it was in addition to his regular duties.
The state, probably doesn't want to do that, so they are saying the overtime was not approved. However, in doing so, they would be admitting that he did it on his own time and therefore it is his code.
So, the state is faced with either saying it violating the union agreement and fair labor standards act, something it doesn't want to do or it is going to have to give up ownership of the code, something else it doesn't want to do. Either one is a problem.
Basically, if the guy was employed to develop software, then maybe your point would be valid, but he wasn't. He did the software on the side and the state decided to use it. That was a business decision they made. Now, it sounds like they don't want to pay the cost of that decision.
Did you miss that the his trooper's union is involved with this, too? It would seem to reason that if there is union representation there is also an agreement as to what constitutes duties as defined under the union agreement and agreed to by the state.
Assuming that such union agreement for state troopers in Wisconsin did not include them developing software as part of their normal duties, then the work he did is outside the scope of his work as a state trooper and is more closely related to a contractor.
Contractors retain copyright to their works all the time, that is nothing new (it's what keeps one state from selling their software to another). If the state did contract with him, as evidenced by they're providing him a computer, then it would seem that he has a leg to stand on.
Unless the union contract would dictate otherwise or there is some other documentation to the contrary, It would appear that Iowa has claims to part of the software and that the individual has claims to his modifications of it, on behalf of his client, the state of Wisconsin.
Because the iPhone is an iPod. Its music functionality will be the same as an iPod's.
Really, officially they didn't say that. Jobs said think of the iphone as a widescreen iPod. However, there have been numerous iPod models and not all have the same features (the iPod shuffle didn't even have a screen). So, to say that the iPhone is an iPod may be true. To say that it will have the same functionality as an iPod is something entirely else and unknowable until the thing actually ships.