That's because they were fully outsourced by IBM to Lenovo. The only thing that changed was the label. The Canadian Finance Minister needs to think before he speaks, or at least have staff people who can think for him.
Why should they? There are many reasons to unlock your phone that don't amount to exiting your contract early.
ie. I travel overseas and like to purchase a local SIM to avoid enormous roaming charges.
I think you answered your own question.
Actually, though, unlocking to avoid roaming charges is no different than having a second phone, there is no financial harm to the original company. You aren't using their network while you are roaming. Prohibiting unlocking only makes sense if you aren't purchasing the phone, but instead are leasing it and must turn it in at the end of the contract. If that were the case, it isn't your personal property, so you don't have the right to do with it as you want. Then again, since it is your personal property, it is hard to see how the DCMA can prevent you from modifying it.
I think what he means is that they should be able to sue you in court - like any other company for breach of contract instead of having this be part of the DCMA. You signed a contract saying you wouldn't do this and you did this. That is simple contract law. Probably the reason the phone companies want it under DCMA is that they have to show damages for breach of contract. At most that would be $200 for the subsidy on the phone and that would be only if broke on day one of the contract. Legal fees and court costs would far outstrip any damages. Under the DCMA, however, they can charge you criminally and the penalties are substantially higher.
If you want to get to the crux of the matter, follow the money.
There's nothing preventing you from buying a phone at the unsubsidized price and then modifying it. You're making a deal with the cell phone provider: You agree that you'll honor the contract you signed, and they give you a phone at a discount. Hopefully this is going to be a bit easier over time as everyones moves to LTE (does this mean that CDMA finally bites the dust?) and phones become standardized like the rest of the civilized world.
If that were true, then why is the cell phone contract not lower if I bring my own phone, since there is no subsidy? One could argue that the the price they offer the phone to the customer is not a subsidized price, but simply the market price. If they could charge more for the phone, they would, but the market won't bear it, so they can't. It has nothing to do with a subsidy, but instead is more like a loss leader, where the grocery store agrees to take a loss on Pepsi, to get people into the store to buy other goods.
They can call it a subsidy, but that is just marketing speak.
the subsidized handset business models of the US carriers are viable, just not universally popular. There's a difference.
I disagree. They are very popular to the typical US consumer, who doesn't want to pay more than a couple bucks for a new shiny phone in their hands.
If it wasn't popular, then the business model wouldn't be viable, because no one in their right might would voluntarily chain themselves to a carrier for years knowing that plan pricing, internet caps, speed throttling, and terms of usage are continually shifting and subject to change without notice, approval, or even the threat of class action from the affected.
To say it is popular when it is the only choice available is a sign of ant-trust violations, not good business models. There are only a handful of cellular companies and they somehow all have the same business model with out collusion? Seems might odd. When the railroads tried this back in the first part of the last century, the government stepped in to protect the rights of the users. My how times have changed. Today, the government seems more interested in protecting the rights of the companies.
Ireland's tax rate on trading income is 12.5% the average effective corporate tax rate in the US is 27%. However, that 12.5% pays for universal health care for the workers (paying 80% of health care costs). It is far more likely that lower wages AND benefit costs are the deciding factor instead of taxes. Businesses will gladly pay more in taxes if it means they can get rid of a huge cost they have little control over (benefits account for as much as 40% of one's wages and health care is the largest portion of that).
I guess I should hand in my geek card now because I no longer see the need in having a computer in the house. I don't even have a laptop anymore. I have an iMac at the office. At home I have my iPad and an iPhone. First iPad I had I got the keyboard case. I found it was handy in a pinch, but not that often. When I got my latest iPad I just got a case that protects the screen and a docking station for my house. At the office, I'm going to use the iMac. At home, I do need to write an occasional long personal email, so having the full sized keyboard is nice there. I use the device to read, watch netflix & hulu, check facebook, watch youtube, and email. For work meetings the iPad with a stylus pen takes notes just fine for me and it a lot lighter to lug around than a laptop.
Why hand in your geek card? But from your use description, you don't need a full fledged computer at home and possibly not at the office, either. As such, an iPad seems a good choice. On the other hand, your use case is not everybody's use case.
It's not Feudalism and it's not Aristocracy. It is, however, a form of fascism. What else do you call it when the government favors corporatism over the people?
Companies never existed to meet a private need. That is the foundation of a free market society: To achieve a situation in which parties act only in their own best interests, but in doing so incidentially provide a benefit to wider society.
Actually Capitalism and the whole concept of supply and demand is predicated on meeting the public (not private) need. Until recent times, if the public didn't need something, the public didn't purchase it and the demand was low. As such, nobody sold it or sold it so low that it wasn't profitable. Think of buggy whips, once the automobile was established.
The other extreme is an economy based on a centralized group (usually the government) determining what will be produced. There the goods are sold, not because of public need, but because there are no other alternatives. If you need a hammer, but all the government produces are wrenches, you buy a wrench to use as a hammer.
What has changed in the past century, is the amount of disposable income the average person has (in the US). This means that not just needs can be met, but so can wants. Consumerism has become rampant and because of easy credit, until recently, it has been a successful strategy for businesses. However, now that consumers cannot deficit spend as readily, the more traditional supply and demand curves re-establish them self and needs are met first. That is one of the reasons of the cash for clunkers program. To encourage people to purchase new vehicles that they had decided they didn't "need", the government had to sweeten the pot to entice them to make the purchase.
When it comes to desktop computers, since most people don't "need" to upgrade regularly, there isn't a long-term money stream for the manufacturers. Therefore, they have to convince you to buy something else, ie. tablets. Tablets do have a long term money stream, because they are basically manufactured to be disposable devices. Of course, you don't have the government to step in like they did in the cash for clunkers program to entice people to purchase them, so what do you do? You shift to producing tablets (and associated components) like Intel has done and then you quit making the competing product -- the desktop. Why? Because, even if people still "need" it, you force them into your new product line, one which is better for your bottom line.
This thread started with the notion of Intel being a monopoly and why would they do something like this? It is precisely because the are a monopoly in the desktop market that they can do something like this.
The real reason the desktop pc is on the decline is that it can be upgraded and made to last a very long time. Contrast that with a laptop, ultrabook, tablet or phone which are all disposable devices. Most of them, now, you can't even replace the battery, let alone any of the internals./.ers like car analogies, but I think stereos are a better one. Back in the day, the best stereos were all components. You had an amplifier, a separate tuner, turntable, tape deck, etc. You could purchase the best components your wallet and audio needs dictated. If something new came out, like CDs or a component broke, it didn't require replacing the entire system. That is how it is with desktop computers.
On the other hand the new mobile market devices like tablets and phones are like the mass marketed all in one stereos that started to dominate in the late 70s. They were a marketer's dream, and the accountants loved them, because there were no user serviceable parts inside. If something new came our or something broke, the consumer went out and purchased a new one. Great for the bottom line.
The typical desktop PC can be made to last far longer than its expected useful life (how many computers are still running XP out there?). That is not an option with tablets, phones, ultrabooks and the like. Eventually the battery will fail to hold a charge and since it is not user serviceable, the consumer will have to choose to pay the vendor almost as much to put a new one in or to buy a new device. Easy choice, buy the new device, even if you didn't need the new capabilities. All of those back lit displays also start to dim with time and again are cheaper to replace the device than to send off to have serviced. At least with a desktop, it would involve replacing just the monitor, not the entire computer.
The average consumer convinces themself that the tradeoffs are worth it, but for many of them, they are wrong and they get frustrated and convince themself they just need to upgrade to a better model (Is the iPad X really that much better than the iPad X-1?). The vendors are counting on that! It's all about the marketing.
How many people do you see who would scoff at a $200 netbook, but walk around with a $600 iPad plus keyboard? Both are underpowered, so that can't be it. The iPad does have a touch screen, but is that a $400 advantage, and if so, then why the keyboard? You'll even hear the argument that well, I can leave the keyboard behind and only take it for the times I truly need it -- which is true, but then why do they always have the keyboard with them? Because, they can't admit that a tablet solution wasn't the right solution for their needs and not only did they spend too much, they had to purchase additional pieces to make it work.
Because the average life of the desktop PC can be extended relatively easily and inexpensively, vendors, who depend on ever increasing sales volume as a measure of performance have to switch to a product that allows them to meet that goal, even if it isn't in the best interest of anybody but the shareholders. After all, companies no longer exist primarily to meet a public need, the exist to keep the shareholders happy. If the shareholders are happy, the board is happy. If the board is happy, the executives are happy, etc., etc.
The world has changed and the game is no longer about producing what people need, but instead producing what they will buy, particularly if you can get them to buy it over and over again.
It's quite simple, really. Intel, monopolist or not, can make more money by utilizing its resources elsewhere than in the the desktop market. All of the hype is in the tablet/phone/ultrabook market and that is where they are shifting their resources. It's quite simple, really. The cost to design and produce a board for a tablet is not significantly different than that of a desktop. On the other hand, a tablet board will probably out sell a desktop board 100 to 1 if not more. As such, the ROI on the tablet board is far greater than on the desktop.
For most users, particularly those that are simply consumers of content, the modern PC is overkill, at least in the world of online services where even the fastest consumer internet connection is a bottleneck for the underlying hardware.
he violated the JSTOR Eula against using bots AND he did that not to download the documents for his own personal use, but for the purpose of redistributing them outside of JSTOR. This is his own admission. it's totally irrelevant whether he had the rights to read the documents, he never had any intentions of reading 4 million documents. also, he crashed the computer in the process by overwhelming the server
Take your points individually.
1) He violated the EULA - is that criminal? No, it means you lose access.
2) His intention was to use the documents, not for his personal use, but for redistributing them outside of JSTOR - is that criminal? No, JSTOR actually allows that. The only issue is the quantity of documents he had.
3) It is irrelevant whether he had the rights to read the documents, he never had any intentions of reading 4 million documents - is that criminal? No, he had the rights to the documents. Whether he read them or not does not change that he had the right to have them.
4) He crashed the computer in the process by overwhelming the server - is that criminal? It could be, but only if the intention was to crash the server. Was his script malicious with the intent to crash the server or perform a DOS attack? If not, then this is probably not criminal, either.
So, all that you say, while true, does not explain why the full force of the Justice Department was involved. What federal crime or felony did he commit? Instead, it sounds like there should be an investigation as to who has undue influence that was able to get the JD involved in this case. That seems the real story.
You have the wrong focus. Expending your energy to "How do we effect the social change necessary to convince them of what is better and encourage them to take the effort to do it?" will get you nowhere. If you want to improve the code, it is not the programming team you need to convince. You already state that code suffers to meat the deadlines.
If you want code to improve, you need to convince management of the value of the improved code, so that it becomes their priority. Until they value it, the deadlines won't change and the code will continue to suffer.
If I'm not willing to project how I feel then I either don't feel that way or I don't know how I feel, in either case I wouldn't have a point. When someone can show me a war where no one dies ( without using Star Trek ), then I'll finally support the military, until then I see the military and war as nothing but a mass killing.
I'm pretty sure I know how I feel about the argument you are trying to make and yet I choose not to project it.
This lipid could serve as a way to diagnose people who are at risk of developing neurological disorders after a blast, the scientists say.
No, the paper doesn't say that. I checked. It's also not true; this can't be used for diagnosis (except maybe post-mortem), because it's on the wrong side of the skull.
By wrong side of the skull, I assume you mean because it's on the inside. I mean, if the lipids were on the outside, it would be obvious were the damage was.:)
I agree that "wrong" and "against the rules" are not the same. But, what exactly was the full force of the law being brought on him for? He did violate the policy, but he was entitled to the content. As such, he was not guilty of a crime. Exactly what were they going to prosecute him for? There is definitely a wrong committed here. I'm just not sure he is/was the one guilty of it. He wasn't even violating an EULA.
All he did was violate a campus computer policy. Hell we all did that in the 70s when we played star trek on the PDP 10. Does that mean the justice department should come after all of us?
From the Jstor website: "It is a priority for JSTOR to ensure that our website and the content we archive is available and accessible to all of our users."
I guess they mean only accessible to all of their users who don't use it too much.
Just because the prosecutors were wrong does not mean Swartz was right.
This. Thank you. It is unfortunate that Swartz took his life. He was treated unfairly and with the utmost unjustice, ironically by the DOJ. And he was a brilliant individual. But he did commit a wrong. It does not justify what was done to him (which ultimately led him to kill himself.)
What was the wrong he committed? He was allowed access to the documents he downloaded. The only wrong was that instead of sitting there clicking on each one and clicking save as, he had a script access them and save them. But as to the content itself, he was allowed to have access to it and to save it. Instead of JSTOR, you would have thought the RIAA was behind this.
Is the installer different than before? Yes, it is. Does that make it counter-intuitive? No. The only issue I had that could be related to it being counter-intuitive was if you wanted to manually partition your drive, the text on the button to proceed did not change and it looked like you were going to still have the installer create the partitions.
At the local school, we've got 5th and 6th graders who installed it without problem, except for the partitioning confusion mentioned above. My brother, who is definitely not one to be called computer literate installed it, too.
Maybe the problem is that what long term users "think" is intuitive is actually not. Gnome 3 faced similar complaints with gnome-shell and Ubuntu with their Unity interface. In the early days of Linux, it had the reputation of not being user-friendly because the community would shout RTFM every time somebody asked a question. It seems that attitude still persists, it just manifests itself differently. Now, anytime something changes that makes linux more accessible to an average computer user (not necessarily an average linux user), there is an outcry.
It seems it is only counter-intuitive and unusable for those who want to keep linux as something for the elite instead of the masses.
So you are discounting what he and other researchers have been saying because he has an pseudo-ad on youtube to promote his book and seminars?
No, I'm discounting it not because of the existance of an ad for a book, but because of the contents of the ad. The guy has a bridge and a patent medicine to sell you, and you bought it.
If you don't want to use Gronbach, then Google Coleman or Cleland or Hulme or Shigemi Kono for starters. Those are demographers and researchers from all different countries saying the same thing (Shigemi Kono has research Japan, extensively, which has seen its fertility rate drop to 1.33).
Anyone who thinks a population problem only exists in the near future, and has never happened before, is a crank.
But maybe you have research to show how civilizations that have sustained birth rates below the level to maintain the population continue to thrive.
Who ever said that a population sustains the same birth rate regardless of circumstances?
Well, prior to the 1960s, the ability to limit birthrate was pretty haphazard (at least given human nature). Nature did it with high infant mortality rates, but for humankind to do it, in large scale, that wasn't feasible. So, yes, historically, there are all sorts of isolated populations that no longer exist today, because their birthrates fell below sustainable levels. However, we usually view some external force or disease as the reason for their demise.
Regardless, a population needs a birthrate of 2.1 to sustain itself. Below that, it declines, above that it grows. If it is below that, it also ages and that is the rub in China. The overall population is aging rapidly. At some point the current workers will either die or no longer be able to work and there will not be enough replacement workers.
If you don't want to use Gronbach, then Google Coleman or Cleland or Hulme or Shigemi Kono for starters. Those are demographers and researchers from all different countries saying the same thing (Shigemi Kono has research Japan, extensively, which has seen its fertility rate drop to 1.33).
Slashdot Mirror
That's because they were fully outsourced by IBM to Lenovo. The only thing that changed was the label. The Canadian Finance Minister needs to think before he speaks, or at least have staff people who can think for him.
The question in my mind is why lenovo would want to acquire RIM at all. It's like adopting the mangiest, sickliest animal at the shelter.
Patents?
Not saying it's fair, but...
Why should they? There are many reasons to unlock your phone that don't amount to exiting your contract early.
ie. I travel overseas and like to purchase a local SIM to avoid enormous roaming charges.
I think you answered your own question.
Actually, though, unlocking to avoid roaming charges is no different than having a second phone, there is no financial harm to the original company. You aren't using their network while you are roaming. Prohibiting unlocking only makes sense if you aren't purchasing the phone, but instead are leasing it and must turn it in at the end of the contract. If that were the case, it isn't your personal property, so you don't have the right to do with it as you want. Then again, since it is your personal property, it is hard to see how the DCMA can prevent you from modifying it.
I think what he means is that they should be able to sue you in court - like any other company for breach of contract instead of having this be part of the DCMA. You signed a contract saying you wouldn't do this and you did this. That is simple contract law. Probably the reason the phone companies want it under DCMA is that they have to show damages for breach of contract. At most that would be $200 for the subsidy on the phone and that would be only if broke on day one of the contract. Legal fees and court costs would far outstrip any damages. Under the DCMA, however, they can charge you criminally and the penalties are substantially higher.
If you want to get to the crux of the matter, follow the money.
There's nothing preventing you from buying a phone at the unsubsidized price and then modifying it. You're making a deal with the cell phone provider: You agree that you'll honor the contract you signed, and they give you a phone at a discount. Hopefully this is going to be a bit easier over time as everyones moves to LTE (does this mean that CDMA finally bites the dust?) and phones become standardized like the rest of the civilized world.
If that were true, then why is the cell phone contract not lower if I bring my own phone, since there is no subsidy? One could argue that the the price they offer the phone to the customer is not a subsidized price, but simply the market price. If they could charge more for the phone, they would, but the market won't bear it, so they can't. It has nothing to do with a subsidy, but instead is more like a loss leader, where the grocery store agrees to take a loss on Pepsi, to get people into the store to buy other goods.
They can call it a subsidy, but that is just marketing speak.
the subsidized handset business models of the US carriers are viable, just not universally popular. There's a difference.
I disagree. They are very popular to the typical US consumer, who doesn't want to pay more than a couple bucks for a new shiny phone in their hands.
If it wasn't popular, then the business model wouldn't be viable, because no one in their right might would voluntarily chain themselves to a carrier for years knowing that plan pricing, internet caps, speed throttling, and terms of usage are continually shifting and subject to change without notice, approval, or even the threat of class action from the affected.
To say it is popular when it is the only choice available is a sign of ant-trust violations, not good business models. There are only a handful of cellular companies and they somehow all have the same business model with out collusion? Seems might odd. When the railroads tried this back in the first part of the last century, the government stepped in to protect the rights of the users. My how times have changed. Today, the government seems more interested in protecting the rights of the companies.
absolutely, its ony 12.5% as opposed to the the UK and france where it is in the 20's.
also due to the recession and austerity, ireland is very competitive when it comes to wages.
logical choice.
If that was their reasoning, then this plant would be in Southeast Asia which has lower taxes and much lower wages.
Ireland's tax rate on trading income is 12.5% the average effective corporate tax rate in the US is 27%. However, that 12.5% pays for universal health care for the workers (paying 80% of health care costs). It is far more likely that lower wages AND benefit costs are the deciding factor instead of taxes. Businesses will gladly pay more in taxes if it means they can get rid of a huge cost they have little control over (benefits account for as much as 40% of one's wages and health care is the largest portion of that).
I guess I should hand in my geek card now because I no longer see the need in having a computer in the house. I don't even have a laptop anymore. I have an iMac at the office. At home I have my iPad and an iPhone. First iPad I had I got the keyboard case. I found it was handy in a pinch, but not that often. When I got my latest iPad I just got a case that protects the screen and a docking station for my house. At the office, I'm going to use the iMac. At home, I do need to write an occasional long personal email, so having the full sized keyboard is nice there. I use the device to read, watch netflix & hulu, check facebook, watch youtube, and email. For work meetings the iPad with a stylus pen takes notes just fine for me and it a lot lighter to lug around than a laptop.
Why hand in your geek card? But from your use description, you don't need a full fledged computer at home and possibly not at the office, either. As such, an iPad seems a good choice. On the other hand, your use case is not everybody's use case.
It's not Feudalism and it's not Aristocracy. It is, however, a form of fascism. What else do you call it when the government favors corporatism over the people?
The idea that our government could plan anything this complex and succeed is preposterous.
Who said the government planned it. It could have been planned by their corporate overlords.
Companies never existed to meet a private need. That is the foundation of a free market society: To achieve a situation in which parties act only in their own best interests, but in doing so incidentially provide a benefit to wider society.
Actually Capitalism and the whole concept of supply and demand is predicated on meeting the public (not private) need. Until recent times, if the public didn't need something, the public didn't purchase it and the demand was low. As such, nobody sold it or sold it so low that it wasn't profitable. Think of buggy whips, once the automobile was established.
The other extreme is an economy based on a centralized group (usually the government) determining what will be produced. There the goods are sold, not because of public need, but because there are no other alternatives. If you need a hammer, but all the government produces are wrenches, you buy a wrench to use as a hammer.
What has changed in the past century, is the amount of disposable income the average person has (in the US). This means that not just needs can be met, but so can wants. Consumerism has become rampant and because of easy credit, until recently, it has been a successful strategy for businesses. However, now that consumers cannot deficit spend as readily, the more traditional supply and demand curves re-establish them self and needs are met first. That is one of the reasons of the cash for clunkers program. To encourage people to purchase new vehicles that they had decided they didn't "need", the government had to sweeten the pot to entice them to make the purchase.
When it comes to desktop computers, since most people don't "need" to upgrade regularly, there isn't a long-term money stream for the manufacturers. Therefore, they have to convince you to buy something else, ie. tablets. Tablets do have a long term money stream, because they are basically manufactured to be disposable devices. Of course, you don't have the government to step in like they did in the cash for clunkers program to entice people to purchase them, so what do you do? You shift to producing tablets (and associated components) like Intel has done and then you quit making the competing product -- the desktop. Why? Because, even if people still "need" it, you force them into your new product line, one which is better for your bottom line.
This thread started with the notion of Intel being a monopoly and why would they do something like this? It is precisely because the are a monopoly in the desktop market that they can do something like this.
The real reason the desktop pc is on the decline is that it can be upgraded and made to last a very long time. Contrast that with a laptop, ultrabook, tablet or phone which are all disposable devices. Most of them, now, you can't even replace the battery, let alone any of the internals. /.ers like car analogies, but I think stereos are a better one. Back in the day, the best stereos were all components. You had an amplifier, a separate tuner, turntable, tape deck, etc. You could purchase the best components your wallet and audio needs dictated. If something new came out, like CDs or a component broke, it didn't require replacing the entire system. That is how it is with desktop computers.
On the other hand the new mobile market devices like tablets and phones are like the mass marketed all in one stereos that started to dominate in the late 70s. They were a marketer's dream, and the accountants loved them, because there were no user serviceable parts inside. If something new came our or something broke, the consumer went out and purchased a new one. Great for the bottom line.
The typical desktop PC can be made to last far longer than its expected useful life (how many computers are still running XP out there?). That is not an option with tablets, phones, ultrabooks and the like. Eventually the battery will fail to hold a charge and since it is not user serviceable, the consumer will have to choose to pay the vendor almost as much to put a new one in or to buy a new device. Easy choice, buy the new device, even if you didn't need the new capabilities. All of those back lit displays also start to dim with time and again are cheaper to replace the device than to send off to have serviced. At least with a desktop, it would involve replacing just the monitor, not the entire computer.
The average consumer convinces themself that the tradeoffs are worth it, but for many of them, they are wrong and they get frustrated and convince themself they just need to upgrade to a better model (Is the iPad X really that much better than the iPad X-1?). The vendors are counting on that! It's all about the marketing.
How many people do you see who would scoff at a $200 netbook, but walk around with a $600 iPad plus keyboard? Both are underpowered, so that can't be it. The iPad does have a touch screen, but is that a $400 advantage, and if so, then why the keyboard? You'll even hear the argument that well, I can leave the keyboard behind and only take it for the times I truly need it -- which is true, but then why do they always have the keyboard with them? Because, they can't admit that a tablet solution wasn't the right solution for their needs and not only did they spend too much, they had to purchase additional pieces to make it work.
Because the average life of the desktop PC can be extended relatively easily and inexpensively, vendors, who depend on ever increasing sales volume as a measure of performance have to switch to a product that allows them to meet that goal, even if it isn't in the best interest of anybody but the shareholders. After all, companies no longer exist primarily to meet a public need, the exist to keep the shareholders happy. If the shareholders are happy, the board is happy. If the board is happy, the executives are happy, etc., etc.
The world has changed and the game is no longer about producing what people need, but instead producing what they will buy, particularly if you can get them to buy it over and over again.
It's quite simple, really. Intel, monopolist or not, can make more money by utilizing its resources elsewhere than in the the desktop market. All of the hype is in the tablet/phone/ultrabook market and that is where they are shifting their resources. It's quite simple, really. The cost to design and produce a board for a tablet is not significantly different than that of a desktop. On the other hand, a tablet board will probably out sell a desktop board 100 to 1 if not more. As such, the ROI on the tablet board is far greater than on the desktop.
For most users, particularly those that are simply consumers of content, the modern PC is overkill, at least in the world of online services where even the fastest consumer internet connection is a bottleneck for the underlying hardware.
Fascism
he violated the JSTOR Eula against using bots AND he did that not to download the documents for his own personal use, but for the purpose of redistributing them outside of JSTOR. This is his own admission. it's totally irrelevant whether he had the rights to read the documents, he never had any intentions of reading 4 million documents. also, he crashed the computer in the process by overwhelming the server
Take your points individually.
1) He violated the EULA - is that criminal? No, it means you lose access.
2) His intention was to use the documents, not for his personal use, but for redistributing them outside of JSTOR - is that criminal? No, JSTOR actually allows that. The only issue is the quantity of documents he had.
3) It is irrelevant whether he had the rights to read the documents, he never had any intentions of reading 4 million documents - is that criminal? No, he had the rights to the documents. Whether he read them or not does not change that he had the right to have them.
4) He crashed the computer in the process by overwhelming the server - is that criminal? It could be, but only if the intention was to crash the server. Was his script malicious with the intent to crash the server or perform a DOS attack? If not, then this is probably not criminal, either.
So, all that you say, while true, does not explain why the full force of the Justice Department was involved. What federal crime or felony did he commit? Instead, it sounds like there should be an investigation as to who has undue influence that was able to get the JD involved in this case. That seems the real story.
You have the wrong focus. Expending your energy to "How do we effect the social change necessary to convince them of what is better and encourage them to take the effort to do it?" will get you nowhere. If you want to improve the code, it is not the programming team you need to convince. You already state that code suffers to meat the deadlines.
If you want code to improve, you need to convince management of the value of the improved code, so that it becomes their priority. Until they value it, the deadlines won't change and the code will continue to suffer.
If I'm not willing to project how I feel then I either don't feel that way or I don't know how I feel, in either case I wouldn't have a point. When someone can show me a war where no one dies ( without using Star Trek ), then I'll finally support the military, until then I see the military and war as nothing but a mass killing.
I'm pretty sure I know how I feel about the argument you are trying to make and yet I choose not to project it.
No, the paper doesn't say that. I checked. It's also not true; this can't be used for diagnosis (except maybe post-mortem), because it's on the wrong side of the skull.
By wrong side of the skull, I assume you mean because it's on the inside. I mean, if the lipids were on the outside, it would be obvious were the damage was. :)
Now researchers report a possible chemical signature: Levels of a certain lipid spike in the brains of mice exposed to mild explosions
Maybe mild explosions like one experiences from the repeated firing of assualt style rifles inches from one's skull while using extend capacity clips?
I agree that "wrong" and "against the rules" are not the same. But, what exactly was the full force of the law being brought on him for? He did violate the policy, but he was entitled to the content. As such, he was not guilty of a crime. Exactly what were they going to prosecute him for? There is definitely a wrong committed here. I'm just not sure he is/was the one guilty of it. He wasn't even violating an EULA.
All he did was violate a campus computer policy. Hell we all did that in the 70s when we played star trek on the PDP 10. Does that mean the justice department should come after all of us?
From the Jstor website: "It is a priority for JSTOR to ensure that our website and the content we archive is available and accessible to all of our users."
I guess they mean only accessible to all of their users who don't use it too much.
Just because the prosecutors were wrong does not mean Swartz was right.
This. Thank you. It is unfortunate that Swartz took his life. He was treated unfairly and with the utmost unjustice, ironically by the DOJ. And he was a brilliant individual. But he did commit a wrong. It does not justify what was done to him (which ultimately led him to kill himself.)
What was the wrong he committed? He was allowed access to the documents he downloaded. The only wrong was that instead of sitting there clicking on each one and clicking save as, he had a script access them and save them. But as to the content itself, he was allowed to have access to it and to save it. Instead of JSTOR, you would have thought the RIAA was behind this.
Is the installer different than before? Yes, it is. Does that make it counter-intuitive? No. The only issue I had that could be related to it being counter-intuitive was if you wanted to manually partition your drive, the text on the button to proceed did not change and it looked like you were going to still have the installer create the partitions.
At the local school, we've got 5th and 6th graders who installed it without problem, except for the partitioning confusion mentioned above. My brother, who is definitely not one to be called computer literate installed it, too.
Maybe the problem is that what long term users "think" is intuitive is actually not. Gnome 3 faced similar complaints with gnome-shell and Ubuntu with their Unity interface. In the early days of Linux, it had the reputation of not being user-friendly because the community would shout RTFM every time somebody asked a question. It seems that attitude still persists, it just manifests itself differently. Now, anytime something changes that makes linux more accessible to an average computer user (not necessarily an average linux user), there is an outcry.
It seems it is only counter-intuitive and unusable for those who want to keep linux as something for the elite instead of the masses.
So you are discounting what he and other researchers have been saying because he has an pseudo-ad on youtube to promote his book and seminars?
No, I'm discounting it not because of the existance of an ad for a book, but because of the contents of the ad. The guy has a bridge and a patent medicine to sell you, and you bought it.
If you don't want to use Gronbach, then Google Coleman or Cleland or Hulme or Shigemi Kono for starters. Those are demographers and researchers from all different countries saying the same thing (Shigemi Kono has research Japan, extensively, which has seen its fertility rate drop to 1.33).
Anyone who thinks a population problem only exists in the near future, and has never happened before, is a crank.
But maybe you have research to show how civilizations that have sustained birth rates below the level to maintain the population continue to thrive.
Who ever said that a population sustains the same birth rate regardless of circumstances?
Well, prior to the 1960s, the ability to limit birthrate was pretty haphazard (at least given human nature). Nature did it with high infant mortality rates, but for humankind to do it, in large scale, that wasn't feasible. So, yes, historically, there are all sorts of isolated populations that no longer exist today, because their birthrates fell below sustainable levels. However, we usually view some external force or disease as the reason for their demise.
Regardless, a population needs a birthrate of 2.1 to sustain itself. Below that, it declines, above that it grows. If it is below that, it also ages and that is the rub in China. The overall population is aging rapidly. At some point the current workers will either die or no longer be able to work and there will not be enough replacement workers.
If you don't want to use Gronbach, then Google Coleman or Cleland or Hulme or Shigemi Kono for starters. Those are demographers and researchers from all different countries saying the same thing (Shigemi Kono has research Japan, extensively, which has seen its fertility rate drop to 1.33).