A valid point that ought've been modded up. And replied to by me a bit sooner, but c'est la something. It -is- a very real concern that such technology will be out of reach of the vast majority of the population.
However, technology has pretty much always proliferated to the masses, and I see no reason why this would be an exception. Any new technology is expensive and, generally, only available to society's elite.
When new technology is refined, it cheapens in cost, and that tends to open up its benefits to the rest of society. How long that takes depends on a number of factors. I don't think resource scarcity is a huge issue here,* so governmental involvement is probably the greatest single factor. When governments burden a technology with regulation, it slows the process drastically.** When governments actively proliferate a technology, such as the telephone, costs have dropped quickly.
The worst-case scenario, in my mind, is one in which governments curtail this technology for religious or egalitarian reasons. The elite will find a way around it - going to nations with less stringent regulation - while the poor will have it kept out of their hands that much longer.
*The only obvious scarce resource is skilled staff, something that tends to correct itself if the popularity of a technology grows.
**Which is not always a bad thing, mind. For instance, regulations on medical testing have kept costs of new medical technology high, but have helped curb all sorts of human rights abuse.
Seriously, would they arrest me for downloading child porn while I'm in, say, Vietnam? If I'm on a US military base, HELL YES. If I'm on vacation, and don't bring the material back into the country? Uh.
Re:This too was foreseen
on
Designer Babies
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Or are you for allowing school choice... even when it means fundies can skip teaching evolution and condoms?
Or are you against using the power of the State to seize the resources of the successful to give to those who couldn't give enough of a shit to get an education?
And you are of course against crap like the Fairness Doctrine, right?
And are you against all gun control. at least anything less than crew served weapons or WMD, right?
Hate Speech? That doesn't exist in your "Freedom is flying yer freak flag" world, right?
Funnily enough, I'm in favor of school choice, against the Fairness Doctrine, against most gun control, and against hate speech control laws. I don't favor arbitrary property seizure, though. I note that the wording of your questions is highly loaded, attempting to resolve any debate through the framing of the questions. I choose not to address that issue further.
I'm really not sure why you picked a handful of controversial topics to try to prove that many issues of freedom are simple and obvious. Merely because you feel strongly about these topics doesn't mean that all thoughtful, intelligent people agree.
I don't have a problem with "designer babies", as this article calls 'em. While this company currently is talking about superficial choices like hair and eye color, perfecting the technology could well lead to generations of smarter, stronger, disease-resistant, congenital-defect free children.
Further, I'm afraid that taking legislative control of children's genetics is more dangerous to the preservation of diversity than allowing free choice. Once the finger of legislation is in the pie, there's no taking it out again, and most long-standing governments have made eugenic policies at various points. I have no reason to believe that it will never happen again in nations which have rescinded such stances.
I don't deny there's plenty of arguments on both sides - I was exposed to this debate many years ago in a biomedical ethics course in college. The actual practical application is bound to raise a bit of hubbub and maybe some new insight, but unless someone has a compelling new argument I'm unlikely to see this as a Bad Thing.
The first couple of hits are from freelancer websites and the next ones are from 2006.
Have you got anything which isn't hyperbole?
That's not what hyperbole means. But aside from that, the freelance jobs are paying jobs. I'm not clear what your problem with 'em are. Some of the hits are older, true, but not all of 'em are.
I guess Let Me Google That For You needs a feature to help people get past the first three or four results. Here's a sampling of recent, non-freelance job postings from the first few pages:
Current listing:
Web marketing company seeks reliable webmaster and php programmer
Duties:
Webmaster:
dedicated server maintenance
site maintenance and monitoring
web apps installations
basic page creation - updating
programming:
writing code for simple web programs
modifying open source code
August of '08:
We are a creative cutting edge e-commerce firm with unique corporate culture which puts the human at first place and treats its team members with the utmost respect. We are seeking a web programmer with experience in Open Source applications for an on site Full Time Position.
June of '08:
EC CARES at the University of Oregon is looking for a Python/Turbogears web
applications programmer - see link and position summary below.
October '08:
Picasso Fish is a growing marketing agency that offers a colorful variety of services with an emphasis on print and website development. (snip) Passionate about âoeopen sourceâ
August '08:
My company (MSC status based in Glenmarie) does digital signage/kiosk
+ content (kreateevee.com) and web community (gofutsal.com) and a
little bit of mobile apps (more on the backend). We have our own
digital signage/kiosk software (in flex) and an in house creative team
and currently providing our service to a few banks and telcos in Malaysia.
It's not entirely a web programming job, we are currently looking to
incubate a small team of good programmers to create applications for
the global market (in digital signage and web). They must be familiar
and love the open source environment. They should be proficient in at
least 2 languages in this list (Flex, Python, PHP, Java, Perl, C/C++)
and familiar with Linux. The applicants do not need to be an expert
but should be able to work independently, creative, and willing to
learn new technology or other computer languages when the need arises
(which often does).
I wait until the games I want are on the bargian shelves then buy them (or cheap on Steam).
Nothing to add here but "me, too".
Diablo 3 may cause me to break this trend,
Little to add here but "me, too", although in this case it's because my girlfriend's super-excited about it and wants me t'play.
Okay, okay, a little to add: Sometimes I'll buy an older game bundled with new expansions, such as when Warlords came out for Civ IV. But in general, I wait for games to discount.
Aside from the cost advantage, you get the benefit of other people's hindsight. Once the hype is long-faded and games' replay values are established, it's easy to get a real handle on what's worth playing.
This isn't a new trend, either. I recall Scott Kurtz noting it years ago, in the context of gamer parents. I'd speculate that it's due, in part, to just that: the first generation of hardcore gamers is getting older, making babies, and getting smacked upside the head with limited entertainment budgets.
In addition, the last ten years or so have made home computers less of a luxury. Home computers have found their way into a lot more homes in every income category. Damn it, I didn't plan to have to do any research for this reply. I'd suggest that lower-income households keep a sharper eye out for bargain entertainment.
If this trend manages to continue (the current economic climate may dampen or halt it, hopefully temporary-like), I think we'll find that games will find it profitable to adjust pricing downward to grab more buyers. It's a classic economic case for maximizing profits.
although I think the intellectual crowd tends to reach a (relatively) mature ethic earlier in life.
This ain't:
I'm curious as to what you mean by "ethic." My only remark is that, if you're part of the intellectual crowd, you may be bias.
Fair enough. As t'my bias, I'm the artistic type. I reckon I relate to the thinky types more closely than the jocks. And I was typing out of my ass, with no peer-type review backing me up. It's based entirely on my own observation and reflection.
As t'what I mean, I think the intellectual crowd, broadly speaking, tends to have a better understanding at a young age of how their actions affect others and a stronger sense of sympathy. That is, they seem to be less inclined to cause harm, and more likely to see any potential harm in their actions. That's far from universal, of course, but in a very broad, loose way, I do believe it's the case. Hey, when's the last time an academic fraternity or chess club got in trouble for hazing?
I'm not doubting that, I'm just commenting on Varney's comment regarding the issue. The way she addressed the issue (For me, Microsoft is so last century. They are not the problem...) suggests to me that someone at Microsoft put her up to it. Either that, or she is one of the most clueless people the Obama administration has to offer.
Bear in mind, now, that Varney was involved in the US vs. MS case some years ago - as a Netscape lawyer. Although she's worked with Microsoft under more positive circumstances (in the context of her pushing for standards in online privacy), I have trouble seeing her as an MS puppet.
I'm not saying she's perfect, but I think she's one of the good guys.
And... honestly, I agree with her, just a little. Microsoft has become a bloated, nearly ineffective, and arrogant bureaucracy. They may still play dirty, and may still try to strongarm, but their leverage is dwindling as they accumulate resentment from consumers and lose market share.
I'm not saying they're irrelevant; that's obviously not the case. They bear watching, and I sincerely hope Varney isn't as dismissive of them as her quote implies. I think she isn't; she isn't stupid.
Google, on the other hand, is still (usually) playing nice, but has gained incredible influence; the company's name is a household word (literally; the verb "google" is in Merriam-Webster). Any company with that much power bears close scrutiny: a culture shift or a few poor decisions could easily lead to misuse of their dominance.
What they're allegedly doing is scummy, but not extortion. Or rather, it's only extortion if Yelp itself is generating the negative reviews. Accepting cash to remove legitimate negative reviews is just slimy.
Indeed, Yelp does pay some employees to write reviews of businesses that are solicited for advertising. And in at least one documented instance, a business owner who refused to advertise subsequently received a negative review from a Yelp employee.
Heck, all hackers and jocks are human, so, when put in the right situation, they're going to react similarly (ala Lord of the Flies). No reason to expect one group to be "better" than the other.
You... you understand that Lord of the Flies is fiction, right? You can't use it as an example of human behavior. But I'm inclined t'agree with you, even so. Valuing knowledge and information doesn't give moral superiority over valuing physical prowess, although I think the intellectual crowd tends to reach a (relatively) mature ethic earlier in life.
These articles imply that it's not "good practice" to give passwords out. If that's really his defense, it's specious and deceptive. If your boss demands a password, you have to give it, by law.
What law? In this case, the State's trying t'use "disrupting computer services", which is a California-specific law. From a look at the text, it looks like you only must give the password to your boss if he or she is "authorized" to have it. I'm assuming the charges are based on:
(5) Knowingly and without permission... causes the denial of computer services to an
authorized user of a computer, computer system, or computer network.
The question is whether his bosses were "authorized". If they -aren't-, it's criminal to give them the passwords, under the same section. Tricky. This is a government network in question, so the matter of authorization may not be clear. I have trouble with the scenario in which the police CIO, a military information defense worker, a couple of engineers, and especially a human resources rep would have authorization for administrative control of the city's network without a city policy-level decision being made at the mayoral or legislative level.
Even in a business environment, the question of authorization can be sticky, and again is best-handled by a top-level policy decision.
Other states have different laws; check your local listings. There's no universal law I'm aware of that says your boss has the right to any passwords. Quite the opposite, in California; if you give it up to your boss on demand when he shouldn't have it, and hijinks ensue, you could theoretically be prosecuted. I've trouble picturing that actually happening, but it clearly is not the case that you have to hand it over on request.
As a layman, it looks to me as though Childs was correct in refusing to give out the passwords (although I'm not familiar with any relevant city policies granting authorization, again I'm pretty darned sure the HR guy isn't supposed to have 'em). Giving out incorrect passwords was a bad move, but easily attributed to the pressure of the surprise party.
Well, you're right about that. I goofed up; COPA is dead. COPPA, on the other hand, might well apply.
I'm still not a lawyer, but since Sony's privacy statement claims they comply with COPPA, I'd suggest that the parent's agreement to the terms of use does not waive the child's rights under COPPA. Further, even if that wasn't the case, I'd think there'd need to be a specific provision detailing to whom the data can be disclosed. Nowhere does Sony make folks agree to share children's data with academic researchers.
Further further, even if one single child signed up without parental consent, I've a vague notion that Sony could be liable under COPPA. To my knowledge, a child cannot agree to waive his or her rights under his or her own discretion. The fact that Sony's terms of use are violated by the child may be a nonissue. The burden of protecting the child's personal information is on Sony, and I believe that the burden of demonstrating parental waiver of those rights is upon Sony as well.
Besides that, under COPPA, parents must verifiably agree to specific disclosure of children's data in most cases.
But the most important point is that a knowledgable, informed parent signing his or her minor child up for the service is assured that Sony complies with COPPA under Sony's own privacy statement.
I hope by "everything" they don't mean "everything". If personally identifying information is included, Sony could be in a heap o' trouble.
In particular, if the researchers have access to user/character names (or worse, real ones!), Sony could be in violation of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. I'm not a lawyer, but:
(F) any other identifier that the Commission determines permits the physical or online contacting of a specific individual;
Particularly if names can be correlated to age, it seems unwise. Without assurance that personally identifying information is not in the data, any parent of an EQ player should be concerned that they were sent to "a collaborative group of academic researchers at a number of institutions".
If you're talking about an artificial monopoly (achieved through government, or by exploiting the law), then sure -- but it is also economically possible to achieve a natural monopoly via sheer superiority of product/price.
No it isn't, I'm afraid. A natural monopoly refers to an industry, not a company, that has a high nonrecurring fixed cost (usually for infrastructure), but low marginal cost for production. Utilities are the canonical example of natural monopolies. Linky.
I'm not sure quite what'ch'a mean by an artificial monopoly. I think you mean a coercive monopoly.
It's hard t'have a meaningful discussion when you aren't using the same terminology. From here, it sounds like you mean to say:
It's economically possible to achieve a monopoly via sheer superiority of product/price. Considering the ubiquity of big government today, this isn't likely, but still possible.
If that's what'ch'a mean, I'll agree with you, so long as I can pretend the rest of your post simply doesn't exist.
I'm worried by the increasing number of stories on/. up in arms about companies bringing in *gasp* foreigners. America was founded by non-natives and our economic strength comes from the thousands of immigrants who come here for a better life by getting good jobs or starting businesses.
The contempt for the foreigners coming here on H1-B visas, and the companies that hire them, disgusts me. What makes you any better or more deserving than these people? The fact that you were born in the US? Please. These people have the should have the same right as all of us to come here and be successful. By preventing people from immigrating, especially talented, smart people, we are damaging the future of this country.
First, H1-B visa recipients are not immigrants. That's why it's called a "non-immigrant visa". Immigration is a completely different topic, one in which I'd probably agree with you on several points. Here, however, you're off-base, largely because your initial assumption (H1-B visas involve immigration) is wrong. Prick.
Second, I think I'm more deserving of US jobs because I'm a US citizen, not because I was born in the US. As a citizen, I expect certain rights, priveleges, and protections within the US, because those things are a large part of the mandate by which this nation exists.
Among these protections I include preferential status for jobs within the US. This is good for me (I get paid), and for the nation: I pay more taxes than an H1-B recipient, I don't draw from other citizen's taxes by going on the dole, and I contribute to the nation in ways that a foreign worker cannot.
It's worth emphasizing that a potential H1-B recipient who does not get a job in the US does not draw unemployment claims, food stamps, housing assistance, or any of a myriad of welfare programs. An American worker displaced by a foreign one may do so, creating a burden on other citizens.
In terms of taxation, I don't know - and don't want to research - the income taxes paid by H1-B recipients; I suspect it's the same as a citizen's. However, an H1-B recipient is likely to spend more in another country than here, and will therefore carry a lower US tax burden. Even aside from lost potential sales/luxury taxes derived from purchases made int he US, an H1-B recipient is much less likely to buy a house in the States or leave an inheritance here than a citizen. Or any number of other taxable events. I daresay an H1-B recipient, in the long term, pays less US taxes than a citizen of equivalent vocation.
Similarly, any cash spent in another country rather than here can, potentially, drain our economy somewhat. As has been noted, global economics is not a zero-sum game; however, it's also not a free lunch: If there's not enough return for the capital loss at the local level, we (the US) eat a loss. The case in which an H1-B recipient displaces a qualified American worker has no gain in exchange for the cash sent away.
Finally, I'm a veteran, damnit. How many H1-B recipients have served in our military? While many Americans have not done so, most males are or have been eligible for the draft. Many Americans have served on juries. Lots do or have done volunteer work in the US - myself included. These contributions and obligations -do- give us the right to expect benefits within the nation in which we are citizens. Preferential status for jobs in the US is among these benefits.
I've put blood, sweat, and taxes into this nation, and placed my life in the service of its protection. Many Americans, past and present, have done the same. Because of these sacrifices and risks, we, as Americans, have the right to benefit from our citizenships in any way that we, as a nation, damned well choose.
Actually, it is necessary. Each claim has to be contained within in a single sentence.
Huh. Seems a lil' bit of an arbitrary requirement in my mind, although I reckon there needs to be a limit or some patent lawyers would write a book for every claim.
Even so, the parent's right about one thing: None of those claims are, in fact, sentences. You sort of have to have a predicate, no matter how many phrases you pile on top of a subject.
It's frankly a little worrisome that the combined efforts of an agency responsible for assigning rights for complex devices and methods and many highly-paid specialists who deal with these rights can't successfully construct a sentence. God help us if anyone tries to patent a method for writing complete sentences. That much irony could make a strong man weep.
HP found out that one of their competitors (GroundWork) has HP's confidential documents. They shouldn't have those - somebody has obviously broken an NDA.
anyone seriously considering buying HP is going to ask HP for a price, they don't need to find out from GroundWork!
You're saying that the document is confidential but contains information available for the asking? And that an employee broke an NDA by giving out information that the company gives out freely? Nonsense; you're blithering. First, if HP freely gave out pricing information, they wouldn't claim it's confidential. Second, there's no obvious NDA violation; I say it's obvious that an HP rep left the pricing guide on the bus by mistake.
Do GroundWork have any other NDA'd documents that would allow them to unfairly compete against HP?
I strongly doubt that anyone at GroundWork has signed an NDA with Hewlett-Packard, so I suggest that they aren't bound by HP's confidentiality policies. There's no such thing as an "NDA'd document"; only NDAs and documents. And there's nothing unfair about using correct, factual information to market a product, if it wasn't obtained in a shady way.
(Oh and they also ask for the document to be returned and for GroundWork to stop using it; that doesn't stop GroundWork from quoting HP prices because they can just get the prices from the GSA site).
Fair enough. I give HP five points for requesting rather than demanding, but minus several dozen for claiming that they can restrict information based on their internal policies. ("Access to HP pricing information is limited to parties under confidentiality obligations to HP.") Another ten points off the board for the vaguely threatening-sounding closure to the letter.
GroundWork is doing a very good job of spinning this so people report "HP don't want everyone to know they're expensive". And that's a nonsense story - (And GroundWork can quote the prices from the GSA site anyway). But it pushes GroundWork's key marketing message - "we're cheaper than HP" - and gets them namechecks and sympathy on blogs - so congratulations to GroundWork for excellent marketing.
Funnily enough, you overlooked the fact that it was HP who copied InformationWeek on the letter, for reasons which no doubt are sensible and logical. From here, tho', Jim Haselmaier looks like a gibbering idiot for doing so. This story, and any resultant blog sympathy, appears to be entirely HP's work. As far as I can see, GroundWork hasn't reacted publicly in any way, to HP's letter.
By retaining ownership of the broadcast frequencies. The FCC licenses their use, and in each license retains the right to punish unlicensed use (cussin', boobies, and such) through fines or revocation.
If a private company owned the frequency and licensed it out in this manner, there'd be little question of it being a valid restriction. As it stands, though, it's really a cheap exploit by Uncle Sam to dodge the first amendment question.
Obviously (hopefully obviously), broadcast rights need allocation by some method. High-bidder licensing with public and governmental use reservations is a pretty good scheme for doing so. The old public-interest method was tangled, arbitrary, and begged for corruption. However, the question of ownership beyond the minimum requirements of allocation is very much arguable.
Imagine the FCC claiming, say, a band from 75-250 Hz and licensing it with similar restrictions.* That's pretty extreme, but highlights the dubious nature of restricting licences beyond practical necessity.
It's good that SCOTUS is having a looksie at the arrangement, although the Court is conservative enough at the moment that I suspect the FCC will prevail.
* That'd be roughly the frequencies we use to make noises with our pie-holes.
gamers certainly don't have any effect on society as a whole.
Your point is well-made, although y'might put a moment's thought into cutting down on the caffeine.
Still, I think you're at least somewhat overstating it. While gamers aren't a driving cultural movement with far-reaching, powerful influence - in the manner of, say, the strong churches or the hippy movement - the subculture has had indisputable effects on society.
For example, a great deal of home computing technology advances are driven by the gaming market. The gaming market -itself- is a phenomenon which has its effects on society. Aside from the direct economic effect, the existence of this market affects educational choices and offerings, increasing demand for computer science and graphics technology degrees; in turn, this impacts public curricula.
And so forth. Again, while I agree that gamers as a subculture are far from a coherent political force, to say they have no societal impact is naive. That said, I totally encourage folks t'do a little charity work on the side, as well.
That article, at first glance, seemed pretty nonsensical and bizarre. It's probably the worst-written news article I've ever seen, with no context, background, or apparent point. I mean, I've seen research from western nations that seems just as silly as the crossbreeding mentioned in the article. It reads as though some scientists, purely at random, decided to look at 43 whale-related research papers and found some silly things.
It seems that the scientists in question are commissioned by the International Fund for Animal Welfare, who complain that this research is simply an excuse t'hunt whales and sell them at market. A press release from the IFAW:
Virtually every article out there appears to be a regurgitation of various environmental group press releases, except a couple very neutral but content-free wire service articles. I see no detailed, objective review of the science.
I suspect the ICAW and other environmental orginazations would declare -any- research that kills whales "trivial", because they place a higher value on whales' lives than any possible research results. They don't give details of the research except vague five-word descriptions of those that sound ridiculous on the face. I'd much rather have details than rhetoric, personally.
Japan's government isn't the best possible source of unbiased opinion, either, although their claims that the whaling is sustainable seems t'be backed up by the whaling agreement under which they're operating. Given that they're obeying the limits under that agreement, I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt until such time as it's demonstrated otherwise.
I think the real junk science here is relying on groups with ulterior motives to evaluate the scientific value of the whaling. Let someone who doesn't want t'have the whales' babies -or- eat the whales' undoubtedly tasty flesh review the research, and I'll listen.
Note that China is a participant in TRIPS (follow the link at the bottom t'see all participating countries). Software copyright is addressed (it is treated as a literary work under this agreement), and fair use is very limited.
First, the summary quoted the abstract of the patent, not the claims.
Does, too.
The second is the fact is that Akamai is a very innovative company that has pioneered a lot of distributed content delivery starting with the early days of the internet.
1998 was hardly the early days of the Internet. Or even the Web, really, although that's debatable enough.
Lewin was tragically killed when AA flight 11 was crashed during the 9-11 terrorist attack.
I'm not sure what Lewin's death has t'do with patent rights. Are they claiming rights on that manner of death? I'm confused.
Slashdot Mirror
...for the upper class.
A valid point that ought've been modded up. And replied to by me a bit sooner, but c'est la something. It -is- a very real concern that such technology will be out of reach of the vast majority of the population.
However, technology has pretty much always proliferated to the masses, and I see no reason why this would be an exception. Any new technology is expensive and, generally, only available to society's elite.
When new technology is refined, it cheapens in cost, and that tends to open up its benefits to the rest of society. How long that takes depends on a number of factors. I don't think resource scarcity is a huge issue here,* so governmental involvement is probably the greatest single factor. When governments burden a technology with regulation, it slows the process drastically.** When governments actively proliferate a technology, such as the telephone, costs have dropped quickly.
The worst-case scenario, in my mind, is one in which governments curtail this technology for religious or egalitarian reasons. The elite will find a way around it - going to nations with less stringent regulation - while the poor will have it kept out of their hands that much longer.
*The only obvious scarce resource is skilled staff, something that tends to correct itself if the popularity of a technology grows.
**Which is not always a bad thing, mind. For instance, regulations on medical testing have kept costs of new medical technology high, but have helped curb all sorts of human rights abuse.
Seriously, would they arrest me for downloading child porn while I'm in, say, Vietnam? If I'm on a US military base, HELL YES. If I'm on vacation, and don't bring the material back into the country? Uh.
Yes. Yes, they would.
Step 1: Tape magnets to crocodile heads.
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit!
Step 4: Also, Fuck you.
Or are you for allowing school choice... even when it means fundies can skip teaching evolution and condoms?
Or are you against using the power of the State to seize the resources of the successful to give to those who couldn't give enough of a shit to get an education?
And you are of course against crap like the Fairness Doctrine, right?
And are you against all gun control. at least anything less than crew served weapons or WMD, right?
Hate Speech? That doesn't exist in your "Freedom is flying yer freak flag" world, right?
Funnily enough, I'm in favor of school choice, against the Fairness Doctrine, against most gun control, and against hate speech control laws. I don't favor arbitrary property seizure, though. I note that the wording of your questions is highly loaded, attempting to resolve any debate through the framing of the questions. I choose not to address that issue further.
I'm really not sure why you picked a handful of controversial topics to try to prove that many issues of freedom are simple and obvious. Merely because you feel strongly about these topics doesn't mean that all thoughtful, intelligent people agree.
I don't have a problem with "designer babies", as this article calls 'em. While this company currently is talking about superficial choices like hair and eye color, perfecting the technology could well lead to generations of smarter, stronger, disease-resistant, congenital-defect free children.
Further, I'm afraid that taking legislative control of children's genetics is more dangerous to the preservation of diversity than allowing free choice. Once the finger of legislation is in the pie, there's no taking it out again, and most long-standing governments have made eugenic policies at various points. I have no reason to believe that it will never happen again in nations which have rescinded such stances.
I don't deny there's plenty of arguments on both sides - I was exposed to this debate many years ago in a biomedical ethics course in college. The actual practical application is bound to raise a bit of hubbub and maybe some new insight, but unless someone has a compelling new argument I'm unlikely to see this as a Bad Thing.
The first couple of hits are from freelancer websites and the next ones are from 2006. Have you got anything which isn't hyperbole?
That's not what hyperbole means. But aside from that, the freelance jobs are paying jobs. I'm not clear what your problem with 'em are. Some of the hits are older, true, but not all of 'em are.
I guess Let Me Google That For You needs a feature to help people get past the first three or four results. Here's a sampling of recent, non-freelance job postings from the first few pages:
Current listing:
Web marketing company seeks reliable webmaster and php programmer Duties: Webmaster: dedicated server maintenance site maintenance and monitoring web apps installations basic page creation - updating programming: writing code for simple web programs modifying open source code
August of '08:
We are a creative cutting edge e-commerce firm with unique corporate culture which puts the human at first place and treats its team members with the utmost respect. We are seeking a web programmer with experience in Open Source applications for an on site Full Time Position.
June of '08:
EC CARES at the University of Oregon is looking for a Python/Turbogears web applications programmer - see link and position summary below.
October '08:
Picasso Fish is a growing marketing agency that offers a colorful variety of services with an emphasis on print and website development. (snip) Passionate about âoeopen sourceâ
August '08:
My company (MSC status based in Glenmarie) does digital signage/kiosk + content (kreateevee.com) and web community (gofutsal.com) and a little bit of mobile apps (more on the backend). We have our own digital signage/kiosk software (in flex) and an in house creative team and currently providing our service to a few banks and telcos in Malaysia. It's not entirely a web programming job, we are currently looking to incubate a small team of good programmers to create applications for the global market (in digital signage and web). They must be familiar and love the open source environment. They should be proficient in at least 2 languages in this list (Flex, Python, PHP, Java, Perl, C/C++) and familiar with Linux. The applicants do not need to be an expert but should be able to work independently, creative, and willing to learn new technology or other computer languages when the need arises (which often does).
I wait until the games I want are on the bargian shelves then buy them (or cheap on Steam).
Nothing to add here but "me, too".
Diablo 3 may cause me to break this trend,
Little to add here but "me, too", although in this case it's because my girlfriend's super-excited about it and wants me t'play.
Okay, okay, a little to add: Sometimes I'll buy an older game bundled with new expansions, such as when Warlords came out for Civ IV. But in general, I wait for games to discount.
Aside from the cost advantage, you get the benefit of other people's hindsight. Once the hype is long-faded and games' replay values are established, it's easy to get a real handle on what's worth playing.
This isn't a new trend, either. I recall Scott Kurtz noting it years ago, in the context of gamer parents. I'd speculate that it's due, in part, to just that: the first generation of hardcore gamers is getting older, making babies, and getting smacked upside the head with limited entertainment budgets.
In addition, the last ten years or so have made home computers less of a luxury. Home computers have found their way into a lot more homes in every income category. Damn it, I didn't plan to have to do any research for this reply. I'd suggest that lower-income households keep a sharper eye out for bargain entertainment.
If this trend manages to continue (the current economic climate may dampen or halt it, hopefully temporary-like), I think we'll find that games will find it profitable to adjust pricing downward to grab more buyers. It's a classic economic case for maximizing profits.
Could you please show me the job offers to work on open source? I'll give you a day to find something and then check back on my post.
Here, now, let me Google that for you.
This is me:
although I think the intellectual crowd tends to reach a (relatively) mature ethic earlier in life.
This ain't:
I'm curious as to what you mean by "ethic." My only remark is that, if you're part of the intellectual crowd, you may be bias.
Fair enough. As t'my bias, I'm the artistic type. I reckon I relate to the thinky types more closely than the jocks. And I was typing out of my ass, with no peer-type review backing me up. It's based entirely on my own observation and reflection.
As t'what I mean, I think the intellectual crowd, broadly speaking, tends to have a better understanding at a young age of how their actions affect others and a stronger sense of sympathy. That is, they seem to be less inclined to cause harm, and more likely to see any potential harm in their actions. That's far from universal, of course, but in a very broad, loose way, I do believe it's the case. Hey, when's the last time an academic fraternity or chess club got in trouble for hazing?
I'm not doubting that, I'm just commenting on Varney's comment regarding the issue. The way she addressed the issue (For me, Microsoft is so last century. They are not the problem...) suggests to me that someone at Microsoft put her up to it. Either that, or she is one of the most clueless people the Obama administration has to offer.
Bear in mind, now, that Varney was involved in the US vs. MS case some years ago - as a Netscape lawyer. Although she's worked with Microsoft under more positive circumstances (in the context of her pushing for standards in online privacy), I have trouble seeing her as an MS puppet.
I'm not saying she's perfect, but I think she's one of the good guys.
And... honestly, I agree with her, just a little. Microsoft has become a bloated, nearly ineffective, and arrogant bureaucracy. They may still play dirty, and may still try to strongarm, but their leverage is dwindling as they accumulate resentment from consumers and lose market share.
I'm not saying they're irrelevant; that's obviously not the case. They bear watching, and I sincerely hope Varney isn't as dismissive of them as her quote implies. I think she isn't; she isn't stupid.
Google, on the other hand, is still (usually) playing nice, but has gained incredible influence; the company's name is a household word (literally; the verb "google" is in Merriam-Webster). Any company with that much power bears close scrutiny: a culture shift or a few poor decisions could easily lead to misuse of their dominance.
What they're allegedly doing is scummy, but not extortion. Or rather, it's only extortion if Yelp itself is generating the negative reviews. Accepting cash to remove legitimate negative reviews is just slimy.
From the fucking article:
Indeed, Yelp does pay some employees to write reviews of businesses that are solicited for advertising. And in at least one documented instance, a business owner who refused to advertise subsequently received a negative review from a Yelp employee.
Heck, all hackers and jocks are human, so, when put in the right situation, they're going to react similarly (ala Lord of the Flies). No reason to expect one group to be "better" than the other.
You... you understand that Lord of the Flies is fiction, right? You can't use it as an example of human behavior. But I'm inclined t'agree with you, even so. Valuing knowledge and information doesn't give moral superiority over valuing physical prowess, although I think the intellectual crowd tends to reach a (relatively) mature ethic earlier in life.
Cite an example of this ever happening for similarly-mundane infractions.
If you insist.
Those're from the first page of a Google search.
These articles imply that it's not "good practice" to give passwords out. If that's really his defense, it's specious and deceptive. If your boss demands a password, you have to give it, by law.
What law? In this case, the State's trying t'use "disrupting computer services", which is a California-specific law. From a look at the text, it looks like you only must give the password to your boss if he or she is "authorized" to have it. I'm assuming the charges are based on:
(5) Knowingly and without permission ... causes the denial of computer services to an
authorized user of a computer, computer system, or computer network.
The question is whether his bosses were "authorized". If they -aren't-, it's criminal to give them the passwords, under the same section. Tricky. This is a government network in question, so the matter of authorization may not be clear. I have trouble with the scenario in which the police CIO, a military information defense worker, a couple of engineers, and especially a human resources rep would have authorization for administrative control of the city's network without a city policy-level decision being made at the mayoral or legislative level.
Even in a business environment, the question of authorization can be sticky, and again is best-handled by a top-level policy decision.
Other states have different laws; check your local listings. There's no universal law I'm aware of that says your boss has the right to any passwords. Quite the opposite, in California; if you give it up to your boss on demand when he shouldn't have it, and hijinks ensue, you could theoretically be prosecuted. I've trouble picturing that actually happening, but it clearly is not the case that you have to hand it over on request.
As a layman, it looks to me as though Childs was correct in refusing to give out the passwords (although I'm not familiar with any relevant city policies granting authorization, again I'm pretty darned sure the HR guy isn't supposed to have 'em). Giving out incorrect passwords was a bad move, but easily attributed to the pressure of the surprise party.
Whatever happened to the days when musicians made money by PERFORMING LIVE.
This did.
COPA does not apply.
Well, you're right about that. I goofed up; COPA is dead. COPPA, on the other hand, might well apply.
I'm still not a lawyer, but since Sony's privacy statement claims they comply with COPPA, I'd suggest that the parent's agreement to the terms of use does not waive the child's rights under COPPA. Further, even if that wasn't the case, I'd think there'd need to be a specific provision detailing to whom the data can be disclosed. Nowhere does Sony make folks agree to share children's data with academic researchers.
Further further, even if one single child signed up without parental consent, I've a vague notion that Sony could be liable under COPPA. To my knowledge, a child cannot agree to waive his or her rights under his or her own discretion. The fact that Sony's terms of use are violated by the child may be a nonissue. The burden of protecting the child's personal information is on Sony, and I believe that the burden of demonstrating parental waiver of those rights is upon Sony as well.
Besides that, under COPPA, parents must verifiably agree to specific disclosure of children's data in most cases.
But the most important point is that a knowledgable, informed parent signing his or her minor child up for the service is assured that Sony complies with COPPA under Sony's own privacy statement.
In particular, if the researchers have access to user/character names (or worse, real ones!), Sony could be in violation of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. I'm not a lawyer, but:
(F) any other identifier that the Commission determines permits the physical or online contacting of a specific individual;
Particularly if names can be correlated to age, it seems unwise. Without assurance that personally identifying information is not in the data, any parent of an EQ player should be concerned that they were sent to "a collaborative group of academic researchers at a number of institutions".
If you're talking about an artificial monopoly (achieved through government, or by exploiting the law), then sure -- but it is also economically possible to achieve a natural monopoly via sheer superiority of product/price.
No it isn't, I'm afraid. A natural monopoly refers to an industry, not a company, that has a high nonrecurring fixed cost (usually for infrastructure), but low marginal cost for production. Utilities are the canonical example of natural monopolies. Linky.
I'm not sure quite what'ch'a mean by an artificial monopoly. I think you mean a coercive monopoly.
It's hard t'have a meaningful discussion when you aren't using the same terminology. From here, it sounds like you mean to say:
It's economically possible to achieve a monopoly via sheer superiority of product/price. Considering the ubiquity of big government today, this isn't likely, but still possible.
If that's what'ch'a mean, I'll agree with you, so long as I can pretend the rest of your post simply doesn't exist.
I'm worried by the increasing number of stories on /. up in arms about companies bringing in *gasp* foreigners. America was founded by non-natives and our economic strength comes from the thousands of immigrants who come here for a better life by getting good jobs or starting businesses.
The contempt for the foreigners coming here on H1-B visas, and the companies that hire them, disgusts me. What makes you any better or more deserving than these people? The fact that you were born in the US? Please. These people have the should have the same right as all of us to come here and be successful. By preventing people from immigrating, especially talented, smart people, we are damaging the future of this country.
First, H1-B visa recipients are not immigrants. That's why it's called a "non-immigrant visa". Immigration is a completely different topic, one in which I'd probably agree with you on several points. Here, however, you're off-base, largely because your initial assumption (H1-B visas involve immigration) is wrong. Prick.
Second, I think I'm more deserving of US jobs because I'm a US citizen, not because I was born in the US. As a citizen, I expect certain rights, priveleges, and protections within the US, because those things are a large part of the mandate by which this nation exists.
Among these protections I include preferential status for jobs within the US. This is good for me (I get paid), and for the nation: I pay more taxes than an H1-B recipient, I don't draw from other citizen's taxes by going on the dole, and I contribute to the nation in ways that a foreign worker cannot.
It's worth emphasizing that a potential H1-B recipient who does not get a job in the US does not draw unemployment claims, food stamps, housing assistance, or any of a myriad of welfare programs. An American worker displaced by a foreign one may do so, creating a burden on other citizens.
In terms of taxation, I don't know - and don't want to research - the income taxes paid by H1-B recipients; I suspect it's the same as a citizen's. However, an H1-B recipient is likely to spend more in another country than here, and will therefore carry a lower US tax burden. Even aside from lost potential sales/luxury taxes derived from purchases made int he US, an H1-B recipient is much less likely to buy a house in the States or leave an inheritance here than a citizen. Or any number of other taxable events. I daresay an H1-B recipient, in the long term, pays less US taxes than a citizen of equivalent vocation.
Similarly, any cash spent in another country rather than here can, potentially, drain our economy somewhat. As has been noted, global economics is not a zero-sum game; however, it's also not a free lunch: If there's not enough return for the capital loss at the local level, we (the US) eat a loss. The case in which an H1-B recipient displaces a qualified American worker has no gain in exchange for the cash sent away.
Finally, I'm a veteran, damnit. How many H1-B recipients have served in our military? While many Americans have not done so, most males are or have been eligible for the draft. Many Americans have served on juries. Lots do or have done volunteer work in the US - myself included. These contributions and obligations -do- give us the right to expect benefits within the nation in which we are citizens. Preferential status for jobs in the US is among these benefits.
I've put blood, sweat, and taxes into this nation, and placed my life in the service of its protection. Many Americans, past and present, have done the same. Because of these sacrifices and risks, we, as Americans, have the right to benefit from our citizenships in any way that we, as a nation, damned well choose.
Actually, it is necessary. Each claim has to be contained within in a single sentence.
Huh. Seems a lil' bit of an arbitrary requirement in my mind, although I reckon there needs to be a limit or some patent lawyers would write a book for every claim.
Even so, the parent's right about one thing: None of those claims are, in fact, sentences. You sort of have to have a predicate, no matter how many phrases you pile on top of a subject.
It's frankly a little worrisome that the combined efforts of an agency responsible for assigning rights for complex devices and methods and many highly-paid specialists who deal with these rights can't successfully construct a sentence. God help us if anyone tries to patent a method for writing complete sentences. That much irony could make a strong man weep.
HP found out that one of their competitors (GroundWork) has HP's confidential documents. They shouldn't have those - somebody has obviously broken an NDA.
anyone seriously considering buying HP is going to ask HP for a price, they don't need to find out from GroundWork!
You're saying that the document is confidential but contains information available for the asking? And that an employee broke an NDA by giving out information that the company gives out freely? Nonsense; you're blithering. First, if HP freely gave out pricing information, they wouldn't claim it's confidential. Second, there's no obvious NDA violation; I say it's obvious that an HP rep left the pricing guide on the bus by mistake.
Do GroundWork have any other NDA'd documents that would allow them to unfairly compete against HP?
I strongly doubt that anyone at GroundWork has signed an NDA with Hewlett-Packard, so I suggest that they aren't bound by HP's confidentiality policies. There's no such thing as an "NDA'd document"; only NDAs and documents. And there's nothing unfair about using correct, factual information to market a product, if it wasn't obtained in a shady way.
(Oh and they also ask for the document to be returned and for GroundWork to stop using it; that doesn't stop GroundWork from quoting HP prices because they can just get the prices from the GSA site).
Fair enough. I give HP five points for requesting rather than demanding, but minus several dozen for claiming that they can restrict information based on their internal policies. ("Access to HP pricing information is limited to parties under confidentiality obligations to HP.") Another ten points off the board for the vaguely threatening-sounding closure to the letter.
GroundWork is doing a very good job of spinning this so people report "HP don't want everyone to know they're expensive". And that's a nonsense story - (And GroundWork can quote the prices from the GSA site anyway). But it pushes GroundWork's key marketing message - "we're cheaper than HP" - and gets them namechecks and sympathy on blogs - so congratulations to GroundWork for excellent marketing.
Funnily enough, you overlooked the fact that it was HP who copied InformationWeek on the letter, for reasons which no doubt are sensible and logical. From here, tho', Jim Haselmaier looks like a gibbering idiot for doing so. This story, and any resultant blog sympathy, appears to be entirely HP's work. As far as I can see, GroundWork hasn't reacted publicly in any way, to HP's letter.
How?
By retaining ownership of the broadcast frequencies. The FCC licenses their use, and in each license retains the right to punish unlicensed use (cussin', boobies, and such) through fines or revocation.
If a private company owned the frequency and licensed it out in this manner, there'd be little question of it being a valid restriction. As it stands, though, it's really a cheap exploit by Uncle Sam to dodge the first amendment question.
Obviously (hopefully obviously), broadcast rights need allocation by some method. High-bidder licensing with public and governmental use reservations is a pretty good scheme for doing so. The old public-interest method was tangled, arbitrary, and begged for corruption. However, the question of ownership beyond the minimum requirements of allocation is very much arguable.
Imagine the FCC claiming, say, a band from 75-250 Hz and licensing it with similar restrictions.* That's pretty extreme, but highlights the dubious nature of restricting licences beyond practical necessity.
It's good that SCOTUS is having a looksie at the arrangement, although the Court is conservative enough at the moment that I suspect the FCC will prevail.
* That'd be roughly the frequencies we use to make noises with our pie-holes.
gamers certainly don't have any effect on society as a whole.
Your point is well-made, although y'might put a moment's thought into cutting down on the caffeine.
Still, I think you're at least somewhat overstating it. While gamers aren't a driving cultural movement with far-reaching, powerful influence - in the manner of, say, the strong churches or the hippy movement - the subculture has had indisputable effects on society.
For example, a great deal of home computing technology advances are driven by the gaming market. The gaming market -itself- is a phenomenon which has its effects on society. Aside from the direct economic effect, the existence of this market affects educational choices and offerings, increasing demand for computer science and graphics technology degrees; in turn, this impacts public curricula.
And so forth. Again, while I agree that gamers as a subculture are far from a coherent political force, to say they have no societal impact is naive. That said, I totally encourage folks t'do a little charity work on the side, as well.
That article, at first glance, seemed pretty nonsensical and bizarre. It's probably the worst-written news article I've ever seen, with no context, background, or apparent point. I mean, I've seen research from western nations that seems just as silly as the crossbreeding mentioned in the article. It reads as though some scientists, purely at random, decided to look at 43 whale-related research papers and found some silly things.
It seems that the scientists in question are commissioned by the International Fund for Animal Welfare, who complain that this research is simply an excuse t'hunt whales and sell them at market. A press release from the IFAW:
http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/general/default.aspx?oid=225091
Specifically, this is in response to the Japanese increasing their whaling, allegedly for science:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4118990.stm
Now, it strikes me that the IFAW is not, perhaps, the most objective group on the planet to evaluate this. The Japan Times has this to say:
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20071225i1.html
Virtually every article out there appears to be a regurgitation of various environmental group press releases, except a couple very neutral but content-free wire service articles. I see no detailed, objective review of the science.
I suspect the ICAW and other environmental orginazations would declare -any- research that kills whales "trivial", because they place a higher value on whales' lives than any possible research results. They don't give details of the research except vague five-word descriptions of those that sound ridiculous on the face. I'd much rather have details than rhetoric, personally.
Japan's government isn't the best possible source of unbiased opinion, either, although their claims that the whaling is sustainable seems t'be backed up by the whaling agreement under which they're operating. Given that they're obeying the limits under that agreement, I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt until such time as it's demonstrated otherwise.
I think the real junk science here is relying on groups with ulterior motives to evaluate the scientific value of the whaling. Let someone who doesn't want t'have the whales' babies -or- eat the whales' undoubtedly tasty flesh review the research, and I'll listen.
Here y'go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreement_on_Trade-Related_Aspects_of_Intellectual_Property_Rights
Note that China is a participant in TRIPS (follow the link at the bottom t'see all participating countries). Software copyright is addressed (it is treated as a literary work under this agreement), and fair use is very limited.