While I like your cornfield metaphor, I'm not sure it captures the truth. There are many talented lawyers working in the class action field, and arbitration agreements are almost universally accepted as a 'pro-business' stance that courts have made over the past decade: the courts realize that unless you create a forum that is favorable to corporate interests (Arbitration Companies) and allow contract offerors to funnel disputes into them, the companies that handily pay gross receipts tax to states will have less money, and the courts will have less money after devoting more of their time to cases that will get removed to federal court anyway. So in the end, it's politics, not legal skills, that are the determinant here.
Isn't this article the same one that came out to accompany google's "ngrams" (http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/) lab? I don't think these guys are trying to make generalizations about culture in general; they are only raising the possibility that, even with a small (4% of the total published) sample, interesting queries and surveys of human (although in this case Anglophone) culture can be made.
Apple et. al. will do with the carriers just what they did with the music licensing companies: pay them off. Consumers will need to be taught that an iPad with 4g connectivity is actually worth $1500 instead of $500, but they are a docile sort, ready to accept any script Jobs reads. The real danger is that the American consumer will not have the money when the time comes to pay up; but that's a non-start.
You grossly overestimate the US court system's ability to take the things you list into consideration when the plaintiff cites some actual legal precedent and sends lawyers to court (and the defense does not, for in this case obvious reasons). the US legal system is built on adversarial mediation; hence the court is biased towards a form of mediation in which both parties are represented. It's not the judge's job to consider the moral/legal implications of a particular judgement, it's the job of the respective plaintiff/defendant's legal representative(s). The judge here is not guilty of any sort of negligence it's the precedent that he must obey. If it is anyone's job to ensure that censorship like this does not happen again. This responsibility lies on the shoulders of those concerned citizens (you, me, slashdot, and wider nerd-dom) who must translate their political will into votes for those presidential candidates and congresspersons who will work towards the repeal of the sort of predatory and fascistic legal policies implemented during the reign of George II.
"eager sociologists" and their colleagues have somehow gained the stature in society that permits them to make wide generalizations and un-methodological extrapolations about their social surroundings. This sort of report reminds me of exactly the sort of thing a bunch of stoned college youths would discuss while slouching on their living-room couch, which, if you permit my own generalization, this "experienced ethnographer" probably is. While her wordy explanations and liberal use of the word 'kinda' are certainly appreciated, I really can't see any compelling evidence that myspace and facebook are the symbols of American class division (even though I have seen enough anecdotal evidence myself to agree).
More amazing to me than your lack of faith in Hilary (somewhat understandable) or Obama (a little less) is that you used to be a "fan of Bush". Please, dear sir, allow me to comprehend how a Canadian such as yourself, whose political commentary is normally discarded by Americans because it is disinterested (but for this reason most likely correct), would actually accrue admiration for that man? I'm really, to be quite honest, curious.
"it's not that everyone espoused Victorian ethics, it's that they kept their non-Victorian ethics hidden from view of the general public until people started to realize that it was okay to loosen up."
Okay, I'm far too lazy to get the gist of your previous argument(s), but singling out this post---Cultural phenomena come and go, true. Their effect, however on the human psyche and derivative societies hundreds of years into the future is their true significance. Firstly, it is unfair to argue against the very real, tactile hurt that arrives to someone after public humiliation. I concede that some forms of it are deserved, but to venture down a path that subverts real, present experience and effect for some vague, optimistic view about human society in general, you are ambivalent. It is ambivalence, not zeal and xenophobia that enabled the rise of George Bush or Vladimir Putin or Hitler (forgive my use of the tired cliche). A society that guards against orwellian, fascist visions of the future must be vigorous in defending a man's right to privacy.
I feel like I've responded to more points than exist in this post, but you'll have to excuse me. I think you're very smart and obviously well-read but you're espousing the sort of "I don't care, it doesn't really matter in the big picture" attitude that discounts and ignores things that ought not be.
your understanding of logical implication still needs some improvement. Your proposed corollary- "the sky is blue" does not truth-functionally imply "water is wet"-- because while the sky may be blue, water may not indeed be "wet" (ie. when it is evaporated, and present in the air that humans commonly breath, it is not perceptably 'wet').
Now, onto your previous statement-- Logical assessment using truth functional logic of the argument whether or not you get lung cancer from smoking is problematic from any point of view because there is no simple way to account for 1) second-hand smoke, 2) alternate causes of lung cancer such as asbestos, etc. So in effect, your original statement is without much truth or falsehood to it, because it simply does not try and address any lingering question. In essence, your first argument about smoking is much the same as your "the sky is blue, therefore water is wet" argument-- they are both entirely irrelevant.
Please. Slashdotter coming up with one of the most ingenious pickup lines of all time? Such things are better relegated to those historical unknowns who have given us such greats as "wanna go halves on a baby?" and "Nice shoes. Wanna fuck?"
What I have not seen mentioned here are any valid comparisons between these companies and the United Kingdom's East India Company. It's not such a far-off comparison, and it needs to be made. What this congressman does not quite comprehend is the function of American Hegemony. The reason that people in the middle east are pissed at us is somewhat to do with us kicking the shit out of them, but moreso has to do with the fact that we're taking away their culture. Ironically, we're teaching them to love Coca-Cola, McDonald's, and JC Penny, but we're not teaching them to love 'real' American values like Freedom, Liberty, etc. etc.
This, then, is how the British and American empires have, and will continue to work. The British figured out (after the American Revolution) that the way you go about building an empire isn't about annexing land and administering it (mistakes the Portuguese, French, and Spanish all made) - it's to exploit it, commercially. I'm not saying this is a morally sound method, but it has, in most cases, made a country better off - take, for example, Canada or India. Both are countries that were at one point in time simply taken over and exploited for commerce - eventually, when they lost all profitability for the companies that owned them, they gained their independence.
The US congress is growing stupider by the years. Yes, China can come up with its own IT solutions so it's better if Americans do the work anyways, but moreso allowing American companies to do business in China is in and of itself spreading American influence. When you've got a company like Microsoft or Cisco so ingrained in the Chinese superstructure you're going to see more change made to the country's system of government than you will if you were to bitch and moan at the UN.
Well, they're actually supposed to interpret the constitution as it is. A federal judge interprets the federal constitution, and a state judge does the same for the state constitution. In this case, the judge found the law to be unconstitutional. Is it really that simple? Judges can block laws all they want. If their only job was to 'uphold the law' then there would all of a sudden be no debate about the patriot act etc. etc. ad nauseam. The judiciary would become little more than a rubber stamp for congress and the president.
OSS's draw is in its lack of a social strata. If geeks had to socialize in order to make great products like firefox, then microsoft would be a much happier company.
All it takes is one manufacturer to say 'fuck you' to the rest and not include the chip. Thankfully the internet isn't and can't be made exclusive to people who use those chips. As long as we support the manufacturer who does this, we'll all be fine. I still believe in the (albeit somewhat diminished) power of the consumer.
Slashdot Mirror
is anyone really that surprised by this, though?
the punchline "haha philosophy majors are unemployable" necessitates a news story. /Philosophy major /Employed /Making more than most engineers
While I like your cornfield metaphor, I'm not sure it captures the truth. There are many talented lawyers working in the class action field, and arbitration agreements are almost universally accepted as a 'pro-business' stance that courts have made over the past decade: the courts realize that unless you create a forum that is favorable to corporate interests (Arbitration Companies) and allow contract offerors to funnel disputes into them, the companies that handily pay gross receipts tax to states will have less money, and the courts will have less money after devoting more of their time to cases that will get removed to federal court anyway. So in the end, it's politics, not legal skills, that are the determinant here.
Just mandate the NYSE to move its data centers every 2 years and that they can only return to New Jersey in 100 years. Problem solved!
Will it run Quark?
Isn't this article the same one that came out to accompany google's "ngrams" (http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/) lab? I don't think these guys are trying to make generalizations about culture in general; they are only raising the possibility that, even with a small (4% of the total published) sample, interesting queries and surveys of human (although in this case Anglophone) culture can be made.
And look how happy they are now!
Apple et. al. will do with the carriers just what they did with the music licensing companies: pay them off. Consumers will need to be taught that an iPad with 4g connectivity is actually worth $1500 instead of $500, but they are a docile sort, ready to accept any script Jobs reads. The real danger is that the American consumer will not have the money when the time comes to pay up; but that's a non-start.
01100010 01110010 01100001 01101001 01101110 01110011
You grossly overestimate the US court system's ability to take the things you list into consideration when the plaintiff cites some actual legal precedent and sends lawyers to court (and the defense does not, for in this case obvious reasons). the US legal system is built on adversarial mediation; hence the court is biased towards a form of mediation in which both parties are represented. It's not the judge's job to consider the moral/legal implications of a particular judgement, it's the job of the respective plaintiff/defendant's legal representative(s). The judge here is not guilty of any sort of negligence it's the precedent that he must obey. If it is anyone's job to ensure that censorship like this does not happen again. This responsibility lies on the shoulders of those concerned citizens (you, me, slashdot, and wider nerd-dom) who must translate their political will into votes for those presidential candidates and congresspersons who will work towards the repeal of the sort of predatory and fascistic legal policies implemented during the reign of George II.
"eager sociologists" and their colleagues have somehow gained the stature in society that permits them to make wide generalizations and un-methodological extrapolations about their social surroundings. This sort of report reminds me of exactly the sort of thing a bunch of stoned college youths would discuss while slouching on their living-room couch, which, if you permit my own generalization, this "experienced ethnographer" probably is. While her wordy explanations and liberal use of the word 'kinda' are certainly appreciated, I really can't see any compelling evidence that myspace and facebook are the symbols of American class division (even though I have seen enough anecdotal evidence myself to agree).
"Fervor is the weapon of choice of the impotent."
More amazing to me than your lack of faith in Hilary (somewhat understandable) or Obama (a little less) is that you used to be a "fan of Bush". Please, dear sir, allow me to comprehend how a Canadian such as yourself, whose political commentary is normally discarded by Americans because it is disinterested (but for this reason most likely correct), would actually accrue admiration for that man? I'm really, to be quite honest, curious.
"it's not that everyone espoused Victorian ethics, it's that they kept their non-Victorian ethics hidden from view of the general public until people started to realize that it was okay to loosen up." Okay, I'm far too lazy to get the gist of your previous argument(s), but singling out this post---Cultural phenomena come and go, true. Their effect, however on the human psyche and derivative societies hundreds of years into the future is their true significance. Firstly, it is unfair to argue against the very real, tactile hurt that arrives to someone after public humiliation. I concede that some forms of it are deserved, but to venture down a path that subverts real, present experience and effect for some vague, optimistic view about human society in general, you are ambivalent. It is ambivalence, not zeal and xenophobia that enabled the rise of George Bush or Vladimir Putin or Hitler (forgive my use of the tired cliche). A society that guards against orwellian, fascist visions of the future must be vigorous in defending a man's right to privacy. I feel like I've responded to more points than exist in this post, but you'll have to excuse me. I think you're very smart and obviously well-read but you're espousing the sort of "I don't care, it doesn't really matter in the big picture" attitude that discounts and ignores things that ought not be.
your understanding of logical implication still needs some improvement. Your proposed corollary- "the sky is blue" does not truth-functionally imply "water is wet"-- because while the sky may be blue, water may not indeed be "wet" (ie. when it is evaporated, and present in the air that humans commonly breath, it is not perceptably 'wet'). Now, onto your previous statement-- Logical assessment using truth functional logic of the argument whether or not you get lung cancer from smoking is problematic from any point of view because there is no simple way to account for 1) second-hand smoke, 2) alternate causes of lung cancer such as asbestos, etc. So in effect, your original statement is without much truth or falsehood to it, because it simply does not try and address any lingering question. In essence, your first argument about smoking is much the same as your "the sky is blue, therefore water is wet" argument-- they are both entirely irrelevant.
Please. Slashdotter coming up with one of the most ingenious pickup lines of all time? Such things are better relegated to those historical unknowns who have given us such greats as "wanna go halves on a baby?" and "Nice shoes. Wanna fuck?"
Without pics.
Seventeen years, to be exact.
What I have not seen mentioned here are any valid comparisons between these companies and the United Kingdom's East India Company. It's not such a far-off comparison, and it needs to be made. What this congressman does not quite comprehend is the function of American Hegemony. The reason that people in the middle east are pissed at us is somewhat to do with us kicking the shit out of them, but moreso has to do with the fact that we're taking away their culture. Ironically, we're teaching them to love Coca-Cola, McDonald's, and JC Penny, but we're not teaching them to love 'real' American values like Freedom, Liberty, etc. etc. This, then, is how the British and American empires have, and will continue to work. The British figured out (after the American Revolution) that the way you go about building an empire isn't about annexing land and administering it (mistakes the Portuguese, French, and Spanish all made) - it's to exploit it, commercially. I'm not saying this is a morally sound method, but it has, in most cases, made a country better off - take, for example, Canada or India. Both are countries that were at one point in time simply taken over and exploited for commerce - eventually, when they lost all profitability for the companies that owned them, they gained their independence. The US congress is growing stupider by the years. Yes, China can come up with its own IT solutions so it's better if Americans do the work anyways, but moreso allowing American companies to do business in China is in and of itself spreading American influence. When you've got a company like Microsoft or Cisco so ingrained in the Chinese superstructure you're going to see more change made to the country's system of government than you will if you were to bitch and moan at the UN.
I hear it's why they legalized homo-er heterosexual marriage.
Finally, a website that succeeded in influencing US politics!
I thought playboy.com was drivel when I was a young lad...but over the course of about 5 years, that all changed.
Well, they're actually supposed to interpret the constitution as it is. A federal judge interprets the federal constitution, and a state judge does the same for the state constitution. In this case, the judge found the law to be unconstitutional. Is it really that simple? Judges can block laws all they want. If their only job was to 'uphold the law' then there would all of a sudden be no debate about the patriot act etc. etc. ad nauseam. The judiciary would become little more than a rubber stamp for congress and the president.
OSS's draw is in its lack of a social strata. If geeks had to socialize in order to make great products like firefox, then microsoft would be a much happier company.
All it takes is one manufacturer to say 'fuck you' to the rest and not include the chip. Thankfully the internet isn't and can't be made exclusive to people who use those chips. As long as we support the manufacturer who does this, we'll all be fine. I still believe in the (albeit somewhat diminished) power of the consumer.