I would love to see some group scrutinize every single thing media companies release. I am sure that somebody in something like Viacom screws up, even with all of the lawyers they have. I would love to see Apple have to take some video off the iTunes store because one of these companies "pirated" (at least by these companies' definition) some content. Maybe such an effort exists, or such a thing has happened, but I would just love to see it. Someone has to screw these bastards the same way they screw everyone else.
Setting aside all of the problems in banning something in schools because it does not conform with someones religious views, a greater crime is being committed here. In the article, the school board member who works to ban the movie says, "the beauty of our society is we allow debate." Well, we have created a public debate outside of schools. It is largely isolated from students. Banning a subject to avoid controversy only adds to the current problems with the development of critical thought in schools.
Besides, the movie presents far more facts and, IMHO, has less bias then most movies shown in schools.
Well, I doubt that the addition of speakers, or for that matter much of the British camera system, are democratic actions per-say. In Chicago, Mayor Daily instituted a camera system without any public meetings or any vote. He just did it. Perhaps part of that is his style, but I imagine something similar happened in England. Cameras might get public opposition if it is a public decision, especially for so many cameras, but if the cameras just appear more and more, people will learn to accept them as a new part of their life. Perhaps the our only hope is for someone to go too far too fast; to create something people will reject flat out.
Not necessarily. This business is only running in NYC. while I doubt anyone would run another shop in NYC, I could imagine someone running one in Chicago or LA as successfully as these guys. I think that is more or less the point of making it "open source," to open the business to a wider customer base without launching a chain.
Out of all the criteria used, meals ordered stood out to me. It seems so out of place, but I imagine that it is a bit of blatant racial profiling. I am guessing that anyone who orders a meal that conforms to an Islamic diet gets a higher rating on this system. I don't think the beef or chicken will make a difference. Perhaps "racial" profiling is not the best term, since this will hunt out people based on Religion, which would be a much greater privacy concern in my mind.
Yes, it is true that there is little difference between full-sized sports/luxury sedan and moderately sized suvs. In fact, if you do a statistical comparison between the the smallest SUVs and the largest sedans, these large sedans are worse (at least when I did that over a year ago). SUV bashing, however, is still valid. These small suvs make up only a fraction of SUV sales, and the largest are worse than anything other than something like a Ferrari.
Apple may end up paying these fees, but I imagine that it would only be out of their interest to help with the iTunes online store. If anything, this "tax" would be good, since it would help the smaller portable manufacturers who would not pay this. There is nothing legally binding about this "tax," so these measures are only out of company relations.
It seems like this test is on the right track. I am not familiar with the current considerations the patent office makes when reviewing a patent application, but it seems like the patent office should review how much work the inventor(s) actually did on the area of research to which the patent applies. I think this test would bring the patent back to its true definition.
I was not a big fan of the news feeds when they were first introduced, and I hoped that facebook would get rid of them, but I really didn't care. This whole thing seems so minor. I have been amazed at the sorts of reactions that some people made over it. It is not that big a privacy issue, and it is nothing compared to the sorts of things that already exist or are proposed. Out of all the privacy issues in the news, this one is one of the smallest, yet some have gone to great extents to protest it online, and now some goofball wants to protest it in person. It seems that true privacy issue need to be protested and fought much more, and non-issues like this simply drain away energy into frivolous drama.
When I saw these changes for the first time, I did not think about how my privacy or other's privacy would be harmed. All of the information was sort of public in the first place (users can adjust privacy settings, but by default only people in your network, like your school, and your friends can see your profile), so I did not think it mattered too much. I thought about how annoying the interface was. I liked facebook, because its interface was uncluttered, among other things.
Regardless of my personal reaction, the overwhelming reaction made by everyone will mean that these changes will be reverted quickly. I don't consider this story news really. Facebook isn't trying to mess with people's rights here or anything like that. They tried a new system out, which has clearly failed, and they will have to rethink it. Facebook makes its money off of ads. If people are afraid to use the system, they won't have a business. Simple as that. Nothing to worry about here. Everything will be back to normal soon...
I have to wonder with an experiment like this how the scientists went about modifying the ants. I would think that the ants would be disoriented a little by these changes, and the results might be affected in a way that would not have to do with the 'internal pedometer.' This might have been considered, but it might not have been.
I may be unclear on exactly what this group is targeting in the educational sector, but there is something seriously messed up with the government funding it. If the group is targeting fair use, then that's just dumb. The Canadian government would be greatly damaging student's access to learning material. If it is about the culture of file sharing at universities, which I think it is, Canada would essentially be targeting itself. Most Universities are public in Canada, so there is no reason to fund a lobbying group to address the problem. It is an internal one.
Overall, a government funding any lobbying group, much less a well off one is messed up.
I would not believe the prediction that the project constellation has a failure rate of 1 in 2000. NASA made all sorts of claims about the shuttle that it did not come close to meeting. Everyone wants a safe and cheap rocket, but it is not realistic. Manned or unmanned, rockets are unsafe. For what NASA does, NASA has a fairly good safety record. We need to change our expectations and realize how daring astronauts are.
encyclopedia - A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically.
Wikipedia is a real encyclopedia. Sure, anyone can contribute to it, and they can write a bunch of nonsense. Editors, however, usually erase these changes soon after they are made. I imagine that people check the facts on wikipedia articles more than they would on Britannica. People assume since scholars wrote the articles, the articles are somehow immune from errors, bullshit, or shady referencing. That is simply not the case. People just don't question the scholars as much. A recent study in nature demonstrated that wikipedia had only a few more errors than Britannica on average. These new changes seem to be just new ways to complement wikipedia's current methods to eliminate bullshit and subjectivity.
Perhaps the solution to the money-hungry amoral music industry is to cut them out of the deal. Perhaps music listeners could start illegally downloading music and giving money to artists. It would never work, but there needs to be someway to actually give money to the people who make the product.
I somehow doubt many people are going to listen to this podcast from NPR. I am guessing that much of the show will be typical of NPR, which I don't think would appeal to the average gamer. I can see people listening to a review of a game on NPR, since most NPR listeners are not gamers and would have some interest in games, but they would listen to a specialized podcast. I do not listen to gaming podcasts, but I doubt many discuss the artistic qualities. I doubt this podcast will be successful.
I doubt there would be a noticable difference. Seattle may love coffee and brew the good stuff, but people drink shitty coffee in the south on a regular basis. Everyone wants to wake up.
That would probably be the best thing. I still don't see though how they are going to make a profit from distributing Java either way. Assuming profit is still important to Sun.
I wasn't aware that the republicans ran with a campaign promise of taking away liberties. Regardless of how people vote in elections, politicians still have a responsibility to vote in such as way that is helpful to the people.
Shouldn't the ITs over there start with thing less important then tax records to start with converting computers to Open Source? Don't get me wrong, I am all for a switch anywhere, but why start with such a massive undertaking?
my point is that is it is not an exclusive problem to the U.S. The majority of spammers may be in the US, but there are still spammers in other countries, and computers used for spam. To stop spam, there will need to be an effort on a worldwide scale.
Slashdot Mirror
I would love to see some group scrutinize every single thing media companies release. I am sure that somebody in something like Viacom screws up, even with all of the lawyers they have. I would love to see Apple have to take some video off the iTunes store because one of these companies "pirated" (at least by these companies' definition) some content. Maybe such an effort exists, or such a thing has happened, but I would just love to see it. Someone has to screw these bastards the same way they screw everyone else.
Setting aside all of the problems in banning something in schools because it does not conform with someones religious views, a greater crime is being committed here. In the article, the school board member who works to ban the movie says, "the beauty of our society is we allow debate." Well, we have created a public debate outside of schools. It is largely isolated from students. Banning a subject to avoid controversy only adds to the current problems with the development of critical thought in schools.
Besides, the movie presents far more facts and, IMHO, has less bias then most movies shown in schools.
Well, I doubt that the addition of speakers, or for that matter much of the British camera system, are democratic actions per-say. In Chicago, Mayor Daily instituted a camera system without any public meetings or any vote. He just did it. Perhaps part of that is his style, but I imagine something similar happened in England. Cameras might get public opposition if it is a public decision, especially for so many cameras, but if the cameras just appear more and more, people will learn to accept them as a new part of their life. Perhaps the our only hope is for someone to go too far too fast; to create something people will reject flat out.
Not necessarily. This business is only running in NYC. while I doubt anyone would run another shop in NYC, I could imagine someone running one in Chicago or LA as successfully as these guys. I think that is more or less the point of making it "open source," to open the business to a wider customer base without launching a chain.
Out of all the criteria used, meals ordered stood out to me. It seems so out of place, but I imagine that it is a bit of blatant racial profiling. I am guessing that anyone who orders a meal that conforms to an Islamic diet gets a higher rating on this system. I don't think the beef or chicken will make a difference. Perhaps "racial" profiling is not the best term, since this will hunt out people based on Religion, which would be a much greater privacy concern in my mind.
Yes, it is true that there is little difference between full-sized sports/luxury sedan and moderately sized suvs. In fact, if you do a statistical comparison between the the smallest SUVs and the largest sedans, these large sedans are worse (at least when I did that over a year ago). SUV bashing, however, is still valid. These small suvs make up only a fraction of SUV sales, and the largest are worse than anything other than something like a Ferrari.
Apple may end up paying these fees, but I imagine that it would only be out of their interest to help with the iTunes online store. If anything, this "tax" would be good, since it would help the smaller portable manufacturers who would not pay this. There is nothing legally binding about this "tax," so these measures are only out of company relations.
It seems like this test is on the right track. I am not familiar with the current considerations the patent office makes when reviewing a patent application, but it seems like the patent office should review how much work the inventor(s) actually did on the area of research to which the patent applies. I think this test would bring the patent back to its true definition.
I was not a big fan of the news feeds when they were first introduced, and I hoped that facebook would get rid of them, but I really didn't care. This whole thing seems so minor. I have been amazed at the sorts of reactions that some people made over it. It is not that big a privacy issue, and it is nothing compared to the sorts of things that already exist or are proposed. Out of all the privacy issues in the news, this one is one of the smallest, yet some have gone to great extents to protest it online, and now some goofball wants to protest it in person. It seems that true privacy issue need to be protested and fought much more, and non-issues like this simply drain away energy into frivolous drama.
When I saw these changes for the first time, I did not think about how my privacy or other's privacy would be harmed. All of the information was sort of public in the first place (users can adjust privacy settings, but by default only people in your network, like your school, and your friends can see your profile), so I did not think it mattered too much. I thought about how annoying the interface was. I liked facebook, because its interface was uncluttered, among other things. Regardless of my personal reaction, the overwhelming reaction made by everyone will mean that these changes will be reverted quickly. I don't consider this story news really. Facebook isn't trying to mess with people's rights here or anything like that. They tried a new system out, which has clearly failed, and they will have to rethink it. Facebook makes its money off of ads. If people are afraid to use the system, they won't have a business. Simple as that. Nothing to worry about here. Everything will be back to normal soon...
I have to wonder with an experiment like this how the scientists went about modifying the ants. I would think that the ants would be disoriented a little by these changes, and the results might be affected in a way that would not have to do with the 'internal pedometer.' This might have been considered, but it might not have been.
I may be unclear on exactly what this group is targeting in the educational sector, but there is something seriously messed up with the government funding it. If the group is targeting fair use, then that's just dumb. The Canadian government would be greatly damaging student's access to learning material. If it is about the culture of file sharing at universities, which I think it is, Canada would essentially be targeting itself. Most Universities are public in Canada, so there is no reason to fund a lobbying group to address the problem. It is an internal one. Overall, a government funding any lobbying group, much less a well off one is messed up.
I would not believe the prediction that the project constellation has a failure rate of 1 in 2000. NASA made all sorts of claims about the shuttle that it did not come close to meeting. Everyone wants a safe and cheap rocket, but it is not realistic. Manned or unmanned, rockets are unsafe. For what NASA does, NASA has a fairly good safety record. We need to change our expectations and realize how daring astronauts are.
encyclopedia - A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically. Wikipedia is a real encyclopedia. Sure, anyone can contribute to it, and they can write a bunch of nonsense. Editors, however, usually erase these changes soon after they are made. I imagine that people check the facts on wikipedia articles more than they would on Britannica. People assume since scholars wrote the articles, the articles are somehow immune from errors, bullshit, or shady referencing. That is simply not the case. People just don't question the scholars as much. A recent study in nature demonstrated that wikipedia had only a few more errors than Britannica on average. These new changes seem to be just new ways to complement wikipedia's current methods to eliminate bullshit and subjectivity.
Perhaps the solution to the money-hungry amoral music industry is to cut them out of the deal. Perhaps music listeners could start illegally downloading music and giving money to artists. It would never work, but there needs to be someway to actually give money to the people who make the product.
I somehow doubt many people are going to listen to this podcast from NPR. I am guessing that much of the show will be typical of NPR, which I don't think would appeal to the average gamer. I can see people listening to a review of a game on NPR, since most NPR listeners are not gamers and would have some interest in games, but they would listen to a specialized podcast. I do not listen to gaming podcasts, but I doubt many discuss the artistic qualities. I doubt this podcast will be successful.
I doubt there would be a noticable difference. Seattle may love coffee and brew the good stuff, but people drink shitty coffee in the south on a regular basis. Everyone wants to wake up.
Perhaps for a 14 year old boy who got the stuff out of an ad in some shity magazine. I fail to see how this stuff is "spy equipment" at all.
Something tells me that when they say "get their voices heard," it means a line-item in the next budget. Damn Lobbyists.
That would probably be the best thing. I still don't see though how they are going to make a profit from distributing Java either way. Assuming profit is still important to Sun.
Becuase why sell a strip down version for less, when you can force everyone else to pay more for useless crap.
I wasn't aware that the republicans ran with a campaign promise of taking away liberties. Regardless of how people vote in elections, politicians still have a responsibility to vote in such as way that is helpful to the people.
I guess guns will be replaced by equally potent copyright lawyers in future rap. I would like to see a gang war with that!
Shouldn't the ITs over there start with thing less important then tax records to start with converting computers to Open Source? Don't get me wrong, I am all for a switch anywhere, but why start with such a massive undertaking?
my point is that is it is not an exclusive problem to the U.S. The majority of spammers may be in the US, but there are still spammers in other countries, and computers used for spam. To stop spam, there will need to be an effort on a worldwide scale.