Why is this a/. article? Why would it even deserve a passing comment, other than within the groups it directly effects?
Has political correctness now reached the level where people aren't supposed to group together, even privately, by any of the traditional discrimination factors - ethnic or national origin, color, race, religion, or sex? They were already grouped by national origin (Saudi). How does further subdividing by sex change anything?
The article show market leadership by manufacturer - not OS. That only makes the summary misleading, since it refers to the Android OS as comparable. They're two different things.
But, at least the firms creating these numbers have their terminology correct. Nielson ignorantly refers to installed base as "market share," which makes everything they put out suspect.
Uh, there are probably a billion microcontrollers out there, and how many 10's or 100's of millions of microprocessors (Intel, AMD, ARM, etc.) are sold each year?
Yet 100K Arduino "win," if you put enough qualifiers on the criteria (microcontollers, on a development board, costing between $25 and $50?). Enjoy the win.
The US is the only one allowed to use this tech to abuse human rights, and it really doesn't want to risk losing its lead in technology used for spying on citizens.
Sales tax is a regressive tax, meaning poor people pay more than rich people.
Only if poor people buy more than rich people, which I very much doubt. Sales tax is completely blind to a person's income - it's as equitable as a tax can be, unless you want to get rid of all current taxes by dividing the cost of government by the number of citizens, then passing out an equal bill to each. But, I suppose you consider it "equitable" when people are discriminated against on the basis of their success.
I would really welcome it when Debian would work towards becoming a proper base system for other distributions to build on in a proper way, not the kind of hacky one that is practiced today.
I would welcome a cart able to push a horse, and Ambercrombie/GAP/DKNY should pay advertising fees to all those people wearing their clothes.
Only if it actually is evidence related to that investigation. If the investigation is about X, but they're destroying evidence of Y, of which the investigators know nothing (i.e. isn't relevant to an ongoing or reasonably foreseeable civil or criminal proceeding). So, maybe they're destroying evidence of a Ponzi scheme, because they don't want an investigation of insider trading to turn up that, too.
so what? Whether it's good or bad, it's still copyright infringement. The most this study could argue for is to encourage copyright holders to ignore piracy. It does not provide an excuse, or even a rationalization, for piracy. If you're looking for an ethical out, this isn't it.
It says nothing about the real problem with copyright, the continual extension of terms. Disney got rich copying from Mark Twain, Bros. Grimm, Aesop, etc., yet wants to prevent others from doing the exact same to them. THAT is the problem. As Lawrence Lessig has (unsuccessfully) argued, copyright exists to encourage the creation of works ("promote the progress of Science and the Useful Arts," in the US), and extending copyright on existing works does nothing to achieve that.
I have no problem with laws protecting IP for limited periods (relative to the useful lifetime - longer for philosophical works, shorter for technological ones), but I do have a problem with keeping those works from the public domain indefinitely.
There is actually a patent on something like this. AT&T developed it a long time ago, sat on it for a decade, then sold the patent to Zoemail (a now-defunct Internet startup) in the early 2000s, which then sold the patent to someone else.
Then, there's no patent on it, or won't be very soon. Patent terms from that period were 17 years. "Early 2000s" should mean 2004 or before, so that's at least 10+7 (minus some number of month?) = expired.
this is the first time I've seen a Microsoft focused article after the/. redesign. Bill as Borg doesn't seem right - he's not even in charge any more. Where's Ballmer with a chair (and not sitting on it)?
Banning "anything negative or embarrassing" would include many things that are of "public concern"
According to the article, "the policy is still a work in progress." Here's your chance. How would you phrase it so a city employee can't blog that their boss is a fuckwit, or say that city council is made up of mouth-breathing nosepickers (none of which is of public concern).
anything the CITY does is public record and hence should be subject to scrutiny and criticism, especially by its employees.
The CITY is nothing more than its citizens.
So, if a city garbage collector wants to create a blog with pictures of the porn found in the trash at your address, you're OK with that, right? How about if they publish any emails you send using the wireless hotspot at the municipal library? It's all city business, and therefore public, right? How about if some detective blogs that the crazy neighbor up the street says you're a child molester?
They're not passing a law, they're making rule of employment. You want a job with us, you don't badmouth us. That's perfectly reasonable, whether a private or public employer. If an employee doesn't like it, they can quit. It's that simple.
Slashdot Mirror
"The same thing we do every day, Pinky. Try to take over the world."
According to the
/. claims to support the <i> tag, and the <em> tag. It doesn't. It's broken.
Why is this a /. article? Why would it even deserve a passing comment, other than within the groups it directly effects?
Has political correctness now reached the level where people aren't supposed to group together, even privately, by any of the traditional discrimination factors - ethnic or national origin, color, race, religion, or sex? They were already grouped by national origin (Saudi). How does further subdividing by sex change anything?
You say that as if Facebook is the poster child ("think of the children") for security.
The article show market leadership by manufacturer - not OS. That only makes the summary misleading, since it refers to the Android OS as comparable. They're two different things.
But, at least the firms creating these numbers have their terminology correct. Nielson ignorantly refers to installed base as "market share," which makes everything they put out suspect.
How odd. I started hating "their" phones when they became badge engineered (e.g. HTC CDMA phones with Nokia branding)
You think the two are mutually exclusive?
You forgot "Think of the Children."
Loser.
Uh, there are probably a billion microcontrollers out there, and how many 10's or 100's of millions of microprocessors (Intel, AMD, ARM, etc.) are sold each year?
Yet 100K Arduino "win," if you put enough qualifiers on the criteria (microcontollers, on a development board, costing between $25 and $50?). Enjoy the win.
When did they announce the contest? What was the criteria for winning?
So, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." That sounds familiar.
The US is the only one allowed to use this tech to abuse human rights, and it really doesn't want to risk losing its lead in technology used for spying on citizens.
Only if poor people buy more than rich people, which I very much doubt. Sales tax is completely blind to a person's income - it's as equitable as a tax can be, unless you want to get rid of all current taxes by dividing the cost of government by the number of citizens, then passing out an equal bill to each. But, I suppose you consider it "equitable" when people are discriminated against on the basis of their success.
How else are they supposed to know how many leeches to use when doing the bloodletting?
I would welcome a cart able to push a horse, and Ambercrombie/GAP/DKNY should pay advertising fees to all those people wearing their clothes.
Only if it actually is evidence related to that investigation. If the investigation is about X, but they're destroying evidence of Y, of which the investigators know nothing (i.e. isn't relevant to an ongoing or reasonably foreseeable civil or criminal proceeding). So, maybe they're destroying evidence of a Ponzi scheme, because they don't want an investigation of insider trading to turn up that, too.
/.
IANAL, but I play one on
Tell me why a person has no right to profit from their labor, and I'll answer your question.
so what? Whether it's good or bad, it's still copyright infringement. The most this study could argue for is to encourage copyright holders to ignore piracy. It does not provide an excuse, or even a rationalization, for piracy. If you're looking for an ethical out, this isn't it.
It says nothing about the real problem with copyright, the continual extension of terms. Disney got rich copying from Mark Twain, Bros. Grimm, Aesop, etc., yet wants to prevent others from doing the exact same to them. THAT is the problem. As Lawrence Lessig has (unsuccessfully) argued, copyright exists to encourage the creation of works ("promote the progress of Science and the Useful Arts," in the US), and extending copyright on existing works does nothing to achieve that.
I have no problem with laws protecting IP for limited periods (relative to the useful lifetime - longer for philosophical works, shorter for technological ones), but I do have a problem with keeping those works from the public domain indefinitely.
Then, there's no patent on it, or won't be very soon. Patent terms from that period were 17 years. "Early 2000s" should mean 2004 or before, so that's at least 10+7 (minus some number of month?) = expired.
this is the first time I've seen a Microsoft focused article after the /. redesign. Bill as Borg doesn't seem right - he's not even in charge any more. Where's Ballmer with a chair (and not sitting on it)?
According to the article, "the policy is still a work in progress." Here's your chance. How would you phrase it so a city employee can't blog that their boss is a fuckwit, or say that city council is made up of mouth-breathing nosepickers (none of which is of public concern).
The CITY is nothing more than its citizens.
So, if a city garbage collector wants to create a blog with pictures of the porn found in the trash at your address, you're OK with that, right? How about if they publish any emails you send using the wireless hotspot at the municipal library? It's all city business, and therefore public, right? How about if some detective blogs that the crazy neighbor up the street says you're a child molester?
So is redtube republican porn? I assume there's also a bluetube, with democratic port. (greentube for the green party?)
They're not passing a law, they're making rule of employment. You want a job with us, you don't badmouth us. That's perfectly reasonable, whether a private or public employer. If an employee doesn't like it, they can quit. It's that simple.