Of course, you realize that thinking like that effectively hits the poor the hardest. Many working poor have cars because they need them to get to work but could not afford to replace them with the new fuel efficient vehicle you want them to. It will be years before the more fuel efficient cars are cheap/used. In that time, the lower-income earners will have seen a disproportionate amount of their already low discretionary spending eaten by the higher gas prices you want.
Of course, the top answer to the question you link to comes from Sean (Jafo), the same person who authored the story submitted here. Sean's been nothing short of a hero @ PyCon for a number of years now – the one or two times we tried to replace him with a sub-contracted internet solution, it always ended painfully... or, well, more rightly, with Sean coming in and saving the day.
So, as someone who has worked with Sean on making PyCon happen, I can say, without a doubt, that he really knows how to get it done. My hat's off to him and Tummy.com
See that "Publicly Perform" bit? You may not do that for commercial advantage.
Right -- that means you can't get up on stage and read the article and charge a fee at the door for people to hear you doing so. Similarly, you can't record such a spoken-word performance, etc. etc.
It in no way prevents you from using the ideas therein towards your own research by my reading and standard usages of licenses.
This sounds like a good idea on the surface -- it'll never happen, of course, because too many companies and individuals have too much invested in the.com,.net, etc. without the country codes... but still, I like the consistency it all brings.
How is talking on a phone (hands free) different than talking with a passenger?
The research I've seen says it isn't and that talking on the phone with or without a hands-free device are both equally distracting and equally likely to cause accidents.
The only plus I can see for talking to passengers over someone via the phone is that the passenger is still able to be somewhat observant of the vehicle's surroundings and alert the driver if they notice something is going wrong. 2 distracted heads are better than one distracted head, or something...
And my understanding is that Boeing does it the other way, where it allows the human pilot to override the computer, correct? Funny, I always figured that doing it the airbus way would get someone into trouble some day...
But, then again, how many times have pilots/pilot error brought down aircraft? Maybe we should let the machines be the last line of defense =)
So wait, you are saying that MCSE and CCNE certifications have no merit? The test facilities are run independently by a recognized organization. Why did we spend all that time and money and study so hard? Have you ever taken one of the test?
They are vendor specific tests and not reflective of a field as a whole -- it's like toyota certification vs. being ASE certified, or knowing how to use a specific defibrillator works vs. understanding what's actually happening to the patient.
Have I taken on of those tests? Nope. I've looked at them and decided that it held no value for me and that it's not respected where I'd want to work (plus, I work with F/OSS so there's little incentive for a MS cert for me)... but I'll tell you this -- I've had to interact with plenty of MCSE cert holding people over the last 10 years and on average, none of them are people I'd want to work with ever again. There are a rare few who impress, but they'd impress without the that cert because it's by and large knowledge well beyond what that certification requires that has really impressed me. Where do they get that? Experience, for the most part.
And that's just the thing, in all the fields out there with certs that really mean anything, you can't get the cert without a whole bunch of experience... (though much of the time that experience is gained in school settings, as it is in medical or law school, for example). In IT, most certs can be had with a bit of time spent in front of books memorizing stuff for that test.
Yet another example...People applying for research/academic faculty positions at universities usually come and give what are known as "job talks" where they talk about (some of) their research and the current faculty are allowed to ask questions, etc. This is absolutely an assessment of their skills and abilities within their field.
Another point I'd want to make is that many fields, such as law or medicine, have formalized, comprehensive tests that are administered and scored by a recognized organization, e.g. the bar exam or medical board exams. IT certifications come nowhere near those tests in so many ways and as such, technical interviews for a technical position in IT shouldn't be considered out of line with what other professional fields go through, as I see it...
I think it's pretty clear I'm not in too bad of company with my belief that this is one of those fundamental issues that you just don't compromise on -- especially when you gain nothing in the "compromise" and have "compromised" time and time again before.
And, while I'm at it, the real point here is that Obama said one thing and then did another -- he claimed he'd even go so far as to filibuster to deny immunity to the telcos. If his intention was to compromise, he could have and should have said it then, instead of making huffy, trumped-up statements. Nothing substantial has changed -- if he was open to compromise, he shouldn't have promised the hardline.
The merits of the compromise really are quite secondary to the question of a person's word and the integrity thereof. And that's just not something that can be compromised without being compromised.
Grow up? Well, alright then, I'll go to an older source... Ben Franklin -- old enough and wise enough for you?
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
I think it's pretty clear I'm not in too bad of company with my belief that this is one of those fundamental issues that you just don't compromise on -- especially when you gain nothing in the "compromise" and have "compromised" time and time again before.
Honestly? Really? That's such apologist whitewashing that I can't believe you're actually serious.
Sorry, but he should be doubly ashamed of voting for a bill that's unconstitutional. It's like someone stealing a car claiming that they did it because they needed to, but they knew that the police would catch them and make it all even after the fact. Does that example sound insanely stupid? Yep. So does your explanation.
I think this answer, combined with the cost argument above, answer it all pretty well. The only other thing I'd add is that once innovation and feature advancement slow down from where they are now (will they ever?), then you'll see more of a demand for increased reliability.
See, the funny thing is that the changes going into Python 3 are fixes for much of what people have complained about in Python 2.x and prior.
Moreover, every step of the way they've built translators to move code from 2.x compatibility to 3.0 compatible -- and it'll catch when it can't translate the code and tell you as much. It seems pretty slick from everything I've seen. In many cases the fixes are ones you could easily do yourself in seconds with a good text editor. This will be a minor speed-bump for most users
As far as I am aware, what each of those lack (despite being useful, useable and successful, each, more or less), I think, is the big act/star power that a few bands the caliber of Radiohead would bring to such a venture. Their name recognition would lend a certain authenticity to such a site in the eyes of the mass-market consumer, I think.
"Making available" isn't just acting for your own personal greed, it's acting for the general benefit of free enjoyment for all. That's what peer to peer implies. And this is creative copied production made upon material property that doesn't belong to the creators of content. It's newly created wealth that erases previous existing marginal scarcity.
In your haste to read way more into what I wrote than was there, you allowed your emotions to lead you to confusing the technology employed vs. the intentions and motivations of the users. See the post elsewhere in this thread, but basically, it's a documented fact that many many more people go to filesharing systems to download rather than upload -- and greed and/or personal interest is at the heart of that. Beyond that, you really are chasing your tail arguing about intellectual property rights and the like -- I've not made any arguments pro or con on the matter, so, well, good for you, I guess, but you're off topic here...
Lemme guess, you fancy yourself a freedom fighter, don't you?
Anyway, I have also spent enough time with a significant number of file sharing users that I did, in fact, feel that my statement was reasonably well substantiated by my own experience -- and clearly, it was a statement of opinion, albeit an informed one rooted in facts, but had I wanted to (or felt the need to make an airtight case), I would have gone into more depth.
I find it interesting how quick you were to judge my background and make your own suppositions while disparaging me for what you were assuming about me. Ironic, and not even in that Alanis Morissette kind of way. Good for you!
Is this greed? I don't think so. Vengeance over a perceived wrong I'll go with, combined with the satisfaction of sticking to the assholes who stuck it to me for all those years before the internet forced them to bend over and grab their ankles. Right or wrong, I find this situation both convenient and sweet, and I'll be damned if I'm going to apologize for it.
You bet it is greed and want for personal convenience despite laws to the contrary -- your own word choice admits as much...
That having been said, I'm not saying you're "bad" or "wrong" you are breaking the law, but for consistency's sake, either you need to be wrong or the law does and I think it's clear that the laws surrounding all of this are horked (to get technical).
You may be vengeful as well -- great, you have every right to feel that way... that still wouldn't make you a freedom fighter. It'd just make you a normal, every-day person who's understandably interested in their own convenience and pissed off that a bunch of media companies have been sticking it to you for, oh, about as long as they have been able to.
The question isn't whether people are acting out of noble motives; it is whether or not their greed is justified.
--snip--
So yes, filesharers are acting out of personal greed. But that doesn't mean their cause is wrong.
See, that's just the thing -- in the cases where they're acting out of self-interested greed (which, again, I have said I can't really blame given the circumstances) they don't have a "cause" (other than their own self-interest, by the very definition of the word 'cause':
a principle, aim, or movement that, because of a deep commitment, one is prepared to defend or advocate : she devoted her life to the cause of deaf people.
It's not a 'cause' until and unless you have that high-minded intention rooted in some fundamental belief about the principle of the matter.
The principled argument in favor of filesharing is that copyright exists not to convey absolute property rights to the creator of a work, but to promote the progress of the useful arts and sciences; that this implies the public has an ownership in copyrighted works just as essential and protected as that of the creator; and that current copyright law excessively rewards the creators of works without giving due consideration to the public interest. If you buy this argument, then filesharers are freedom fighters, regardless of their motives.
Hardly. You confuse congruity with identity. Just because someone handcuffs a person, that act doesn't make them a police officer, likewise, just because someone puts out a fire in their own kitchen, they're not a firefighter -- now, if they ran across the street and started hosing down their neighbors house as it was going up in flames, you might have a point. Being a freedom fighter means fighting for freedom -- not just demanding the unrestricted exercise of your own. No, it requires fighting for some larger, more generalized sense of freedom for yourself and others -- that's the principle, that's the cause of Freedom. Acting only for yourself, without intent or commitment to that larger cause isn't 'freedom-fighting'. To see it otherwise would be contradictory as you're not fighting for 'freedom', the concept, you're fighting for your personal desires and that ain't anything special -- that's just good old self interest and/or greed. To be sure, those have their place and value but they are not freedom-fighting, no matter how many post-hoc justifications people want to make.
Thank all these people whom have uploaded/downloaded music/movies for years. They are the true freedom fighters against the evil corporations.
No they're not -- I mean, I admire the spirit you're trying to paint them in and all, but no, they're (for the most part) just greedy people, just like the record execs, trying to get more for less, even if it's not legal. Freedom fighters implies some higher purpose -- most of the time downloaders are just out for themselves and don't want to take the time and cash to buy the CD -- I can't really blame them on either account, don't get me wrong, but it's still about personal greed rather than some larger principled stand in a strong majority of the cases.
I'm not trying to troll or to flame here, but can you cite case law/a decision for that? It'd be nice to have something verifiable to point to next time this comes up...
I purchased version 2 of this mouse and one other product from The Human Solution and they were fantastic with regards to customer service -- every email I sent to them was answered promptly and both of my orders shipped quickly.
(and for the record, I'm not affiliated with them in any way other than having been their customer on two occasions -- I wouldn't have said anything but the previous post kinda invited it...)
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, you realize that thinking like that effectively hits the poor the hardest. Many working poor have cars because they need them to get to work but could not afford to replace them with the new fuel efficient vehicle you want them to. It will be years before the more fuel efficient cars are cheap/used. In that time, the lower-income earners will have seen a disproportionate amount of their already low discretionary spending eaten by the higher gas prices you want.
Of course, the top answer to the question you link to comes from Sean (Jafo), the same person who authored the story submitted here. Sean's been nothing short of a hero @ PyCon for a number of years now – the one or two times we tried to replace him with a sub-contracted internet solution, it always ended painfully... or, well, more rightly, with Sean coming in and saving the day.
So, as someone who has worked with Sean on making PyCon happen, I can say, without a doubt, that he really knows how to get it done. My hat's off to him and Tummy.com
See that "Publicly Perform" bit? You may not do that for commercial advantage.
Right -- that means you can't get up on stage and read the article and charge a fee at the door for people to hear you doing so. Similarly, you can't record such a spoken-word performance, etc. etc.
It in no way prevents you from using the ideas therein towards your own research by my reading and standard usages of licenses.
Out of curiosity, anonymous person, what field is your lab in?
Left?
This sounds like a good idea on the surface -- it'll never happen, of course, because too many companies and individuals have too much invested in the .com, .net, etc. without the country codes... but still, I like the consistency it all brings.
Happy Thanksgiving!
How is talking on a phone (hands free) different than talking with a passenger?
The research I've seen says it isn't and that talking on the phone with or without a hands-free device are both equally distracting and equally likely to cause accidents.
The only plus I can see for talking to passengers over someone via the phone is that the passenger is still able to be somewhat observant of the vehicle's surroundings and alert the driver if they notice something is going wrong. 2 distracted heads are better than one distracted head, or something...
And my understanding is that Boeing does it the other way, where it allows the human pilot to override the computer, correct? Funny, I always figured that doing it the airbus way would get someone into trouble some day...
But, then again, how many times have pilots/pilot error brought down aircraft? Maybe we should let the machines be the last line of defense =)
So wait, you are saying that MCSE and CCNE certifications have no merit? The test facilities are run independently by a recognized organization. Why did we spend all that time and money and study so hard? Have you ever taken one of the test?
They are vendor specific tests and not reflective of a field as a whole -- it's like toyota certification vs. being ASE certified, or knowing how to use a specific defibrillator works vs. understanding what's actually happening to the patient.
Have I taken on of those tests? Nope. I've looked at them and decided that it held no value for me and that it's not respected where I'd want to work (plus, I work with F/OSS so there's little incentive for a MS cert for me)... but I'll tell you this -- I've had to interact with plenty of MCSE cert holding people over the last 10 years and on average, none of them are people I'd want to work with ever again. There are a rare few who impress, but they'd impress without the that cert because it's by and large knowledge well beyond what that certification requires that has really impressed me. Where do they get that? Experience, for the most part.
And that's just the thing, in all the fields out there with certs that really mean anything, you can't get the cert without a whole bunch of experience... (though much of the time that experience is gained in school settings, as it is in medical or law school, for example). In IT, most certs can be had with a bit of time spent in front of books memorizing stuff for that test.
Exactly.
Yet another example...People applying for research/academic faculty positions at universities usually come and give what are known as "job talks" where they talk about (some of) their research and the current faculty are allowed to ask questions, etc. This is absolutely an assessment of their skills and abilities within their field.
Another point I'd want to make is that many fields, such as law or medicine, have formalized, comprehensive tests that are administered and scored by a recognized organization, e.g. the bar exam or medical board exams. IT certifications come nowhere near those tests in so many ways and as such, technical interviews for a technical position in IT shouldn't be considered out of line with what other professional fields go through, as I see it...
I think it's pretty clear I'm not in too bad of company with my belief that this is one of those fundamental issues that you just don't compromise on -- especially when you gain nothing in the "compromise" and have "compromised" time and time again before.
And, while I'm at it, the real point here is that Obama said one thing and then did another -- he claimed he'd even go so far as to filibuster to deny immunity to the telcos. If his intention was to compromise, he could have and should have said it then, instead of making huffy, trumped-up statements. Nothing substantial has changed -- if he was open to compromise, he shouldn't have promised the hardline.
The merits of the compromise really are quite secondary to the question of a person's word and the integrity thereof. And that's just not something that can be compromised without being compromised.
Grow up? Well, alright then, I'll go to an older source... Ben Franklin -- old enough and wise enough for you?
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
I think it's pretty clear I'm not in too bad of company with my belief that this is one of those fundamental issues that you just don't compromise on -- especially when you gain nothing in the "compromise" and have "compromised" time and time again before.
Honestly? Really? That's such apologist whitewashing that I can't believe you're actually serious. Sorry, but he should be doubly ashamed of voting for a bill that's unconstitutional. It's like someone stealing a car claiming that they did it because they needed to, but they knew that the police would catch them and make it all even after the fact. Does that example sound insanely stupid? Yep. So does your explanation.
I think this answer, combined with the cost argument above, answer it all pretty well. The only other thing I'd add is that once innovation and feature advancement slow down from where they are now (will they ever?), then you'll see more of a demand for increased reliability.
And it was an *ADVERTISED FEATURE* of Leopard and the AEBS until *poof* it wasn't...
AND 2.6 code will more or less be completely translatable by the 2to3 translators that are already in existence... this is a non-issue.
See, the funny thing is that the changes going into Python 3 are fixes for much of what people have complained about in Python 2.x and prior.
Moreover, every step of the way they've built translators to move code from 2.x compatibility to 3.0 compatible -- and it'll catch when it can't translate the code and tell you as much. It seems pretty slick from everything I've seen. In many cases the fixes are ones you could easily do yourself in seconds with a good text editor. This will be a minor speed-bump for most users
For more info, check out the recent Doctor Dobb's Journal interview (audio) with David Goodger -- it's about PyCon 2008, but it also covers Python 3 as well.
As far as I am aware, what each of those lack (despite being useful, useable and successful, each, more or less), I think, is the big act/star power that a few bands the caliber of Radiohead would bring to such a venture. Their name recognition would lend a certain authenticity to such a site in the eyes of the mass-market consumer, I think.
Perhaps not, but it'd be interesting to see...
In your haste to read way more into what I wrote than was there, you allowed your emotions to lead you to confusing the technology employed vs. the intentions and motivations of the users. See the post elsewhere in this thread, but basically, it's a documented fact that many many more people go to filesharing systems to download rather than upload -- and greed and/or personal interest is at the heart of that. Beyond that, you really are chasing your tail arguing about intellectual property rights and the like -- I've not made any arguments pro or con on the matter, so, well, good for you, I guess, but you're off topic here...
Lemme guess, you fancy yourself a freedom fighter, don't you?
Actually, yes, my background is in research psychology and I am familiar with scholarly articles on this topic. (here's a quick couple one-off: http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue5_10/adar/index.html or maybe: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.tb00301.x. There's a lot more out there and the consensus is that basically, a very small percentage of people host a majority of the content and that "free-riding" is more of a threat to P2P networks than litigation.
Anyway, I have also spent enough time with a significant number of file sharing users that I did, in fact, feel that my statement was reasonably well substantiated by my own experience -- and clearly, it was a statement of opinion, albeit an informed one rooted in facts, but had I wanted to (or felt the need to make an airtight case), I would have gone into more depth.
I find it interesting how quick you were to judge my background and make your own suppositions while disparaging me for what you were assuming about me. Ironic, and not even in that Alanis Morissette kind of way. Good for you!
That having been said, I'm not saying you're "bad" or "wrong" you are breaking the law, but for consistency's sake, either you need to be wrong or the law does and I think it's clear that the laws surrounding all of this are horked (to get technical).
You may be vengeful as well -- great, you have every right to feel that way... that still wouldn't make you a freedom fighter. It'd just make you a normal, every-day person who's understandably interested in their own convenience and pissed off that a bunch of media companies have been sticking it to you for, oh, about as long as they have been able to.
No they're not -- I mean, I admire the spirit you're trying to paint them in and all, but no, they're (for the most part) just greedy people, just like the record execs, trying to get more for less, even if it's not legal. Freedom fighters implies some higher purpose -- most of the time downloaders are just out for themselves and don't want to take the time and cash to buy the CD -- I can't really blame them on either account, don't get me wrong, but it's still about personal greed rather than some larger principled stand in a strong majority of the cases.
I'm not trying to troll or to flame here, but can you cite case law/a decision for that? It'd be nice to have something verifiable to point to next time this comes up...
-t
I purchased version 2 of this mouse and one other product from The Human Solution and they were fantastic with regards to customer service -- every email I sent to them was answered promptly and both of my orders shipped quickly.
(and for the record, I'm not affiliated with them in any way other than having been their customer on two occasions -- I wouldn't have said anything but the previous post kinda invited it...)