This all seems silly. If you don't want a business card, then don't take it or be polite and take it then dump it in the nearest circular file. That is far easier then having to weed out unwanted crap from an electronic device. Also, some cultures (Japan I am talking about you) routinely hand out business cards as part of their culture. So if you travel to one of these countries you will wind up with hundreds of really unwanted stuff to delete out of your device.
In economic terms it is called "externalizing". Shifting risk to others is the hallmark of capitalist economies. The same is true of any enterprise. If you have a risk, find a way to shift the cost onto someone else. The public is always a good place to shift the risk to. If you get caught with your pants down it is easy enough to declare bankruptcy and emerge a "new" entity to continue shifting the risk. These plants aren't going anywhere and given today's energy demands will be up and running in no time.
Police just love it when they record suspects and will use other sources of recordings besides those given with consent against suspects. Those suspects should also have the right to use recordings in their defense. If you ban recordings, then the ban should be on both sides. That would mean every dashboard mounted camera should be removed from all those police cars if this law was allowed to stand.
You don't honestly think they are going to propose SOPA as a stand alone bill now do you? No, they will simply attach it to some unrelated "must pass" legislation. It will be the poison pill that must be swallowed in order to keep the country running. It wouldn't surprise me to see it on the next go around of debt ceiling fights.
This is probably going to get negative mod points tossed at me but WTF. Someone has to argue for our system of law...
Our system of law only works when both sides of the argument are on equal footing. Neither side can produce "surprise" evidence without the other side having an opportunity to challenge either the results or the procedure to get the results. Both sides have a duty to see that all the evidence available is presented to the opposing side to allow for that challenge.
Imagine if the shoe was on the other foot here. Imagine if the prosecution had evidence which showed the defendant is innocent. It is just as much a crime to withhold that discovery as is the case in this instance.
Refusing the other side the discovery they are due in a court of law, no matter which side does it, is cause IMO for the case to go against the offending side. It is the same as spoliation, the willful destruction of evidence.
First off, making jokes like that are without taste and quite dangerous in airports especially ones to the US. They post signs all over about it. Anyone stupid enough to joke like that should be sent packing given the number of attempts made post 9/11. If they don't take it seriously, and it turns out to be a valid threat, then the press would have a field day with DHS. Stupid is how I see these people...
Hardly anything new came to light in the NYT article; the only real revelations of late have been from Apple executives themselves, as they dig their hole deeper and deeper.
That and the fact that Apple still has done nothing to correct the issue regardless of their current statements. That is what I get out of it. Also, NYT is far more read than wired or any of the other trade rags. Getting this into the "mainstream" is what Apple fears because once NYT has it, it gets echoed all around the world and Joe Blow may, just may, start thinking about how that gizmo in their hand was made.
it wasn't that long ago that they put in those hand scanners at the grocery store that let you scan the items in your cart as you put them in and then do nothing more than swipe your credit card as you walk out the door. I'd bet a fair number of checkout clerks lost their jobs over that one.
Nope. They are the ones standing at the heads of these mechanical monstrosities preventing the pissed off customers from beating them to pieces.
Personally, I never use the silly things and will ask for a human if they don't have a human line open. If not, I will leave that store and go elsewhere letting the management know why.
And publicly admitting guilt. One thing about corporate out of court settlements is the "no admission of guilt" they get the victims to sign. No, for once I want to see a corporation that settles admit their wrong.
Yes, the MPAA and RIAA damage estimates to copyright infringement are ideas of sheer lunacy, but attitudes like yours are just as polarizing i.e., it's acceptable to share and distribute films from mega corporations because they are mega corporations.
Let's see, the copyright cartels have managed to get countries like Canada to implement a charge on blank media with the idea that that blank media will be used for piracy. So they have been not only paid for the infringement that may have occurred but for legitimate content they do not own. So how does your statement hold water there?
How about Iran can have a nuclear bomb. Really? you think that's a good idea?
Considering that the US is the only nation on Earth to use nuclear weapons against another nation, twice, do you think it is a good idea that the US has nuclear arms?
While it should be illegal for any patent licensing agreement to be covered by a NDA
Why do patent licence deals have to be public knowledge? I might not want my competitors to know what technology I'm using in my product.
WTF?!?!? Your "competitors" already know your technology BECAUSE you filed for the patent. That is the whole point of patents. You tell everyone what your invention is and everyone agrees that you get exclusive rights to it for a limited time.
seeing as we already know that the patents are bogus
No you don't. All you know know is what are in the B&N case. They may not be all patents. But in the end even those are in fact patents legally granted to MS, and no matter how "bogus" you consider them you can't just violate them outright and not expect to be sued.
I see a better way around it. Do what Red Hat was trying to do in Delaware with SCO and have Google take the Android code base to a judge and have it declared "non-infringing". That ought to wake Microsoft up.
Then maybe you shouldn't be biting the hand that feeds you. It is the only solution to a court order that is impossible to comply with fully. What is to say that the removal of the offending word won't cause another equally offending (in the eyes of this company) word from popping up automatically? No, the only real solution is to delist them totally to comply with the order totally.
Then the solution is to remove "Lyonnaise de Garantie" from the search engine all together. Wipe them off any search result what-so-ever. Nothing in French law requires Google to index any site...
Nobody is saying that computer skills shouldn't be taught in school. What they are saying is the following:
1. Diverting funding from flesh and blood teachers in favor of technology is short-sighted and in the long run has the same effect as not having the technology.In other words, providing a tool without proper instruction is the same as giving a book without teaching them to read. 2. Critical thinking is required when using technology to ensure you aren't being misinformed especially if you are talking about the Internet. Just because some webpage declares something to be true doesn't make it so. 3. Learning how to do things manually before jumping right to technology is a critical skill. Without that skill, kids will become too reliant on the technology and are lost when it fails them. In short, the technology becomes a crutch for their own thinking skills which go down the toilet when the tech fails.
I work in state government and have access to some of the most advanced technology known to man. None of it beats a human when it comes to interpreting what the technology is depicting.
Uhuh... And just how do you expect to get around Citizen's United? Where corporations can express their "speech" with as much money is in their coffers without disclosing it at all. Where the only people to get on the ballot are those with the corporate backing. Where you have a choice between corporate shill number 1 and corporate shill number 2.
America needs to learn to compete truly on a global scale again.... not importing anything and everything from some third world country with cheap labour.
Now that I've edited out the extraneous words do you see the contradiction you just proposed? You can't "compete globally" when your competitors can use the cheap labour (yes, I'm using your spelling of the word) you describe. The only option is to use the same cheap labour. As long as you have people who are willing to work for 20 cents a day this problem will only be a drive to the bottom an already low earnings is the US. That is the crux of the real problem. Until there is some form of international minimum wage established, the US can't ever compete globally on a level field setting aside countries that actively manipulate their currency.
Let's get this right... DHS is FEMA in drag. I was in FEMA at the time of the changeover. They took an agency that barely had the staff to do its current job and made them do double duty adding in terrorism. I left the agency two years after when I saw it going down the drain.
Vote with your wallet. If you're really against big media don't consume their products*..
I get so fucking tired of seeing this crap. Just how do you "consume" the intangible (ideas)? Just how is that a "product"? It isn't either yet those who seek eternal payment for it will try and express the intangible in tangible ways.
There's tons of high quality CC licensed, and independently produced, media out there. Otherwise quit your bitching.
Like? Most of the CC stuff I have seen is pure and utter crap or is the length of a normal movie trailer.
And if that is the case why aren't you seeing more in the "main stream"? After all, companies are always looking for the cheapest means to profit and CC offers that.
...but people was used to consume music by going to the store to buy a CD. Videos are different: they are also consumed by buying DVDs but many people just watch TV, rent a DVD or go to cinema.
There is the problem... Just how the fuck do you "consume" something that isn't physical? Turning ideas and expressions of ideas into a commodity is why this whole concept is failing.
Although I can agree that some level of protection is a necessary evil, what I do NOT agree with is the idea that all creativity will cease to exist in the absence of those protections. Patents in particular are the stifling factor to innovation. It would be different if those filing for patent protections actually used the patented technology for something other than a mechanism to bludgeon others for licensing fees.
In the case of method patents in general and software patents in particular it is especially egregious because of the dual protections they enjoy with perpetual copyrights. Why should software enjoy the protections of both copyright AND patents? Compensation is granted with either.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes...
Both of you pay....
Nope...
It's the American way after all.
This all seems silly. If you don't want a business card, then don't take it or be polite and take it then dump it in the nearest circular file. That is far easier then having to weed out unwanted crap from an electronic device. Also, some cultures (Japan I am talking about you) routinely hand out business cards as part of their culture. So if you travel to one of these countries you will wind up with hundreds of really unwanted stuff to delete out of your device.
In economic terms it is called "externalizing". Shifting risk to others is the hallmark of capitalist economies. The same is true of any enterprise. If you have a risk, find a way to shift the cost onto someone else. The public is always a good place to shift the risk to. If you get caught with your pants down it is easy enough to declare bankruptcy and emerge a "new" entity to continue shifting the risk. These plants aren't going anywhere and given today's energy demands will be up and running in no time.
No, it was preventative maintenance. If it was that obvious to you then it worked. It kept you from doing something.
Police just love it when they record suspects and will use other sources of recordings besides those given with consent against suspects. Those suspects should also have the right to use recordings in their defense. If you ban recordings, then the ban should be on both sides. That would mean every dashboard mounted camera should be removed from all those police cars if this law was allowed to stand.
You don't honestly think they are going to propose SOPA as a stand alone bill now do you? No, they will simply attach it to some unrelated "must pass" legislation. It will be the poison pill that must be swallowed in order to keep the country running. It wouldn't surprise me to see it on the next go around of debt ceiling fights.
This is probably going to get negative mod points tossed at me but WTF. Someone has to argue for our system of law...
Our system of law only works when both sides of the argument are on equal footing. Neither side can produce "surprise" evidence without the other side having an opportunity to challenge either the results or the procedure to get the results. Both sides have a duty to see that all the evidence available is presented to the opposing side to allow for that challenge.
Imagine if the shoe was on the other foot here. Imagine if the prosecution had evidence which showed the defendant is innocent. It is just as much a crime to withhold that discovery as is the case in this instance.
Refusing the other side the discovery they are due in a court of law, no matter which side does it, is cause IMO for the case to go against the offending side. It is the same as spoliation, the willful destruction of evidence.
First off, making jokes like that are without taste and quite dangerous in airports especially ones to the US. They post signs all over about it. Anyone stupid enough to joke like that should be sent packing given the number of attempts made post 9/11. If they don't take it seriously, and it turns out to be a valid threat, then the press would have a field day with DHS. Stupid is how I see these people...
That and the fact that Apple still has done nothing to correct the issue regardless of their current statements. That is what I get out of it. Also, NYT is far more read than wired or any of the other trade rags. Getting this into the "mainstream" is what Apple fears because once NYT has it, it gets echoed all around the world and Joe Blow may, just may, start thinking about how that gizmo in their hand was made.
Nope. They are the ones standing at the heads of these mechanical monstrosities preventing the pissed off customers from beating them to pieces.
Personally, I never use the silly things and will ask for a human if they don't have a human line open. If not, I will leave that store and go elsewhere letting the management know why.
And publicly admitting guilt. One thing about corporate out of court settlements is the "no admission of guilt" they get the victims to sign. No, for once I want to see a corporation that settles admit their wrong.
Let's see, the copyright cartels have managed to get countries like Canada to implement a charge on blank media with the idea that that blank media will be used for piracy. So they have been not only paid for the infringement that may have occurred but for legitimate content they do not own. So how does your statement hold water there?
Not defending Ron Paul on this but...
Considering that the US is the only nation on Earth to use nuclear weapons against another nation, twice, do you think it is a good idea that the US has nuclear arms?
WTF?!?!? Your "competitors" already know your technology BECAUSE you filed for the patent. That is the whole point of patents. You tell everyone what your invention is and everyone agrees that you get exclusive rights to it for a limited time.
I see a better way around it. Do what Red Hat was trying to do in Delaware with SCO and have Google take the Android code base to a judge and have it declared "non-infringing". That ought to wake Microsoft up.
Then maybe you shouldn't be biting the hand that feeds you. It is the only solution to a court order that is impossible to comply with fully. What is to say that the removal of the offending word won't cause another equally offending (in the eyes of this company) word from popping up automatically? No, the only real solution is to delist them totally to comply with the order totally.
I'd hate to be the poor bastard in Downtown Crossing with the beard and backpack about to get the body cavity search...
Then the solution is to remove "Lyonnaise de Garantie" from the search engine all together. Wipe them off any search result what-so-ever. Nothing in French law requires Google to index any site...
Nobody is saying that computer skills shouldn't be taught in school. What they are saying is the following:
1. Diverting funding from flesh and blood teachers in favor of technology is short-sighted and in the long run has the same effect as not having the technology.In other words, providing a tool without proper instruction is the same as giving a book without teaching them to read.
2. Critical thinking is required when using technology to ensure you aren't being misinformed especially if you are talking about the Internet. Just because some webpage declares something to be true doesn't make it so.
3. Learning how to do things manually before jumping right to technology is a critical skill. Without that skill, kids will become too reliant on the technology and are lost when it fails them. In short, the technology becomes a crutch for their own thinking skills which go down the toilet when the tech fails.
I work in state government and have access to some of the most advanced technology known to man. None of it beats a human when it comes to interpreting what the technology is depicting.
Uhuh... And just how do you expect to get around Citizen's United? Where corporations can express their "speech" with as much money is in their coffers without disclosing it at all. Where the only people to get on the ballot are those with the corporate backing. Where you have a choice between corporate shill number 1 and corporate shill number 2.
Ah but even if it does decline for the US it will still be level globally. It will eliminate the advantage to exporting jobs.
Now that I've edited out the extraneous words do you see the contradiction you just proposed? You can't "compete globally" when your competitors can use the cheap labour (yes, I'm using your spelling of the word) you describe. The only option is to use the same cheap labour. As long as you have people who are willing to work for 20 cents a day this problem will only be a drive to the bottom an already low earnings is the US. That is the crux of the real problem. Until there is some form of international minimum wage established, the US can't ever compete globally on a level field setting aside countries that actively manipulate their currency.
Let's get this right... DHS is FEMA in drag. I was in FEMA at the time of the changeover. They took an agency that barely had the staff to do its current job and made them do double duty adding in terrorism. I left the agency two years after when I saw it going down the drain.
I get so fucking tired of seeing this crap. Just how do you "consume" the intangible (ideas)? Just how is that a "product"? It isn't either yet those who seek eternal payment for it will try and express the intangible in tangible ways.
Like? Most of the CC stuff I have seen is pure and utter crap or is the length of a normal movie trailer.
And if that is the case why aren't you seeing more in the "main stream"? After all, companies are always looking for the cheapest means to profit and CC offers that.
There is the problem... Just how the fuck do you "consume" something that isn't physical? Turning ideas and expressions of ideas into a commodity is why this whole concept is failing.
Although I can agree that some level of protection is a necessary evil, what I do NOT agree with is the idea that all creativity will cease to exist in the absence of those protections. Patents in particular are the stifling factor to innovation. It would be different if those filing for patent protections actually used the patented technology for something other than a mechanism to bludgeon others for licensing fees.
In the case of method patents in general and software patents in particular it is especially egregious because of the dual protections they enjoy with perpetual copyrights. Why should software enjoy the protections of both copyright AND patents? Compensation is granted with either.