Re:old school way isn't very friendly either
on
How Retailers Watch You
·
· Score: 2, Informative
There is a reason they are sticking to you like fleas on a dog....I can sum it up in one word....
COMMISSION!
They get paid a commission on the sales. It is the same in places like Radio Shack. Want to get their attention real fast? Next time they ask, "can I help you?" Simply answer, "No thanks, just shoplifting". You then get about 3-4 people just following you around the store....It is great fun the whole family can enjoy...;-)
"Except that if your child is molested, you do not believe that the legal system is set up properly if he gets away with it by not being caught, and manages to stay under the radar until the statute of limitations runs out."
Strange that nobody else caught this but there is no statute of limitations on rape. That is why you are seeing all the people coming out of the woodwork accusing priests of raping them 30 years ago. Next strawman...
We require testing to show competency all the time. Everything from level of education to whether or not you can drive is evaluated by tests. Are you advocating the elimination of all testing and by extention licensing / certification? Think of the chaos that would cause. Internet access isn't a right, it is a privilege just like driving is. There is a distinction between rights vs. privileges. You are trying to confuse the issues together. Privileges come with responsibility. The ability to understand that responsibility is evaluated by testing. You seem to want the privilege without the responsibility.
Even rights such as freedom of speech are limited. Yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater isn't covered just as there are laws of libel limiting freedom of speech. The right to bear arms is limited in that it is illegal to own a nuclear bomb. Again, imagine the chaos that unlimited rights would cause. In fact, just about every right granted in the Constitution has limits.
In short, you still have not convinced me that testing a user's ability to understand their responsibility in the privilege of connecting to the net is a bad thing.
"even a clerk who does the best job at explaining the contract might meet up with an angry or stupid customer, who doesn't listen, signs, and comes back a month later complaining. What is to be done then?"
That is why God invented the court system. The plain words of a contract will always trump verbal especially with wording like; "Nothing but this document cover the terms of this contract." or some such. Most contracts have that. They can bleat all they want in court but I can just about tell you now what the outcome will be.
"So now that we've established that all those things you've listed do harm to people are regulated for just that reason, answer me this: what harm happens on the Internet, solely on the Internet, that can't be regulated by laws already in place? If you make a mistake on the internet, like typing a URL in wrong, or making a stupid web page, nobody dies; it is usally forgotten altogether. If you are harassing little boys and girls on the internet, your crimes are already covered by sex crime laws . If you hack into a corporate computer or disseminate a virus you are already covered by computer-crime laws."
A threat by infected botnets, although not life threatening (unless your entire livelyhood is internet based) is a threat to everyone else's freedom on the net by your own definition. Add to that the Phishing schemes that are setup on compromised servers and it severely restricts that freedom you are espousing. Trust in these various systems is being seriously undermined because of the very real threat of having your life ruined by fraud. The technology has suffered as well. There were some very useful features of email that are now taboo and quite hazardous to the unwary. Features that promised to make the web experience more enhanced have been hijacked by retards that have nothing better to do than be malicious. Functionality in programs (most notably office automation) is another casualty. And add to that every bandaid we apply in the form of antivirus, firewalls, spyware removers, etc are taking a toll in the form of system resources and untold hours of time spent cleaning up these machines.
So I don't think the idea of a simple test is a bad idea. If nothing else, it will show the potential customer where they are most vulnerable. Maybe it would raise awareness to the point where people will actually give a shit.
"The effects of the GPL though are not going to influence the decision makers at my company though."
No it doesn't by itself but money talks volumes. The cost associated with developing and maintaining that wrapper should be billed accordingly with the statements attached to the billing to the effect of; "This cost associated with legal wrappers to GPLed code." The alternatives are:
1.) GPL the customers code with their permission. This is the cheapest route since GPL+GPL==GPL. This is also the most productive since enhancements to the code can be done by anyone with the code and they ultimately will benefit from that.
2.) Use a "lesser open source" license. A little open beats closed. You will still have higher costs when dealing with GPL using this method but it is better than the hastle dealing with fully closed would be.
3.) The method you discussed of wrapping it and all. This should be a fairly expensive way when dealing with non-GPLed code in a GPL environment.
4.) Do everything closed and clean. Don't use GPLed code. Develop it independantly. This should be the most expensive of any of the above options.
The whole point of using GPLed code (or any "open source" code for that matter) in a commercial environment is to reduce the costs associated from doing it from scratch. That should also be reflected in your billing. The more "open" it goes, the cheaper it is, with the GPL being the cheapest. That is how you get the customer's attention.
For your PHB, simply not having to constantly pay you for doing the wrapper routine as well as not having to pay legal for their opinion should be enticement enough.
Don't you see though, that the GPL makes your job of convincing the PHB to release the code easier? The whole idea behind using the GPL *IS* to make it harder to bypass setting code free. When you encourage your superiors to use less than free code, it is only prolonging that fight. As I said in my posts above, there are a multitude of licenses to choose from. Only the GPL will guarantee that I get my particular itch scratched (namely that I learn new ways of coding). If you don't want to scratch that itch then don't use that code in stuff you are distributing.
"Why not just release the code into the public domain?"
That's the ultimate freedom and what copyright's main aim is much the the dislike of copyright holders. If it wasn't for the public domain, there would be no need for copyright. Again, much to the dislike of copyright holders.
That interpretation disregards the "work for hire" principle of copyright. If you hire someone to modify GPL code on your system, it is the same as you sitting down and modifying it yourself. You are only bound by the GPL IF you redistribute those changes. If you keep them in-house, there is no GPL requirement to share. To me though, there is a moral and a practical reason to share GPL code changes upstream. First, the moral issue of you getting the code to modify in the first place and second, to keep from having to modify the same code later when a new revision to the code is released.
"Companies pay me to make software for them, and so I am happy. I do not necessarily want to make something as a free service to the community - that is not what I do."
Then don't do it. Nobody put a gun to your head and said, "The two neurons get it if you don't use this code!" Nothing is preventing you from licensing code you write any way you want as the Microsofts of the world have shown.
It isn't a matter of building walls or bridges. It is a matter of choice on the original coders part. Nothing stops that corporate entity from building independently whatever library they need and placing it under whatever license they want. Hell, they can even "public domain" it if they want. I can see a very valid reason to GPL libraries that I noticed you left out of your little debate...
This is a problem with the LGPL. Most libraries are there to standardize a common group of tasks. If I build a library that standardizes communication to widgets I don't want anyone bastardizing that standard with their own "extend, embrace, extinguish" florishes. Let's say ODF was implemented in a library. Further, let's say Microsoft wanted to use that library for a plugin. I would damned sure want to see whatever code Microsoft was pumping out that was derived from my code. Wouldn't you given their track record of breaking standards? I thought so.
The LGPL has its uses. That is for sure. The GPL equally has its uses. If you can't abide by the author's choice of license, and by abide I *DO* mean agree to, then don't use GPLed code. It is that easy.
If you want me to respect your closed license, then you can damned well respect my free one. It isn't too much to ask that if you distribute code I wrote, to distribute those changes you made to it so I can learn from them. That is the reason I release code. It isn't to make money. It isn't to gain fame. It is to learn from others as they learn from me. It amazes me the amount of bitching about this simple concept. It amazes me more that there are morons out there trying to pressure others to allow the closing of code in a free software environment. Doesn't sound very free to me. If you don't like the GPL then don't use it. There are a multitude of other "open source" licenses out there./soapbox
"The OJ trial farce is proof of that if any is needed."
The OJ case wasn't screwed by the press but by the police planting evidence when they didn't need to. It threw all the evidence into question when the police tampered with and planted evidence in a high profile case to try to guarantee a conviction. It is that simple. Well, that and the Wookie....;-)
BTW, the OJ civil case (a lower standard of course) found him guilty.
"The basic requirements that must be met for tying to be per se illegal are as follows:
1. There must be two separate products or services.
2. There must be a sale or an agreement to sell one product (or service) on the condition that the buyer purchase another product or service (or the buyer agrees not to purchase the product or service from another supplier).
3. The seller must have sufficient economic power with respect to the tying product to appreciably restrain free competition in the market for the tied product.
4. The tying arrangement must affect a "not insubstantial" amount of commerce."
Let's do these one at a time shall we...
"1. There must be two separate products or services."
We meet this with there being printers and cartridges. Two separate products sold separately.
"2. There must be a sale or an agreement to sell one product (or service) on the condition that the buyer purchase another product or service (or the buyer agrees not to purchase the product or service from another supplier)."
We have the negative form of tying by forcing customers to not buy from other suppliers especially if your printer detects "foreign" cartridges and doesn't print with them.
"3. The seller must have sufficient economic power with respect to the tying product to appreciably restrain free competition in the market for the tied product."
With over 50% TFA claims HP has they meet this one.
"4. The tying arrangement must affect a "not insubstantial" amount of commerce."
Suing their competition I would consider "not insubstantial". In fact, it is stifling commerce when you sue or threaten to sue competition.
Seems to me the various State AGs should take HP up on this one.
"...the solution: Issue it, and don't account for it or ask for it back = no lost items!"
That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard of.....Brilliant in fact! Now if every government logistics operation would only work the same.
B.
Re:If I am the copyright owner
on
30 Days of DRM
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
" This is important, because without it people will be less inclined to produce art..."
I challenge this concept. Nowhere has it been proved. In fact, there are several studies that show that those things that are pirated also enjoy a higher profit margin. To say that all media content will dry up if copyright didn't exist flies in the face of logic as well as human nature. The only one that benefits from copyright is the distributors.
I'll go one step further....
I say to fix the copyright problem, disallow the transfer of copyright except to the public domain. All rights to a work belong to the originator of that work. Then what the **AA is touting (namely that artists suffer when copyright is violated) would be true. Make it so that the only place an artist can relinquish copyright to is the public domain which is the purpose of copyright to begin with.
This is just my take on it. Reality differs dramatically.
B.
Re:the most important
on
30 Days of DRM
·
· Score: 2, Informative
"Are you referring to the USA or Canada? Because if it's USA, you know better than to think something will become public domain here. (Yes, I'm being sarcastic)"
Although you are being sarcastic you are also telling the truth. Jack Valenti the head of the MPAA, has stated, "The constitutional definition of "limited time" to me means the end of the universe minus 30 seconds". He has also stated that if people want to back up their copies, they can damned well buy the backup. Another gem from him is his belief that the public domain is useless unless you can profit from it.
You wouldn't be prosecuted for copyright violation but for DMCA violation (copy protection circumvention). It has already happened with a professor and a programmer ans a slew of others. (see: http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/20020503_dmca_consequen ces.html for more info).
The DMCA was and is a bad law. It is vaguely worded and exceptions in it are few. A violation of the DMCA is a felony in its own and shouldn't be taken lightly.
"Again we don't know what the full effect of these attacks are, it does state he attacked "Seattle's Northwest Hospital" what if this attack caused 1 or more important systems to die. I know many hospitals around here, are computerizing the control of their power distribution, in the building or other internal services such as your records."
This is just silly. Any company that has critical real-time priority systems connected to any computer connect to the Internet deserves the wrongful death suit they get. Those systems should be closed and secure, not connected to anybody and everybody. This is just scare tactics to justify harsher laws that won't be enforced so the politicians look like they are "tough on crime" (besides being pure FUD).
"Supervised release"=="probation". They are assigned a probation officer to monitor the convicted to ensure they are living up to the conditions of their probation. One infraction of their probation sends them back to complete the full term of their sentence. Depending on the conditions, it can range from home confinement type (where they wear a tracking device and have frequent call-ins) to where they report in to the probation officer once a week or so. It depends on what the court orders. Another thing about probation...If the convicted breaks any law outside of their probation terms, the probation ends. This means that if this guy were to sell drugs, for example, while on probation for this then back to the slammer he goes.
It is a way to decrease the populations of already crowded prisons. Probation and parole are about the same thing with the exception that parole is granted by a parole board and probation is granted by the court. In short, parole isn't guaranteed to let them out early where probation is.
All in all, he got a light sentence compared to what he could have gotten for the DoD affair. He should count himself lucky he isn't in Gitmo with the rest of the "terrorists".
"But their choice isn't "work here for a pittance or starve". Their choice is "work here for double the prevailing wage or work on a farm for a pittance." Don't you think this changes your analysis a bit?"
No I do not when "double the prevailing wage" is still far below the national poverty line for that nation. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be exploitation by definition. Global companies aren't interested in raising the standard of living in an area and in fact do what they can to stifle it. They are interested in making as much profit as possible. Don't you see that when we allow global companies to hide behind prevailing wage when the prevailing wage is below poverty is exploitation? Don't you see that the corporations know this and use it to their advantage?
"It also changes your analysis if people Q (I suppose you consider yourself a Q), while acting with the best of intentions, are actually more likely to put the plant workers back on those farms instead of raising their standard of living. I realize you think you can avoid this by enacting some sort of global regulations via the UN or WTO or some other paper tiger, but don't you realize that even if you did this, you'd just decrease global employment? Unless you nationalize all industries everywhere and run them according to your preferences, you simply can't make them hire workers for more than they're willing to pay."
Bull. This is a ploy used to justify the immoral actions of these global companies. It is the responsibility of the government to enforce minimum standards for employment (both over there and over here). That effort is hampered by corporate threats like what you made above. "We will pull out leaving everyone jobless unless we get our way" is the argument you are making to justify exploitation. By allowing these companies to exploit lower standards overseas we are in effect lowering our standards in order to compete. When does it stop?
There are 2 things that go into making a "good" presentation.
1.) The topic at hand.
If your topic is financial, you aren't going to get away from charts and graphs. That doesn't mean you should stick with the default style but you should also not distort the data trying to make it fancy. If your topic requires audio, video, or some other "special" media, then use it. If it doesn't, then don't as it is just a distraction.
2.) The audience it is intended for.
I have seen some hideous presentations simply because the presenter had the wrong type material for the audience they were presenting to. There is a difference between presenting to a group of peers and presenting to the general public. You see this problem more with paid lecturers because they are "reusing" their presentations. When you see the presenter saying "skip this part" it is because the material isn't meant for the audience it is being presented to.
All this is communications 101 stuff. I blame the education system for not stressing public speaking enough. Data is worthless unless it can be analyzed and presented effectively.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a reason they are sticking to you like fleas on a dog....I can sum it up in one word....
COMMISSION!
They get paid a commission on the sales. It is the same in places like Radio Shack. Want to get their attention real fast? Next time they ask, "can I help you?" Simply answer, "No thanks, just shoplifting". You then get about 3-4 people just following you around the store....It is great fun the whole family can enjoy...;-)
For the humor impaired, that last part is a joke.
B.
"Except that if your child is molested, you do not believe that the legal system is set up properly if he gets away with it by not being caught, and manages to stay under the radar until the statute of limitations runs out."
Strange that nobody else caught this but there is no statute of limitations on rape. That is why you are seeing all the people coming out of the woodwork accusing priests of raping them 30 years ago. Next strawman...
B.
We require testing to show competency all the time. Everything from level of education to whether or not you can drive is evaluated by tests. Are you advocating the elimination of all testing and by extention licensing / certification? Think of the chaos that would cause. Internet access isn't a right, it is a privilege just like driving is. There is a distinction between rights vs. privileges. You are trying to confuse the issues together. Privileges come with responsibility. The ability to understand that responsibility is evaluated by testing. You seem to want the privilege without the responsibility.
Even rights such as freedom of speech are limited. Yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater isn't covered just as there are laws of libel limiting freedom of speech. The right to bear arms is limited in that it is illegal to own a nuclear bomb. Again, imagine the chaos that unlimited rights would cause. In fact, just about every right granted in the Constitution has limits.
In short, you still have not convinced me that testing a user's ability to understand their responsibility in the privilege of connecting to the net is a bad thing.
B.
"even a clerk who does the best job at explaining the contract might meet up with an angry or stupid customer, who doesn't listen, signs, and comes back a month later complaining. What is to be done then?"
That is why God invented the court system. The plain words of a contract will always trump verbal especially with wording like; "Nothing but this document cover the terms of this contract." or some such. Most contracts have that. They can bleat all they want in court but I can just about tell you now what the outcome will be.
B.
"So now that we've established that all those things you've listed do harm to people are regulated for just that reason, answer me this: what harm happens on the Internet, solely on the Internet, that can't be regulated by laws already in place? If you make a mistake on the internet, like typing a URL in wrong, or making a stupid web page, nobody dies; it is usally forgotten altogether. If you are harassing little boys and girls on the internet, your crimes are already covered by sex crime laws . If you hack into a corporate computer or disseminate a virus you are already covered by computer-crime laws."
A threat by infected botnets, although not life threatening (unless your entire livelyhood is internet based) is a threat to everyone else's freedom on the net by your own definition. Add to that the Phishing schemes that are setup on compromised servers and it severely restricts that freedom you are espousing. Trust in these various systems is being seriously undermined because of the very real threat of having your life ruined by fraud. The technology has suffered as well. There were some very useful features of email that are now taboo and quite hazardous to the unwary. Features that promised to make the web experience more enhanced have been hijacked by retards that have nothing better to do than be malicious. Functionality in programs (most notably office automation) is another casualty. And add to that every bandaid we apply in the form of antivirus, firewalls, spyware removers, etc are taking a toll in the form of system resources and untold hours of time spent cleaning up these machines.
So I don't think the idea of a simple test is a bad idea. If nothing else, it will show the potential customer where they are most vulnerable. Maybe it would raise awareness to the point where people will actually give a shit.
B.
So in essence, you are say for the geek points....
B.
Besides geek points, why would one want to do this? There is an old saying....If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
B.
"The effects of the GPL though are not going to influence the decision makers at my company though."
No it doesn't by itself but money talks volumes. The cost associated with developing and maintaining that wrapper should be billed accordingly with the statements attached to the billing to the effect of; "This cost associated with legal wrappers to GPLed code." The alternatives are:
1.) GPL the customers code with their permission. This is the cheapest route since GPL+GPL==GPL. This is also the most productive since enhancements to the code can be done by anyone with the code and they ultimately will benefit from that.
2.) Use a "lesser open source" license. A little open beats closed. You will still have higher costs when dealing with GPL using this method but it is better than the hastle dealing with fully closed would be.
3.) The method you discussed of wrapping it and all. This should be a fairly expensive way when dealing with non-GPLed code in a GPL environment.
4.) Do everything closed and clean. Don't use GPLed code. Develop it independantly. This should be the most expensive of any of the above options.
The whole point of using GPLed code (or any "open source" code for that matter) in a commercial environment is to reduce the costs associated from doing it from scratch. That should also be reflected in your billing. The more "open" it goes, the cheaper it is, with the GPL being the cheapest. That is how you get the customer's attention.
For your PHB, simply not having to constantly pay you for doing the wrapper routine as well as not having to pay legal for their opinion should be enticement enough.
B.
I am glad to see that you have that ethic....
Don't you see though, that the GPL makes your job of convincing the PHB to release the code easier? The whole idea behind using the GPL *IS* to make it harder to bypass setting code free. When you encourage your superiors to use less than free code, it is only prolonging that fight. As I said in my posts above, there are a multitude of licenses to choose from. Only the GPL will guarantee that I get my particular itch scratched (namely that I learn new ways of coding). If you don't want to scratch that itch then don't use that code in stuff you are distributing.
B.
"Why not just release the code into the public domain?"
That's the ultimate freedom and what copyright's main aim is much the the dislike of copyright holders. If it wasn't for the public domain, there would be no need for copyright. Again, much to the dislike of copyright holders.
B.
That interpretation disregards the "work for hire" principle of copyright. If you hire someone to modify GPL code on your system, it is the same as you sitting down and modifying it yourself. You are only bound by the GPL IF you redistribute those changes. If you keep them in-house, there is no GPL requirement to share. To me though, there is a moral and a practical reason to share GPL code changes upstream. First, the moral issue of you getting the code to modify in the first place and second, to keep from having to modify the same code later when a new revision to the code is released.
B.
"Companies pay me to make software for them, and so I am happy. I do not necessarily want to make something as a free service to the community - that is not what I do."
Then don't do it. Nobody put a gun to your head and said, "The two neurons get it if you don't use this code!" Nothing is preventing you from licensing code you write any way you want as the Microsofts of the world have shown.
B.
It isn't a matter of building walls or bridges. It is a matter of choice on the original coders part. Nothing stops that corporate entity from building independently whatever library they need and placing it under whatever license they want. Hell, they can even "public domain" it if they want. I can see a very valid reason to GPL libraries that I noticed you left out of your little debate...
This is a problem with the LGPL. Most libraries are there to standardize a common group of tasks. If I build a library that standardizes communication to widgets I don't want anyone bastardizing that standard with their own "extend, embrace, extinguish" florishes. Let's say ODF was implemented in a library. Further, let's say Microsoft wanted to use that library for a plugin. I would damned sure want to see whatever code Microsoft was pumping out that was derived from my code. Wouldn't you given their track record of breaking standards? I thought so.
The LGPL has its uses. That is for sure. The GPL equally has its uses. If you can't abide by the author's choice of license, and by abide I *DO* mean agree to, then don't use GPLed code. It is that easy.
B.
If you want me to respect your closed license, then you can damned well respect my free one. It isn't too much to ask that if you distribute code I wrote, to distribute those changes you made to it so I can learn from them. That is the reason I release code. It isn't to make money. It isn't to gain fame. It is to learn from others as they learn from me. It amazes me the amount of bitching about this simple concept. It amazes me more that there are morons out there trying to pressure others to allow the closing of code in a free software environment. Doesn't sound very free to me. If you don't like the GPL then don't use it. There are a multitude of other "open source" licenses out there. /soapbox
B.
"The OJ trial farce is proof of that if any is needed."
The OJ case wasn't screwed by the press but by the police planting evidence when they didn't need to. It threw all the evidence into question when the police tampered with and planted evidence in a high profile case to try to guarantee a conviction. It is that simple. Well, that and the Wookie....;-)
BTW, the OJ civil case (a lower standard of course) found him guilty.
B.
It amazes me that the laws of antitrust (negative) tying aren't used against these schemes. From
n ts.htm
http://www.aurorawdc.com/arj_cics_tying_arrangeme
"The basic requirements that must be met for tying to be per se illegal are as follows:
1. There must be two separate products or services.
2. There must be a sale or an agreement to sell one product (or service) on the condition that the buyer purchase another product or service (or the buyer agrees not to purchase the product or service from another supplier).
3. The seller must have sufficient economic power with respect to the tying product to appreciably restrain free competition in the market for the tied product.
4. The tying arrangement must affect a "not insubstantial" amount of commerce."
Let's do these one at a time shall we...
"1. There must be two separate products or services."
We meet this with there being printers and cartridges. Two separate products sold separately.
"2. There must be a sale or an agreement to sell one product (or service) on the condition that the buyer purchase another product or service (or the buyer agrees not to purchase the product or service from another supplier)."
We have the negative form of tying by forcing customers to not buy from other suppliers especially if your printer detects "foreign" cartridges and doesn't print with them.
"3. The seller must have sufficient economic power with respect to the tying product to appreciably restrain free competition in the market for the tied product."
With over 50% TFA claims HP has they meet this one.
"4. The tying arrangement must affect a "not insubstantial" amount of commerce."
Suing their competition I would consider "not insubstantial". In fact, it is stifling commerce when you sue or threaten to sue competition.
Seems to me the various State AGs should take HP up on this one.
B.
"...the solution: Issue it, and don't account for it or ask for it back = no lost items!"
That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard of.....Brilliant in fact! Now if every government logistics operation would only work the same.
B.
" This is important, because without it people will be less inclined to produce art..."
I challenge this concept. Nowhere has it been proved. In fact, there are several studies that show that those things that are pirated also enjoy a higher profit margin. To say that all media content will dry up if copyright didn't exist flies in the face of logic as well as human nature. The only one that benefits from copyright is the distributors.
I'll go one step further....
I say to fix the copyright problem, disallow the transfer of copyright except to the public domain. All rights to a work belong to the originator of that work. Then what the **AA is touting (namely that artists suffer when copyright is violated) would be true. Make it so that the only place an artist can relinquish copyright to is the public domain which is the purpose of copyright to begin with.
This is just my take on it. Reality differs dramatically.
B.
"Are you referring to the USA or Canada? Because if it's USA, you know better than to think something will become public domain here. (Yes, I'm being sarcastic)"
Although you are being sarcastic you are also telling the truth. Jack Valenti the head of the MPAA, has stated, "The constitutional definition of "limited time" to me means the end of the universe minus 30 seconds". He has also stated that if people want to back up their copies, they can damned well buy the backup. Another gem from him is his belief that the public domain is useless unless you can profit from it.
See http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/002065.shtml for more enjoyable quotes from this sock puppet..
B.
You wouldn't be prosecuted for copyright violation but for DMCA violation (copy protection circumvention). It has already happened with a professor and a programmer ans a slew of others.n ces.html for more info).
(see: http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/20020503_dmca_conseque
The DMCA was and is a bad law. It is vaguely worded and exceptions in it are few. A violation of the DMCA is a felony in its own and shouldn't be taken lightly.
B.
"Again we don't know what the full effect of these attacks are, it does state he attacked "Seattle's Northwest Hospital" what if this attack caused 1 or more important systems to die. I know many hospitals around here, are computerizing the control of their power distribution, in the building or other internal services such as your records."
This is just silly. Any company that has critical real-time priority systems connected to any computer connect to the Internet deserves the wrongful death suit they get. Those systems should be closed and secure, not connected to anybody and everybody. This is just scare tactics to justify harsher laws that won't be enforced so the politicians look like they are "tough on crime" (besides being pure FUD).
B.
"Supervised release"=="probation". They are assigned a probation officer to monitor the convicted to ensure they are living up to the conditions of their probation. One infraction of their probation sends them back to complete the full term of their sentence. Depending on the conditions, it can range from home confinement type (where they wear a tracking device and have frequent call-ins) to where they report in to the probation officer once a week or so. It depends on what the court orders. Another thing about probation...If the convicted breaks any law outside of their probation terms, the probation ends. This means that if this guy were to sell drugs, for example, while on probation for this then back to the slammer he goes.
It is a way to decrease the populations of already crowded prisons. Probation and parole are about the same thing with the exception that parole is granted by a parole board and probation is granted by the court. In short, parole isn't guaranteed to let them out early where probation is.
All in all, he got a light sentence compared to what he could have gotten for the DoD affair. He should count himself lucky he isn't in Gitmo with the rest of the "terrorists".
B.
3. Pass the cost of both to the customer.
You don't think Creative or Apple are going to eat that cost do you?
B.
"But their choice isn't "work here for a pittance or starve". Their choice is "work here for double the prevailing wage or work on a farm for a pittance." Don't you think this changes your analysis a bit?"
No I do not when "double the prevailing wage" is still far below the national poverty line for that nation. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be exploitation by definition. Global companies aren't interested in raising the standard of living in an area and in fact do what they can to stifle it. They are interested in making as much profit as possible. Don't you see that when we allow global companies to hide behind prevailing wage when the prevailing wage is below poverty is exploitation? Don't you see that the corporations know this and use it to their advantage?
"It also changes your analysis if people Q (I suppose you consider yourself a Q), while acting with the best of intentions, are actually more likely to put the plant workers back on those farms instead of raising their standard of living. I realize you think you can avoid this by enacting some sort of global regulations via the UN or WTO or some other paper tiger, but don't you realize that even if you did this, you'd just decrease global employment? Unless you nationalize all industries everywhere and run them according to your preferences, you simply can't make them hire workers for more than they're willing to pay."
Bull. This is a ploy used to justify the immoral actions of these global companies. It is the responsibility of the government to enforce minimum standards for employment (both over there and over here). That effort is hampered by corporate threats like what you made above. "We will pull out leaving everyone jobless unless we get our way" is the argument you are making to justify exploitation. By allowing these companies to exploit lower standards overseas we are in effect lowering our standards in order to compete. When does it stop?
B.
There are 2 things that go into making a "good" presentation.
1.) The topic at hand.
If your topic is financial, you aren't going to get away from charts and graphs. That doesn't mean you should stick with the default style but you should also not distort the data trying to make it fancy. If your topic requires audio, video, or some other "special" media, then use it. If it doesn't, then don't as it is just a distraction.
2.) The audience it is intended for.
I have seen some hideous presentations simply because the presenter had the wrong type material for the audience they were presenting to. There is a difference between presenting to a group of peers and presenting to the general public. You see this problem more with paid lecturers because they are "reusing" their presentations. When you see the presenter saying "skip this part" it is because the material isn't meant for the audience it is being presented to.
All this is communications 101 stuff. I blame the education system for not stressing public speaking enough. Data is worthless unless it can be analyzed and presented effectively.
B.