This is targetted at budget-thin IT organzations who may believe that Linux gives them more with less. Only it doesn't -- it works, it's updated, but it's inferior desktop compared to your legacy Windows install.
I think if we were to accurately represent Microsoft's position, it is "Screw old hardware, buy a new computer Designed For Windows XP(tm)"
Most budget-thin IT organizations already have desktops, legacy computer or not. I'd say their real message is "Windows XP(tm) can run on old machines too, so Linux is nothing special. When you do[, finally,] get new machines with Windows XP(tm) installed, just write off all those old machines. There's no reason to play with Linux on them and see what they can do for your organization. Buy MS Windows XP(tm) or Windows 2003(tm) for all your computer needs."
They're just playing the same game as the Linux community, who claims that Linux extends the life of old hardware, all while touting applications like OpenOffice and Firefox.
And MS touts applications like MS Word XP while claiming Windows runs on old hardware? The simple fact is that most any sane person wouldn't claim OpenOffice or Firefox would work well on legacy (read 486/586) hardware. This is mostly, at least for Firefox, due to the massive memory demands of web browsing (caching in memory to avoid thrashing, the actual rendering of pages, etc) and the fact that legacy hardware tends to not already have good chunks of memory and few people are willing to buy what is not specialty (ie expensive) ram to have more.
At least with Windows, there is a quite usable stack of desktop applications from 5-8 years ago, where that's not true with *nix.
True, and I'll be the first to admit that MS Word 95 (and Wordperfect of that era) is quite adequate for the environment, being much better than OpenOffice on legacy hardware. For that matter, Abiword would be a good option as well.
The simple fact is that Linux is touted as providing life to old hardware mostly for people who have legacy hardware in the closet or have given it away. They have it in the closet/give it away because even though MS Word 95 works perfectly fine on the old hardware, it's much nicer to use MS Word XP or OpenOffice on their non-legacy computer. But instead of simply dumping these computers, as they're no longer useful as a desktop system, Linux offers people the use of such hardware for *non-desktop* usage. Things like file servers (somewhat of a problem with hard drive limitations in old bioses), firewalls, and a variety of other non-desktop uses do give life to these old machines.
But even if you decide to give your box away anyways, you'll probably end up giving it to a place that has lots of other legacy hardware. And while it'd be possible, probably, to transfer your copy of Windows, MS Word, etc to them, it's not only a hassle to do the transfer but it's also a hassle to administrate the mixture of software that would be created on the several machines. So, the cheapest solution to resolve this is to use a Linux/*BSD distro designed for legacy hardware. Nothing short of Windows XP and 2K3, along with several MS Office tools, being free for such organizations would be likely to shift them from deeply considering, let alone using, Linux or other open source OSs.
Of course, the real apples to apples to comparison would be a $0 Linux distro vs a $0 Windows. I'm still waiting for that.:)
You're only partially right. Sony also makes plasma TVs and a lot of other high cost electronics. Dumping a few hundred plasma TVs into a harbor (or preferably off a high cliff into a barren area) would cause considerable loss. Sure, that might cause a somewhat conflicting message, but the whole intent is mainly to cause harm to the company involved. Of course, you could also try destroy CD production plants of Sony. That'd not send mixed signals.
Oh, and do note that I'm not suggesting to actually carry out such action. I think boycotting Sony is the better answer.
... whats all the fuss about? Cookies are incredibly harmless compared to everything else floating around the internets. Right?
The fuss, at least as far as I'm concerned, is that a) cookies are a means to spy on people and b) cookies can be used to abridge speech.
The first one is pretty simple to prove, as once cookies are allowed by the government, it's only a fraction of time before the members of the legislative and executive branches will conspire to track people who visit both sites. Why? Well, more than likely for reelection reasons. What better way to find out what people want or need than to track the interest of people in various laws as well as their actual usage of various governmental services. Even better, whoever is in power in the executive branch has the potential to do all of this for effectively free. This gives an incredibly unfair advantage to those in power to be reelected in the future.
But, equally as scary is the use of tracking to figure out hotspots that are anti your campaign. Instead of being able to anonymously read various bills that you support, it'd be possible to specifically target people through tracking and "free speech zones"--such are illegal, AFAI am concerned, anyways--to further distort public perception. The Founding Fathers might have never envisioned a 1984-esque world or thought the 4th amendment was necessary to prevent such, but when it's possible for the government to secretly monitor you (and seeing how cookies are on by default, with further the point that there was a guideline (and the Constitution) that made keeping cookies around for tracking), it's possible for the government to manipulate you or others.
So the big deal is stopping what would almost certainly happen if we just let the situation slide because it doesn't seem to be a big deal.
>>It would have been nicer if they make patches available as soon as possible with or without strong customer sentiment.
>Maybe it is just me, but 8 days for a tested patch does not seem that long.
Eight days to test a patch might not be long, but if after you've tested it for 8 days you decide to delay releasing the patch for 10 more days to make it easier on consumers, then you've got to recognize that you've got a pretty major problem that a) you're patching so often that such is an issue and b) your patching mechanism is so bad it's such a hassle to apply patches.
>However it was a 0 day which made this exploit special.
Actually, there's a major problem with that mentality. How do you know that this exploit is special? For all you know other exploits MS is sitting on and already has a tested patch for are being exploited *right now*. Even worse, because you've deluded yourself into believing that you not hearing about an exploit from the press pre-patch release means you can apply the patch without worry that your box isn't already rooted.
Of course, most people don't do a clean install over any patch, even if they're exploited by some program, unless it's utterly apparently necessary (ie, your computer is crashing so often you simply can't do anything). Why? Again, because it'd be such a hassle. Considering how many companies use Windows machines as front-ends to all sorts of data they probably don't want leaked out, it's amazing that Windows machines are even still accepted, regardless of how "necessary" Windows is. I guess it'll take a few high-profile cases of corporate espionage through non-press announced 0-day exploits for things to change.
Oh, and just to make it clear, this is just as much a problem in Linux. The biggest advantages Linux and any open source OS have going for them are they can be trimmed to a very minimal set of files, which reduces the chances of containing an exploitable file let alone providing a means to exploit it. The long term answer is probably verifying software, much like how OpenBSD was auditted multiple times. If I were a company, I'd really look into OpenBSD over all OSs.
"I have never made any agreement that I would not come into your home and take your stereo, or for that matter, that I would consider that particular home and stereo yours in the first place."
No, you didn't.
"What's ludicrous is to suggest intelectual property is inherently illegitamite because, like all property, it is based on societal conventions; or that it is bad because those conventions (laws) are backed up by "force", like all laws."
I said neither things, but thanks for jumping to conclusions. My point was that copyright isn't any sort of agreement entered into of my own free will, contrary to points raised. Further, my point was such a non-agreement was backed up by "force", again contrary to points raised.
The examples I used to demonstrate the illegitimacy of copyright (and patents) falled upon using examples of copying in the real world that are not covered under IP and pointing out that there's no innate logic extension for IP to exist. Instead, it sounded more like an issue of respecting the author of a work, but copyright doesn't even function in that capacity--the copyright owner, who may not be the author, has the powers discussed.
So in the end, the only argument that would fly at all, and which wasn't brought up, is that copyright/patent may lead to a net increase in quantity and/or quality of works which outweighs the social costs, just as there may be a net increase in societal well-being when there is punishment for initiating force against others which outweighs the social costs. While I'm inclined to agree with the latter, I choose to demand more proof for the former. This is primarily because while property is a physical good with quantifiable limits, a single peice of IP can extend in such enormous scope that the social impact can be quite staggering. Your opinion may differ, and you can certainly work towards retaining copyright.
Oh, and a small FYI, but I'm perfectly happy with trademarks being retained (though in a modified form*). So, I'm not against all types of IP. I realize that all laws are a form of trade-off, and the ability of government, through people, to censor a person while alone even while on their own private property through no choice of said person--think being unable to copy a book you borrowed--is a pretty staggering loss to me. Limited the naming of products only removes confusion, on the other hand, and its use is a good means of highlighting fraud.
*Note: The modified form I'm thinking of is a naming system by which the trademark is composed of the owner of the trademark and the title of a product. Subsidiaries and the intentional use of shell companies to allow for large companies to retain different company brand names would be void; that is, if for example Philip Morris tried to sell "Kraft Cheese Spread" somehow, it would become untrademarked, which would allow anyone to sell a product with such a name. It isn't very truthful, after all, to claim that Kraft still makes the cheese when no such company still exists.
'Withing the domain of a society...a society dada21. You can copy to your hearts content. You can't distribute copies to everyone you want. Nose, fists...remember?'
Wrong. It's illegal to go to a play and scrible down all the lines. It's just as illegal to take a legally bought play and perform it without paying the copyright owner of said play. Distribution is a large, but not the only, aspect of copyright. One final thing is that distributing copies doesn't involve anyone's nose or fist. By copying words or notes or dots of paint, the original is not removed. The only thing that is taken away is any claims of exclusion, but how can one claim it's perfectly okay to copy someone else's chair and sell it but that to copy their painting and sell it is not? Would it be okay to claim that it's the original? Of course not, but that's a question of attribution and fraud, not distribution.
'The "free advertising" argument ignores the "permission" aspect of copyright. It also sends a disrespectful message they doesn't give a damn about the artists by not even asking permission. Now is that how you'd like to be treated dada21?'
The same could be said of public domain works or works for which the original artist no longer owns the copyright. Even further, one could point at fair use. Weird Al might very well ask for permission to parody songs, out of respect, but he's in no way legally required. If copyright is all about getting permission and respect, then one should consider holding the idea of obeying one's parents and grandparents to heart. Certainly you owe more to your parents and grandparents than to some singer. You want to slap that into the lawbooks as well?
'"He who writes the code, sets the License"..Linus. There's also the issue of "contract law" and free will. A popular musician has of their own free will chose to sign with a record label. You spoke earlier abour private rights. Well people have the private right to enter into any agreement they wish, or not as the case may be. Some may be legal, some may not. That's why SOCIETY has created a legal structure to handle those issues.'
True, but while a musician has of their own free will entered into an agree with a record company, I never did. Software companies have the gall to not only copyright their software, but they keep pushing EULAs for which many judges have okayed simply because there's an option to return the software for a refund. If copyright were a contract between people instead of an enforced law over people who want no part in it, then I would agree. But even people who agree to copyright as was before the DMCA now have companies using DRM to push whatever control the desire, with the power to circumvent legitimate use because others might use the same technique to defeat the DRM; and in none of this are people even commiting piracy because they haven't even begun to distribute or perform.
'And not honoring the agreement you made when the content came into your possession is what exactly? You claimed to be an employer, so how do your workers feel when they work for you, and you tell them they might get paid, but doing so would violate your private rights?'
The only agreement I made was the exchange of pieces of paper for a plastic, aluminum, paper, and laquer disc with indentations on it that can be read by a special device in a means to produce music. To state that I also agreed to copyright simply because it is forced upon me, outside of any written contract or sign of free will, is ludicrous.
'No, copyright is an agreement between society and those who chose to create. You'll note that unlike true "force", no one makes a member of society enter into a reciprocal agreement with an artist. Just as there's no "force" making your employees work for you. "Force" much like the word "evil" is misused and overapplied. Please try to refrain from abusing it further.'
If there's a law that you can't step on blue squares on the sidewalk, and such only cover 30% of the land area and
So do you install the unofficial patch (link to previous/. article), or cross your fingers for a week?
The real answer, for any business with any concern for security (and thanks to various laws about leaking private information, there's a *lot* of companies that should be concerned), is to disconnect all Windows computers in the business from the internet. A less extreme version of this is to disconnect all Windows computers which will ever be touching private data without being wiped. Of course, with exploits out already, it's really too late for many businesses to just assume that no worms have been installed and a wipe is really necessary for all Windows machines which will touch private data.
Of course, in the real world few businesses are willing to do the right thing because the odds are still relatively low they'll be infected in a week's time and even if they were, it's probable that they'd choose the option to use a 3rd party patch. If even 5% of businesses were to regularly do the right thing, there'd be a severe domino effect in the market place which would almost certainly leader to laws of some sort; this would be a bad thing, IMHO, but government seems to step in when the economy suffers. It's a shame that TCO methodology doesn't include best security practices to determine the real cost of using software. But I guess they want to keep it realistic.:(
Don't be silly. Americans aren't very "consistent" in their desire for the US to respect other countries. It's only acceptable when it suits their own personal politics.. It doesn't matter which side the US came down on, the karma-whores and Americans on this site would have blamed the US.
" Ok. Let me get this straight. We don't want our government to abridge speech, but every other individual in the world (including people with malicious intent) can abridge speech (trespassing laws, not printing an article, paying people to not listen, etc)? Why is this a big deal? Don't like it? Then don't speak alltogether. It's not rocket science.
This is all messed up. We're basically giving more rights to malicious individuals than we are to government agencies. "
Okay, having done that, people aren't given rights by people. Rights are innate (creator innate or not). Government agenices are given privileges. When they overstep their privileges, they are punished. The reason this is a big deal is that persistent cookie tracking is just on the border of violating the fourth amendment. To avoid possibly overstepping this bound, by intentionally getting more data than was necessary or having a deal with a private company to collect data without a warrant, a guideline was put in place that would hamper attempts to do anything of the kind. That guideline was broken, so the NSA should be punished, regardless of if it actually violated the fourth amendment.
And to an extent, you're right that this isn't a huge deal in itself. It's just that this with the wiretapping makes people very suspicious that the NSA intentionally was leaving permanent cookies and was very likely violating the fourth amendment here too.
It's similar to being lied to by your child that they've been taking your favorite lemon candies and finally catching them, then discovering later that your next to favorite chocolate candies were recently openned by the same child. It's something at least worthy of an investigation, and if you told your child not to open them, something definitely worthy of punishment.
>Since drugs like Marijuana have no medical purpose (according to the federal gov't) any use = abuse.
Yes, well, we all know how well the federal gov't is admitting that it make a mistake about a drug and is willing to revoke its stance upon reading medical journals and seeing many proactive states, who have read said journals, make some medical use of marijuana available. Oh, wait, I forgot..the federal gov't dragged such laws to the Supreme Court which somehow distorted "interstate commerce" to activities that occur entirely within the state 'cause, you know, smoking marijuana might mean not buying other medicine, and that'll effect interstate commerce. <sarcasm>*Great* basis for why the federal gov't has any business in a state affair, btw...</sarcasm>
>I also take issue with your contention that "the only difference between abuse and use is whether or not a Doctor wrote you a prescription." That is such a load of crap.
Any use without a prescription is considered abuse. No matter how much you contend the likelihood that use without a prescription is abuse, from a legal perspective he's spot on.
>>How can someone consider themself free if they don't have basic sovereignty over their own body?
>I guess the threat of going to jail for breaking laws like... i dunno... shooting heroin & smoking crack, means none of us are free?
Yep. The same sort of lack of freedom that comes with banning cursing in Russian. It's funny how arsenic and all sorts of poisons aren't banned for sale but heroin and crack are. I guess it's gov'ts way of saying they don't mind if you kill yourself straight out, but if end up abusing drugs and then commiting crimes to continue the habit, we should just ban all such drugs in general.
>Drugs like Ketamine, Extacy, LSD, GHB and a variety of others were banned because they were abused by the party crowd. Not because they had no legitimate uses.
Woopie. I guess we should also ban shouting "Fire" in a theater even when there's a fire because, you know, people might abuse their speech.
And the answer to this is simple. Compression removes redundant data. In that space where redundant data would have gone, you can include some par2 files. Together the par2 files and compressed data will take up less total sectors, more than likely. Now, assuming that the odds of having a bad sector are fixed, using less total sectors while still having a means of correcting for bad sectors greatly increases the odds that not only that you won't have a problem but that if you have a problem there won't be any data loss. Tack onto this the fact that if by compressing it you can make two copies on two separate DVDs instead of making one copy spread out on two DVDs, and you've greatly increased your odds that you won't suffer partial data loss.
Now, if you were talking about an analog source, I'd have a much better understanding of why you'd be against digitizing and compressing it. But then analog is innately more fault tolerant.
The stats would seem to indicate that murder isn't nearly as prevelent as underage drinking--underage Drinking seems to be at some large percentage or as low as 1% for daily drinking while homicide seems to be at ~0.006%. So, I'd take issue with any claim about the rate of murder, which seems to be your prime point.
Having said that, I don't believe the laws have much to do with it. It's very hard to detect underage drinking, a good percentage of adults and kids don't think much of at least *some* underage drinking, and certainly the reprocussions of responsible drinking aren't nearly as severe as murder. Laws tend to be in place to punish people after the fact, not before the fact. When laws do apply, so often do social constraints. It's only the psychopaths that only have law as their restraint, and for them I'd imagine their only real limitation is the likelihood of being caught. For that, underage drinking would be the supreme crime since it's incredibly easy for an underage person to violate it daily if they're left unsupervised and have access to alcohol--think college.
Having said all that, I'm against any age restrictions on alcohol, tobacco, etc not because I like the idea of kids using them but because it's not the position of government to prevent kids from using chemicals. It's the responsibility of parents, just as much as all sorts of cleaners are even more deadily and there's no laws to prevent sale of such to minors. You can easily extend this to all sorts of things.
Now, you might say "but kids will buy porn", except they do it already. And it's not the threat of cops that keeps porn mags behind the counter or keeps the shop owner quiet about selling them to minors (usually kids steal/borrow mags from others); it's the threat of shoppers boycotting the store which keeps the shop owner in check. Even Wal-Mart is under such pressures, and they're a behemoth. Without shoppers Wal-Mart would go under. The only place I could imagine would stay open is adult shops, but they'd still probably not want to piss off the zoning board.
>Just because you disagree with the EULA as stated, does not inherently mean that you don't want to use the software.
Yes, but the whole point of the contract/EULA is to have proof of that. From a legal standpoint, you don't want to claim "well the person obviously wanted it" when there is no sign that such is so.
>If the company is providing the software to you after you've disagreed with their 'terms' then the question is: are they allowing you to use the software sans restrictions?
Yes. First sale doctrine includes the obvious provision that buying a copy of a copyrighted work (and that's what you did when you bought that CD) entails the innate right to use said work. And direct use of the work (ie, not as a side-effect of playing the music or simply doing some other activity that the software monitors) could probably be used a sign one wanted it installed--good luck proving that.
Yes and no. You see, there's state and federal laws against computer trespassing. This means that if there's any legitimate use for an EULA, it's to basically indemnify the company by making it clear that the user intentionally installed software. This means that if software is installed regardless, there's a valid basis for computer trespassing--note, this is true if one manages to bypass the EULA, as well. Computer trespassing laws are generally very vague and badly written, so only something like an EULA really will protect an entity from prosecution under them. At least in this case, were someone was specifically presented the EULA and did not agree to it while software is installed anyways, there's no way to somehow misinterpret the letter or the spirit of the law to not take it as computer trespassing, unlike with intentionally bypassing or hacking an EULA to install software without agreeing to it.
>>A better analogy is: if atheism is a religion, then mocking stamp collectors is a hobby.
>Mocking stamp collectors certainly could be a hobby because at least it's an action/activity, and not simply the absence of one.
I know. I was stating that atheism is a religion and was using an example of a hobby that stamp collector haters might carry out. This is true for atheists I know of, but it's not true of all atheists, and atheism isn't a religion for some. Of course, with the first statement false, the latter statement can be whatever one chooses. It doesn't make my analogy better.
>>To state a belief in a God or to state a belief in a lack of God is a religious belief.
>Fine as far as it goes, but if you really don't see that this is a false dichotomy,... well, I'll draw it out from the start: A belief in the lack of (a) God is not the same as the simple lack of a belief in (a) God.
I'll agree it's a false dichotomy in the same way that it's a false dichotomy to say a ripe apple is red or not red based without considering that there are blind people for which the apple has no color. My point wasn't to draw a dichotomy, only to point out that a belief or anti-belief in a supernatural being is religious. Those without a belief of any kind are still atheist and hence makes atheism not a religion.
>It seems to me a more useful definition of "religious" is any belief that's based only on faith, or at least which is inextricably tied in with faith. Belief based solely on evidence (and along with that, absence of belief based on lack of evidence) is, again I assert, something different and surely not religious.
Any belief in knowledge of the supernatural is faith, simply based on the fact that the supernatural is unobservable. Hence, any belief in knowledge of the supernatural is a type of religion. This can mean one can hold multiple religions at the same time (belief in Santa and God, for example, as held by a child). Usually a person tries to resolve their religious beliefs to create a form of community or heiarchy to remove inconsistencies. In any case, evidence which by definition arises from the natural is not a form of religion nor did I ever imply such.
"If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby."
Funny quote, but it's wrong. A better analogy is: if atheism is a religion, then mocking stamp collectors is a hobby. To state a belief in a God or to state a belief in a lack of God is a religious belief. Therefore such is religion. Agnosticism may be a religion, as it states an inability to for certain know if there is a God. Simply put, any sort of belief related to supernatural beings, for or against, is religious.
Now, whether you alone or with others discuss this belief or use it as a basis to mock/convert others would determine whether you're following a religious practice. In this part, one can say that one can be atheist or agnostic without religious practice, but a Christian cannot be without religious practice. To that end, the fundamental problem with the quote is that it attributes religion with activities one carries out, when it is the case that one can be religious without any activity at all.
Free market religionists would scream bloody murder if you seriously talked about "forcing" any company to do anything (besides maybe "don't murder people").
Mostly true, but there's an interesting side-point that should be brought up.
the only two entities with the power and potential to step up to the bat-- the public school system and Microsoft-- aren't interested.
Now, forgetting the public school system, for similar reasons to what you listed, your point of bringing up Microsoft is quite excellent. You see, Microsoft is charging OEMs on the order of $80/machine for Windows. But the fact is that once the OEM gets one master copy, it's the only one who actually loses anything in the production of Windows/Restore CDs (along with the time to install to the HD).
The real free market answer is to abolish copyright, since the real production price for Dell is only on the order of $0.25. Further, for all those users who want a CD, they can just buy a copy from someone else for $1 or so. In the free market, Dell wouldn't be paying Microsoft much of anything and while there still might not be OEMs that include a Windows CD, there'd be surely a lot of places selling them for cheap (me included). The fact that there's such a huge disconnect between the production price and sale price is the chief reason Microsoft has the money to educate people and is precisely why they go out of their way to not educate people. With Microsoft outside of this position of power, there would be a lot of smaller publishers who would push educating users to try to sell them something.
Oh, and in case you're someone who believes that copyright should still exist, then consider that the Windows binary is a tool but the Windows source is an expression of an idea. Whether this idea would be best to extend to plays and songs isn't clear to me. The fact that one can functional directly transcribe the form of something without creativity is what has leaved me to believe that all copyright is a tool and hence unworthy of any sort of long-term monopolistic protection.
But what is the standard deviation? My point was more that there aren't hotspots with overly inflated prices, like Tokyo, Silicon Valley, or Redmond. Prices in Silicon Valley, a prime example, are insane compared to where I live (the Midwest). A simple example is that the median price of a house in Silicon Valley is around $700,000 (http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/13 422709.htm). In comparison, the price of a house in the Midwest is in the $100,000-$200,000 range as median.
With a little math (ie, assuming a 30 year morgage), it's possible to show that one has to pay 3.5x as much in Silicon Valley for the house alone (ie, ~$1400 more per month). Take into account things like property tax and higher prices for food due to high property rates or driving farther, hence using more gas, to go to stores that aren't on high cost real estate, and clearly there's a price premium for living in a specific location when there's no real sign that it's even worthwhile (if it were, India outsourcing wouldn't make sense; New Delphi outsourcing might).
Now, if a lot of businesses started hiring across the US, I'm sure wages would increase. But it'd be a more uniform increase without massive spikes over land prices; companies could just move if a county/state was trying to shaft them. And in the end, more uniform hiring across a country does end up improving the whole country, instead of hot spots (like California) having federal funds be the method of redistributing wealth. So, it's great news that average India wages are increasing. There's room to hire in the rural US as well.
One of the basic reasons that a US programmer is expensive is because the education is expensive.
I'd have to disagree. The basic reason that a US programmer is expensive is that the standard of living in the US is a lot higher, especially in the locations where most corporations have setup shop. This is hardly surprising, given that in the past programmers were a relatively rare commodity and so they developed rather exaggerative salaries (dotcom bubble). Further, companies had to be in larger metrapolitain areas to be take seriously or cities virtually grew around many corporations that clustured together. As a result, the communities they live in/move to have gained rather distorted salary demands due to property rates. Simply moving a corporation to the middle of nowhere would greatly reduce salary demands of the *many* people who are interested in a job. This is the basis for calls to "outsource to rural America".
It sounds like in India it is the case that many people are unwilling to move from where the live but the population density is so high that one can basically go anywhere and find enough people to form a development team. As a result, there isn't a sharp rise in salary demands because the excess spending money of these programmers ends up being distributed around the country instead of a few hotspots.
A similar idea could be constructed in the US by simply locating a broad area with programmers and setting up multiple development houses spread out across the area. Think of it as software franchising. Such places would then be capable of meeting the demands of one or more companies in projects--whether it'd be better if each franchise only served one company or was effectively a contractor isn't clear to me. This alone would greatly reduce the rates of development costs in the US. In the end, the greater wealth of India and shortage of programmers there (long-term ones, I mean) will require some means of utilizing the relatively untapped multitude of individuals who need not live in the most expensive parts of the US. I think outsourcing to both areas is a good idea.
Everything you listed in your list has occurred or is occuring in the US (sedition laws for virtually every war and sometimes without a war). It's sadly the case that a Bill of Rights hasn't done a heck of a lot to stop the abuse of power. This is hardly surprising, when the only resolution is an armed revolt--waiting the several years for a court to eventually hear a case to have the law voided doesn't undo the violation of rights. The simple fact is that the USA was supposed to be a Constitutional Republic, where the Federal government had only the powers specifically granted to it and the states contained within had a similar mandate. But "feature creep" has drastically changed the USA into a country where one has to point to where specific, enumerated rights are violated to have any chance of overturning a law. This was not the intent of the Bill of Rights. It was ment solely as a guide to have some clue when law was being overly broad in its finite powers.
I'd agree in a way, but consider things like encryption. Good encryption is about only keeping the most minimal amount of information hidden yet still making it incredibly difficult to game the system. So, just like page ranking was designed in part to avoid gaming the system, so too should the adwords algorithm.
At some point, of course, you can't avoid people gaming the system. Perhaps with an open algorithm, however, they could have the whole academic community take part in tweaking it to make it not worth most people's while.
Oh, and no, I'm not pro forcing the opening of the algorithm. If all their exporting is functionality, then there isn't a basis upon which to demand seeing code.
>>It is the simple case that federal agents and cops are there not to prevent crimes but to respond after the fact.
>Conspiring to commit a crime is a crime. That argument is going to be circular. How can you prevent a crime until conspiracy to commit a crime has occurred, and then of course it is too late.
You obviously don't understand what conspiracy is. Conspiracy is the action to two or more people to bring about an illegal act. Me alone shouting "bomb" or any other speech cannot be conspiracy. It could be possibly construed to "attempting to" or "threatening to", both of which have come to be crimes at times.
>>But the second they discover you do not have a bomb, they have no basis to stop you from shouting "Bomb" to your hearts content.
>Let's conduct an experiment: Go to the airport; don't carry a bomb; shout bomb. When they discover you have no bomb, see if they just let you go. Explain to the judge your rantings on the 1st amendment.
They'll almost certainly arrest you for "disorderly conduct" or "creating a public nuisance". Such laws fall under the same scope as loitering laws. Ie, people were upset that other people were doing things they disliked, so they created local ordinances to circumvent all sorts of rights. Don't like the homeless sitting on the sidewalk outside your business? Don't offer them a job (or some other legal and moral act that would move them). Just call the cops to have them arrested. Soon they'll learn that the only places not considered loitering is under bridges and other out of the way places where they won't "blemish" the good image of your city.
So, yeah for courts coming up with bullshit loopholes to circumvent rights detailed in the first amendment. Just because the cops and courts carry out an act doesn't make it moral or even legal. It's just how the system works at the moment.
You're attempting to shift responsibility of speech to the audience, not the speaker. That's blatantly wrong.
Not blatantly. Only in cases of fraud is there any reason to limit speech.
No one has a right to say exactly what they want, when they want, and how they want 100% of the time without consequence.
Yes, just 99% of the time, for most people.
If I yell "Bomb" in an airport, can I tell the federal agents that have my neck in a knot that I was just trying to get to the front of the line?
You bring up an interesting point, actually. Federal agents aren't required, any more than cops, to respond to you yelling "Bomb". By required, I mean by law. It is the simple case that federal agents and cops are there not to prevent crimes but to respond after the fact. This concept is even recognized in the court system, where only a person who has standing (ie, a person who has already been effected) can contest a law.
The fact that federal agents choose to respond and try to arrest you extends from the 4th amendment. That is, you shouting "Bomb" gives them probable cause to search you. But the second they discover you do not have a bomb, they have no basis to stop you from shouting "Bomb" to your hearts content. The same holds true for shouting "Fire" in a theater, except in this case the people who must determine if a fire exists are the audience.
Yes, courts have ruled that "eminent threat" is a justification for surpressing speech, yet it's clearly the case that "eminent threat" is purely a basis for a search. While it might have made sense, in the eyes of some judges, to punish those who caused stampedes to make people happy, clearly it's the case that today there is tons of regulation about fire exits, fire alarms, etc that mitigate the risk of shouting "Fire" anyways; I'd even be inclined to state that the stampedes killing people is a sign of faulty design and more a case of a civil case of wrongful death of the establishment than any legal wrong doing of the shouter--in a real fire, the same sort of stampede would have occured, so clearly at some point said owner would be sued anyways when a "real" fire occurred.
Now, having said all this, you might think I'm against holding individuals accountable. That's hardly the case. Instead, it should be recognized that theaters, airports, etc are private establishments. Those who do speak in ways that the proprietor does not like can be permanently banned and later charged with trespassing if they try to step on their property. Accountability over words are in most cases best handled through speech or already existing law--shunning, be it by family or businesses. While it might feel "great" to have a law for every asshole who yells out obscenities or yells vaguely threatening remarks, if it can be established that such people are no real threat, then there is no reason to stop them from speaking. If neighborhoods do not want outsiders yelling on their streets, they should own them so they can kick people out.
It is the simple fact that societal constraints backed by property law are able to keep 95%+ of the people from doing clearly criminal acts (2-3% of people are in jails, so I'm giving a wide margin of error). People should be accountable for their speech. That doesn't mean there should be laws to specifically hold them accountable.
Except in most games the character is very gender neutral. The fact that Lara Croft has a collection of polygons shaped to look like tits really doesn't have much effect on gameplay. Even things like flirting with people wouldn't necessitate having specific sex organs. And I'm not sure woman or men would actually like most games turning into nothing less than a dating sim.
So, continue the gender neutral stuff. And make a few more of those otherwise gender neutral characters female instead of male, just because. The simple fact that there aren't 100s of other Samuses out there is the only major point in gaming. If the main character was female was utterly common, Lara Croft and Samus Aran would probably be only vaguely remembered by name, though as history. Do you even remember the name of the last five male lead characters in the last five games you've played? I know it'd take me a while to remember.
Slashdot Mirror
This is targetted at budget-thin IT organzations who may believe that Linux gives them more with less. Only it doesn't -- it works, it's updated, but it's inferior desktop compared to your legacy Windows install.
I think if we were to accurately represent Microsoft's position, it is "Screw old hardware, buy a new computer Designed For Windows XP(tm)"
Most budget-thin IT organizations already have desktops, legacy computer or not. I'd say their real message is "Windows XP(tm) can run on old machines too, so Linux is nothing special. When you do[, finally,] get new machines with Windows XP(tm) installed, just write off all those old machines. There's no reason to play with Linux on them and see what they can do for your organization. Buy MS Windows XP(tm) or Windows 2003(tm) for all your computer needs."
They're just playing the same game as the Linux community, who claims that Linux extends the life of old hardware, all while touting applications like OpenOffice and Firefox.
:)
And MS touts applications like MS Word XP while claiming Windows runs on old hardware? The simple fact is that most any sane person wouldn't claim OpenOffice or Firefox would work well on legacy (read 486/586) hardware. This is mostly, at least for Firefox, due to the massive memory demands of web browsing (caching in memory to avoid thrashing, the actual rendering of pages, etc) and the fact that legacy hardware tends to not already have good chunks of memory and few people are willing to buy what is not specialty (ie expensive) ram to have more.
At least with Windows, there is a quite usable stack of desktop applications from 5-8 years ago, where that's not true with *nix.
True, and I'll be the first to admit that MS Word 95 (and Wordperfect of that era) is quite adequate for the environment, being much better than OpenOffice on legacy hardware. For that matter, Abiword would be a good option as well.
The simple fact is that Linux is touted as providing life to old hardware mostly for people who have legacy hardware in the closet or have given it away. They have it in the closet/give it away because even though MS Word 95 works perfectly fine on the old hardware, it's much nicer to use MS Word XP or OpenOffice on their non-legacy computer. But instead of simply dumping these computers, as they're no longer useful as a desktop system, Linux offers people the use of such hardware for *non-desktop* usage. Things like file servers (somewhat of a problem with hard drive limitations in old bioses), firewalls, and a variety of other non-desktop uses do give life to these old machines.
But even if you decide to give your box away anyways, you'll probably end up giving it to a place that has lots of other legacy hardware. And while it'd be possible, probably, to transfer your copy of Windows, MS Word, etc to them, it's not only a hassle to do the transfer but it's also a hassle to administrate the mixture of software that would be created on the several machines. So, the cheapest solution to resolve this is to use a Linux/*BSD distro designed for legacy hardware. Nothing short of Windows XP and 2K3, along with several MS Office tools, being free for such organizations would be likely to shift them from deeply considering, let alone using, Linux or other open source OSs.
Of course, the real apples to apples to comparison would be a $0 Linux distro vs a $0 Windows. I'm still waiting for that.
You're only partially right. Sony also makes plasma TVs and a lot of other high cost electronics. Dumping a few hundred plasma TVs into a harbor (or preferably off a high cliff into a barren area) would cause considerable loss. Sure, that might cause a somewhat conflicting message, but the whole intent is mainly to cause harm to the company involved. Of course, you could also try destroy CD production plants of Sony. That'd not send mixed signals.
Oh, and do note that I'm not suggesting to actually carry out such action. I think boycotting Sony is the better answer.
... whats all the fuss about? Cookies are incredibly harmless compared to everything else floating around the internets. Right?
The fuss, at least as far as I'm concerned, is that a) cookies are a means to spy on people and b) cookies can be used to abridge speech.
The first one is pretty simple to prove, as once cookies are allowed by the government, it's only a fraction of time before the members of the legislative and executive branches will conspire to track people who visit both sites. Why? Well, more than likely for reelection reasons. What better way to find out what people want or need than to track the interest of people in various laws as well as their actual usage of various governmental services. Even better, whoever is in power in the executive branch has the potential to do all of this for effectively free. This gives an incredibly unfair advantage to those in power to be reelected in the future.
But, equally as scary is the use of tracking to figure out hotspots that are anti your campaign. Instead of being able to anonymously read various bills that you support, it'd be possible to specifically target people through tracking and "free speech zones"--such are illegal, AFAI am concerned, anyways--to further distort public perception. The Founding Fathers might have never envisioned a 1984-esque world or thought the 4th amendment was necessary to prevent such, but when it's possible for the government to secretly monitor you (and seeing how cookies are on by default, with further the point that there was a guideline (and the Constitution) that made keeping cookies around for tracking), it's possible for the government to manipulate you or others.
So the big deal is stopping what would almost certainly happen if we just let the situation slide because it doesn't seem to be a big deal.
>>It would have been nicer if they make patches available as soon as possible with or without strong customer sentiment.
>Maybe it is just me, but 8 days for a tested patch does not seem that long.
Eight days to test a patch might not be long, but if after you've tested it for 8 days you decide to delay releasing the patch for 10 more days to make it easier on consumers, then you've got to recognize that you've got a pretty major problem that a) you're patching so often that such is an issue and b) your patching mechanism is so bad it's such a hassle to apply patches.
>However it was a 0 day which made this exploit special.
Actually, there's a major problem with that mentality. How do you know that this exploit is special? For all you know other exploits MS is sitting on and already has a tested patch for are being exploited *right now*. Even worse, because you've deluded yourself into believing that you not hearing about an exploit from the press pre-patch release means you can apply the patch without worry that your box isn't already rooted.
Of course, most people don't do a clean install over any patch, even if they're exploited by some program, unless it's utterly apparently necessary (ie, your computer is crashing so often you simply can't do anything). Why? Again, because it'd be such a hassle. Considering how many companies use Windows machines as front-ends to all sorts of data they probably don't want leaked out, it's amazing that Windows machines are even still accepted, regardless of how "necessary" Windows is. I guess it'll take a few high-profile cases of corporate espionage through non-press announced 0-day exploits for things to change.
Oh, and just to make it clear, this is just as much a problem in Linux. The biggest advantages Linux and any open source OS have going for them are they can be trimmed to a very minimal set of files, which reduces the chances of containing an exploitable file let alone providing a means to exploit it. The long term answer is probably verifying software, much like how OpenBSD was auditted multiple times. If I were a company, I'd really look into OpenBSD over all OSs.
"I have never made any agreement that I would not come into your home and take your stereo, or for that matter, that I would consider that particular home and stereo yours in the first place."
No, you didn't.
"What's ludicrous is to suggest intelectual property is inherently illegitamite because, like all property, it is based on societal conventions; or that it is bad because those conventions (laws) are backed up by "force", like all laws."
I said neither things, but thanks for jumping to conclusions. My point was that copyright isn't any sort of agreement entered into of my own free will, contrary to points raised. Further, my point was such a non-agreement was backed up by "force", again contrary to points raised.
The examples I used to demonstrate the illegitimacy of copyright (and patents) falled upon using examples of copying in the real world that are not covered under IP and pointing out that there's no innate logic extension for IP to exist. Instead, it sounded more like an issue of respecting the author of a work, but copyright doesn't even function in that capacity--the copyright owner, who may not be the author, has the powers discussed.
So in the end, the only argument that would fly at all, and which wasn't brought up, is that copyright/patent may lead to a net increase in quantity and/or quality of works which outweighs the social costs, just as there may be a net increase in societal well-being when there is punishment for initiating force against others which outweighs the social costs. While I'm inclined to agree with the latter, I choose to demand more proof for the former. This is primarily because while property is a physical good with quantifiable limits, a single peice of IP can extend in such enormous scope that the social impact can be quite staggering. Your opinion may differ, and you can certainly work towards retaining copyright.
Oh, and a small FYI, but I'm perfectly happy with trademarks being retained (though in a modified form*). So, I'm not against all types of IP. I realize that all laws are a form of trade-off, and the ability of government, through people, to censor a person while alone even while on their own private property through no choice of said person--think being unable to copy a book you borrowed--is a pretty staggering loss to me. Limited the naming of products only removes confusion, on the other hand, and its use is a good means of highlighting fraud.
*Note: The modified form I'm thinking of is a naming system by which the trademark is composed of the owner of the trademark and the title of a product. Subsidiaries and the intentional use of shell companies to allow for large companies to retain different company brand names would be void; that is, if for example Philip Morris tried to sell "Kraft Cheese Spread" somehow, it would become untrademarked, which would allow anyone to sell a product with such a name. It isn't very truthful, after all, to claim that Kraft still makes the cheese when no such company still exists.
'Withing the domain of a society...a society dada21. You can copy to your hearts content. You can't distribute copies to everyone you want. Nose, fists...remember?'
Wrong. It's illegal to go to a play and scrible down all the lines. It's just as illegal to take a legally bought play and perform it without paying the copyright owner of said play. Distribution is a large, but not the only, aspect of copyright. One final thing is that distributing copies doesn't involve anyone's nose or fist. By copying words or notes or dots of paint, the original is not removed. The only thing that is taken away is any claims of exclusion, but how can one claim it's perfectly okay to copy someone else's chair and sell it but that to copy their painting and sell it is not? Would it be okay to claim that it's the original? Of course not, but that's a question of attribution and fraud, not distribution.
'The "free advertising" argument ignores the "permission" aspect of copyright. It also sends a disrespectful message they doesn't give a damn about the artists by not even asking permission. Now is that how you'd like to be treated dada21?'
The same could be said of public domain works or works for which the original artist no longer owns the copyright. Even further, one could point at fair use. Weird Al might very well ask for permission to parody songs, out of respect, but he's in no way legally required. If copyright is all about getting permission and respect, then one should consider holding the idea of obeying one's parents and grandparents to heart. Certainly you owe more to your parents and grandparents than to some singer. You want to slap that into the lawbooks as well?
'"He who writes the code, sets the License"..Linus. There's also the issue of "contract law" and free will. A popular musician has of their own free will chose to sign with a record label. You spoke earlier abour private rights. Well people have the private right to enter into any agreement they wish, or not as the case may be. Some may be legal, some may not. That's why SOCIETY has created a legal structure to handle those issues.'
True, but while a musician has of their own free will entered into an agree with a record company, I never did. Software companies have the gall to not only copyright their software, but they keep pushing EULAs for which many judges have okayed simply because there's an option to return the software for a refund. If copyright were a contract between people instead of an enforced law over people who want no part in it, then I would agree. But even people who agree to copyright as was before the DMCA now have companies using DRM to push whatever control the desire, with the power to circumvent legitimate use because others might use the same technique to defeat the DRM; and in none of this are people even commiting piracy because they haven't even begun to distribute or perform.
'And not honoring the agreement you made when the content came into your possession is what exactly? You claimed to be an employer, so how do your workers feel when they work for you, and you tell them they might get paid, but doing so would violate your private rights?'
The only agreement I made was the exchange of pieces of paper for a plastic, aluminum, paper, and laquer disc with indentations on it that can be read by a special device in a means to produce music. To state that I also agreed to copyright simply because it is forced upon me, outside of any written contract or sign of free will, is ludicrous.
'No, copyright is an agreement between society and those who chose to create. You'll note that unlike true "force", no one makes a member of society enter into a reciprocal agreement with an artist. Just as there's no "force" making your employees work for you. "Force" much like the word "evil" is misused and overapplied. Please try to refrain from abusing it further.'
If there's a law that you can't step on blue squares on the sidewalk, and such only cover 30% of the land area and
So do you install the unofficial patch (link to previous /. article), or cross your fingers for a week?
:(
The real answer, for any business with any concern for security (and thanks to various laws about leaking private information, there's a *lot* of companies that should be concerned), is to disconnect all Windows computers in the business from the internet. A less extreme version of this is to disconnect all Windows computers which will ever be touching private data without being wiped. Of course, with exploits out already, it's really too late for many businesses to just assume that no worms have been installed and a wipe is really necessary for all Windows machines which will touch private data.
Of course, in the real world few businesses are willing to do the right thing because the odds are still relatively low they'll be infected in a week's time and even if they were, it's probable that they'd choose the option to use a 3rd party patch. If even 5% of businesses were to regularly do the right thing, there'd be a severe domino effect in the market place which would almost certainly leader to laws of some sort; this would be a bad thing, IMHO, but government seems to step in when the economy suffers. It's a shame that TCO methodology doesn't include best security practices to determine the real cost of using software. But I guess they want to keep it realistic.
Don't be silly. Americans aren't very "consistent" in their desire for the US to respect other countries. It's only acceptable when it suits their own personal politics.. It doesn't matter which side the US came down on, the karma-whores and Americans on this site would have blamed the US.
Fixed that for you.
"
Ok. Let me get this straight. We don't want our government to abridge speech, but every other individual in the world (including people with malicious intent) can abridge speech (trespassing laws, not printing an article, paying people to not listen, etc)? Why is this a big deal? Don't like it? Then don't speak alltogether. It's not rocket science.
This is all messed up. We're basically giving more rights to malicious individuals than we are to government agencies.
"
Okay, having done that, people aren't given rights by people. Rights are innate (creator innate or not). Government agenices are given privileges. When they overstep their privileges, they are punished. The reason this is a big deal is that persistent cookie tracking is just on the border of violating the fourth amendment. To avoid possibly overstepping this bound, by intentionally getting more data than was necessary or having a deal with a private company to collect data without a warrant, a guideline was put in place that would hamper attempts to do anything of the kind. That guideline was broken, so the NSA should be punished, regardless of if it actually violated the fourth amendment.
And to an extent, you're right that this isn't a huge deal in itself. It's just that this with the wiretapping makes people very suspicious that the NSA intentionally was leaving permanent cookies and was very likely violating the fourth amendment here too.
It's similar to being lied to by your child that they've been taking your favorite lemon candies and finally catching them, then discovering later that your next to favorite chocolate candies were recently openned by the same child. It's something at least worthy of an investigation, and if you told your child not to open them, something definitely worthy of punishment.
>Since drugs like Marijuana have no medical purpose (according to the federal gov't) any use = abuse.
Yes, well, we all know how well the federal gov't is admitting that it make a mistake about a drug and is willing to revoke its stance upon reading medical journals and seeing many proactive states, who have read said journals, make some medical use of marijuana available. Oh, wait, I forgot..the federal gov't dragged such laws to the Supreme Court which somehow distorted "interstate commerce" to activities that occur entirely within the state 'cause, you know, smoking marijuana might mean not buying other medicine, and that'll effect interstate commerce. <sarcasm>*Great* basis for why the federal gov't has any business in a state affair, btw...</sarcasm>
>I also take issue with your contention that "the only difference between abuse and use is whether or not a Doctor wrote you a prescription." That is such a load of crap.
Any use without a prescription is considered abuse. No matter how much you contend the likelihood that use without a prescription is abuse, from a legal perspective he's spot on.
>>How can someone consider themself free if they don't have basic sovereignty over their own body?
>I guess the threat of going to jail for breaking laws like... i dunno... shooting heroin & smoking crack, means none of us are free?
Yep. The same sort of lack of freedom that comes with banning cursing in Russian. It's funny how arsenic and all sorts of poisons aren't banned for sale but heroin and crack are. I guess it's gov'ts way of saying they don't mind if you kill yourself straight out, but if end up abusing drugs and then commiting crimes to continue the habit, we should just ban all such drugs in general.
>Drugs like Ketamine, Extacy, LSD, GHB and a variety of others were banned because they were abused by the party crowd. Not because they had no legitimate uses.
Woopie. I guess we should also ban shouting "Fire" in a theater even when there's a fire because, you know, people might abuse their speech.
And the answer to this is simple. Compression removes redundant data. In that space where redundant data would have gone, you can include some par2 files. Together the par2 files and compressed data will take up less total sectors, more than likely. Now, assuming that the odds of having a bad sector are fixed, using less total sectors while still having a means of correcting for bad sectors greatly increases the odds that not only that you won't have a problem but that if you have a problem there won't be any data loss. Tack onto this the fact that if by compressing it you can make two copies on two separate DVDs instead of making one copy spread out on two DVDs, and you've greatly increased your odds that you won't suffer partial data loss.
Now, if you were talking about an analog source, I'd have a much better understanding of why you'd be against digitizing and compressing it. But then analog is innately more fault tolerant.
We have laws against murder - that is not working too well either.
Uh...
Homicide Stats
Underage Drinking Stats
The stats would seem to indicate that murder isn't nearly as prevelent as underage drinking--underage Drinking seems to be at some large percentage or as low as 1% for daily drinking while homicide seems to be at ~0.006%. So, I'd take issue with any claim about the rate of murder, which seems to be your prime point.
Having said that, I don't believe the laws have much to do with it. It's very hard to detect underage drinking, a good percentage of adults and kids don't think much of at least *some* underage drinking, and certainly the reprocussions of responsible drinking aren't nearly as severe as murder. Laws tend to be in place to punish people after the fact, not before the fact. When laws do apply, so often do social constraints. It's only the psychopaths that only have law as their restraint, and for them I'd imagine their only real limitation is the likelihood of being caught. For that, underage drinking would be the supreme crime since it's incredibly easy for an underage person to violate it daily if they're left unsupervised and have access to alcohol--think college.
Having said all that, I'm against any age restrictions on alcohol, tobacco, etc not because I like the idea of kids using them but because it's not the position of government to prevent kids from using chemicals. It's the responsibility of parents, just as much as all sorts of cleaners are even more deadily and there's no laws to prevent sale of such to minors. You can easily extend this to all sorts of things.
Now, you might say "but kids will buy porn", except they do it already. And it's not the threat of cops that keeps porn mags behind the counter or keeps the shop owner quiet about selling them to minors (usually kids steal/borrow mags from others); it's the threat of shoppers boycotting the store which keeps the shop owner in check. Even Wal-Mart is under such pressures, and they're a behemoth. Without shoppers Wal-Mart would go under. The only place I could imagine would stay open is adult shops, but they'd still probably not want to piss off the zoning board.
>Just because you disagree with the EULA as stated, does not inherently mean that you don't want to use the software.
Yes, but the whole point of the contract/EULA is to have proof of that. From a legal standpoint, you don't want to claim "well the person obviously wanted it" when there is no sign that such is so.
>If the company is providing the software to you after you've disagreed with their 'terms' then the question is: are they allowing you to use the software sans restrictions?
Yes. First sale doctrine includes the obvious provision that buying a copy of a copyrighted work (and that's what you did when you bought that CD) entails the innate right to use said work. And direct use of the work (ie, not as a side-effect of playing the music or simply doing some other activity that the software monitors) could probably be used a sign one wanted it installed--good luck proving that.
Yes and no. You see, there's state and federal laws against computer trespassing. This means that if there's any legitimate use for an EULA, it's to basically indemnify the company by making it clear that the user intentionally installed software. This means that if software is installed regardless, there's a valid basis for computer trespassing--note, this is true if one manages to bypass the EULA, as well. Computer trespassing laws are generally very vague and badly written, so only something like an EULA really will protect an entity from prosecution under them. At least in this case, were someone was specifically presented the EULA and did not agree to it while software is installed anyways, there's no way to somehow misinterpret the letter or the spirit of the law to not take it as computer trespassing, unlike with intentionally bypassing or hacking an EULA to install software without agreeing to it.
>>A better analogy is: if atheism is a religion, then mocking stamp collectors is a hobby.
>Mocking stamp collectors certainly could be a hobby because at least it's an action/activity, and not simply the absence of one.
I know. I was stating that atheism is a religion and was using an example of a hobby that stamp collector haters might carry out. This is true for atheists I know of, but it's not true of all atheists, and atheism isn't a religion for some. Of course, with the first statement false, the latter statement can be whatever one chooses. It doesn't make my analogy better.
>>To state a belief in a God or to state a belief in a lack of God is a religious belief.
>Fine as far as it goes, but if you really don't see that this is a false dichotomy,... well, I'll draw it out from the start: A belief in the lack of (a) God is not the same as the simple lack of a belief in (a) God.
I'll agree it's a false dichotomy in the same way that it's a false dichotomy to say a ripe apple is red or not red based without considering that there are blind people for which the apple has no color. My point wasn't to draw a dichotomy, only to point out that a belief or anti-belief in a supernatural being is religious. Those without a belief of any kind are still atheist and hence makes atheism not a religion.
>It seems to me a more useful definition of "religious" is any belief that's based only on faith, or at least which is inextricably tied in with faith. Belief based solely on evidence (and along with that, absence of belief based on lack of evidence) is, again I assert, something different and surely not religious.
Any belief in knowledge of the supernatural is faith, simply based on the fact that the supernatural is unobservable. Hence, any belief in knowledge of the supernatural is a type of religion. This can mean one can hold multiple religions at the same time (belief in Santa and God, for example, as held by a child). Usually a person tries to resolve their religious beliefs to create a form of community or heiarchy to remove inconsistencies. In any case, evidence which by definition arises from the natural is not a form of religion nor did I ever imply such.
"If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby."
Funny quote, but it's wrong. A better analogy is: if atheism is a religion, then mocking stamp collectors is a hobby. To state a belief in a God or to state a belief in a lack of God is a religious belief. Therefore such is religion. Agnosticism may be a religion, as it states an inability to for certain know if there is a God. Simply put, any sort of belief related to supernatural beings, for or against, is religious.
Now, whether you alone or with others discuss this belief or use it as a basis to mock/convert others would determine whether you're following a religious practice. In this part, one can say that one can be atheist or agnostic without religious practice, but a Christian cannot be without religious practice. To that end, the fundamental problem with the quote is that it attributes religion with activities one carries out, when it is the case that one can be religious without any activity at all.
Free market religionists would scream bloody murder if you seriously talked about "forcing" any company to do anything (besides maybe "don't murder people").
Mostly true, but there's an interesting side-point that should be brought up.
the only two entities with the power and potential to step up to the bat-- the public school system and Microsoft-- aren't interested.
Now, forgetting the public school system, for similar reasons to what you listed, your point of bringing up Microsoft is quite excellent. You see, Microsoft is charging OEMs on the order of $80/machine for Windows. But the fact is that once the OEM gets one master copy, it's the only one who actually loses anything in the production of Windows/Restore CDs (along with the time to install to the HD).
The real free market answer is to abolish copyright, since the real production price for Dell is only on the order of $0.25. Further, for all those users who want a CD, they can just buy a copy from someone else for $1 or so. In the free market, Dell wouldn't be paying Microsoft much of anything and while there still might not be OEMs that include a Windows CD, there'd be surely a lot of places selling them for cheap (me included). The fact that there's such a huge disconnect between the production price and sale price is the chief reason Microsoft has the money to educate people and is precisely why they go out of their way to not educate people. With Microsoft outside of this position of power, there would be a lot of smaller publishers who would push educating users to try to sell them something.
Oh, and in case you're someone who believes that copyright should still exist, then consider that the Windows binary is a tool but the Windows source is an expression of an idea. Whether this idea would be best to extend to plays and songs isn't clear to me. The fact that one can functional directly transcribe the form of something without creativity is what has leaved me to believe that all copyright is a tool and hence unworthy of any sort of long-term monopolistic protection.
But what is the standard deviation? My point was more that there aren't hotspots with overly inflated prices, like Tokyo, Silicon Valley, or Redmond. Prices in Silicon Valley, a prime example, are insane compared to where I live (the Midwest). A simple example is that the median price of a house in Silicon Valley is around $700,000 (http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/13 422709.htm). In comparison, the price of a house in the Midwest is in the $100,000-$200,000 range as median.
With a little math (ie, assuming a 30 year morgage), it's possible to show that one has to pay 3.5x as much in Silicon Valley for the house alone (ie, ~$1400 more per month). Take into account things like property tax and higher prices for food due to high property rates or driving farther, hence using more gas, to go to stores that aren't on high cost real estate, and clearly there's a price premium for living in a specific location when there's no real sign that it's even worthwhile (if it were, India outsourcing wouldn't make sense; New Delphi outsourcing might).
Now, if a lot of businesses started hiring across the US, I'm sure wages would increase. But it'd be a more uniform increase without massive spikes over land prices; companies could just move if a county/state was trying to shaft them. And in the end, more uniform hiring across a country does end up improving the whole country, instead of hot spots (like California) having federal funds be the method of redistributing wealth. So, it's great news that average India wages are increasing. There's room to hire in the rural US as well.
One of the basic reasons that a US programmer is expensive is because the education is expensive.
I'd have to disagree. The basic reason that a US programmer is expensive is that the standard of living in the US is a lot higher, especially in the locations where most corporations have setup shop. This is hardly surprising, given that in the past programmers were a relatively rare commodity and so they developed rather exaggerative salaries (dotcom bubble). Further, companies had to be in larger metrapolitain areas to be take seriously or cities virtually grew around many corporations that clustured together. As a result, the communities they live in/move to have gained rather distorted salary demands due to property rates. Simply moving a corporation to the middle of nowhere would greatly reduce salary demands of the *many* people who are interested in a job. This is the basis for calls to "outsource to rural America".
It sounds like in India it is the case that many people are unwilling to move from where the live but the population density is so high that one can basically go anywhere and find enough people to form a development team. As a result, there isn't a sharp rise in salary demands because the excess spending money of these programmers ends up being distributed around the country instead of a few hotspots.
A similar idea could be constructed in the US by simply locating a broad area with programmers and setting up multiple development houses spread out across the area. Think of it as software franchising. Such places would then be capable of meeting the demands of one or more companies in projects--whether it'd be better if each franchise only served one company or was effectively a contractor isn't clear to me. This alone would greatly reduce the rates of development costs in the US. In the end, the greater wealth of India and shortage of programmers there (long-term ones, I mean) will require some means of utilizing the relatively untapped multitude of individuals who need not live in the most expensive parts of the US. I think outsourcing to both areas is a good idea.
Everything you listed in your list has occurred or is occuring in the US (sedition laws for virtually every war and sometimes without a war). It's sadly the case that a Bill of Rights hasn't done a heck of a lot to stop the abuse of power. This is hardly surprising, when the only resolution is an armed revolt--waiting the several years for a court to eventually hear a case to have the law voided doesn't undo the violation of rights. The simple fact is that the USA was supposed to be a Constitutional Republic, where the Federal government had only the powers specifically granted to it and the states contained within had a similar mandate. But "feature creep" has drastically changed the USA into a country where one has to point to where specific, enumerated rights are violated to have any chance of overturning a law. This was not the intent of the Bill of Rights. It was ment solely as a guide to have some clue when law was being overly broad in its finite powers.
There are times when secrecy has its benefits...
I'd agree in a way, but consider things like encryption. Good encryption is about only keeping the most minimal amount of information hidden yet still making it incredibly difficult to game the system. So, just like page ranking was designed in part to avoid gaming the system, so too should the adwords algorithm.
At some point, of course, you can't avoid people gaming the system. Perhaps with an open algorithm, however, they could have the whole academic community take part in tweaking it to make it not worth most people's while.
Oh, and no, I'm not pro forcing the opening of the algorithm. If all their exporting is functionality, then there isn't a basis upon which to demand seeing code.
>>It is the simple case that federal agents and cops are there not to prevent crimes but to respond after the fact.
>Conspiring to commit a crime is a crime. That argument is going to be circular. How can you prevent a crime until conspiracy to commit a crime has occurred, and then of course it is too late.
You obviously don't understand what conspiracy is. Conspiracy is the action to two or more people to bring about an illegal act. Me alone shouting "bomb" or any other speech cannot be conspiracy. It could be possibly construed to "attempting to" or "threatening to", both of which have come to be crimes at times.
>>But the second they discover you do not have a bomb, they have no basis to stop you from shouting "Bomb" to your hearts content.
>Let's conduct an experiment: Go to the airport; don't carry a bomb; shout bomb. When they discover you have no bomb, see if they just let you go. Explain to the judge your rantings on the 1st amendment.
They'll almost certainly arrest you for "disorderly conduct" or "creating a public nuisance". Such laws fall under the same scope as loitering laws. Ie, people were upset that other people were doing things they disliked, so they created local ordinances to circumvent all sorts of rights. Don't like the homeless sitting on the sidewalk outside your business? Don't offer them a job (or some other legal and moral act that would move them). Just call the cops to have them arrested. Soon they'll learn that the only places not considered loitering is under bridges and other out of the way places where they won't "blemish" the good image of your city.
So, yeah for courts coming up with bullshit loopholes to circumvent rights detailed in the first amendment. Just because the cops and courts carry out an act doesn't make it moral or even legal. It's just how the system works at the moment.
You're attempting to shift responsibility of speech to the audience, not the speaker. That's blatantly wrong.
Not blatantly. Only in cases of fraud is there any reason to limit speech.
No one has a right to say exactly what they want, when they want, and how they want 100% of the time without consequence.
Yes, just 99% of the time, for most people.
If I yell "Bomb" in an airport, can I tell the federal agents that have my neck in a knot that I was just trying to get to the front of the line?
You bring up an interesting point, actually. Federal agents aren't required, any more than cops, to respond to you yelling "Bomb". By required, I mean by law. It is the simple case that federal agents and cops are there not to prevent crimes but to respond after the fact. This concept is even recognized in the court system, where only a person who has standing (ie, a person who has already been effected) can contest a law.
The fact that federal agents choose to respond and try to arrest you extends from the 4th amendment. That is, you shouting "Bomb" gives them probable cause to search you. But the second they discover you do not have a bomb, they have no basis to stop you from shouting "Bomb" to your hearts content. The same holds true for shouting "Fire" in a theater, except in this case the people who must determine if a fire exists are the audience.
Yes, courts have ruled that "eminent threat" is a justification for surpressing speech, yet it's clearly the case that "eminent threat" is purely a basis for a search. While it might have made sense, in the eyes of some judges, to punish those who caused stampedes to make people happy, clearly it's the case that today there is tons of regulation about fire exits, fire alarms, etc that mitigate the risk of shouting "Fire" anyways; I'd even be inclined to state that the stampedes killing people is a sign of faulty design and more a case of a civil case of wrongful death of the establishment than any legal wrong doing of the shouter--in a real fire, the same sort of stampede would have occured, so clearly at some point said owner would be sued anyways when a "real" fire occurred.
Now, having said all this, you might think I'm against holding individuals accountable. That's hardly the case. Instead, it should be recognized that theaters, airports, etc are private establishments. Those who do speak in ways that the proprietor does not like can be permanently banned and later charged with trespassing if they try to step on their property. Accountability over words are in most cases best handled through speech or already existing law--shunning, be it by family or businesses. While it might feel "great" to have a law for every asshole who yells out obscenities or yells vaguely threatening remarks, if it can be established that such people are no real threat, then there is no reason to stop them from speaking. If neighborhoods do not want outsiders yelling on their streets, they should own them so they can kick people out.
It is the simple fact that societal constraints backed by property law are able to keep 95%+ of the people from doing clearly criminal acts (2-3% of people are in jails, so I'm giving a wide margin of error). People should be accountable for their speech. That doesn't mean there should be laws to specifically hold them accountable.
Except in most games the character is very gender neutral. The fact that Lara Croft has a collection of polygons shaped to look like tits really doesn't have much effect on gameplay. Even things like flirting with people wouldn't necessitate having specific sex organs. And I'm not sure woman or men would actually like most games turning into nothing less than a dating sim.
So, continue the gender neutral stuff. And make a few more of those otherwise gender neutral characters female instead of male, just because. The simple fact that there aren't 100s of other Samuses out there is the only major point in gaming. If the main character was female was utterly common, Lara Croft and Samus Aran would probably be only vaguely remembered by name, though as history. Do you even remember the name of the last five male lead characters in the last five games you've played? I know it'd take me a while to remember.