I don't believe it's "naive" at all. If I go into an all-you-can-eat buffet, I expect to be able to take as many plates of food as I happen to want to eat. If they have a two-plate-per-person limit, that's fine, but they should be up front about it.
If you want to send viruses, it's the FBI you'll get to have a word with. Same if you want to send child porn-even at low bandwidth. I don't expect ISP's to change the laws by any means, and certainly both of those activities should be illegal. I -do- expect them to be clear about what they're offering. If they want to say "Unlimited connection time, limited bandwidth usage and some activities prohibited" in their ad, then they're every bit within their rights to do so. But that doesn't make good ad copy. They want to have it both ways, and that's where I have a problem with it. I don't believe it's "naive" to expect honesty, whether or not it's currently in rather short supply from corporations.
Same for spam. "Unlimited connection (except sending of spam prohibited)" is fine, and certainly I'm all for it. But they -still- should be up front about what it is you may and may not do. Page 218 of the dense legalese agreement that no one reads and anyone that does can't understand is not up front.
Wow, who said anything about a Jewish conspiracy??? There's a straw man if I ever saw one!
Now that aside, it -is- illegal to copy software in France and the US both. They've simply executed an effective reciprocity agreement, stating that if you do something illegal against a French software company -which would also be illegal in the US-, the judgment will be enforceable in the US.
On the other hand, if the French make it illegal to say anything negative about a software company, and someone in the US does so about a French software firm, that judgment is -not- enforceable here. Why? Because maybe they can make that law in France, but here, that's a free speech issue.
And your point? That's UK law being applied to someone who is in the UK. I specifically stated that France would be well within their rights to say "You are barred from entering our country again unless you pay the judgment against you". The point here, is that this guy is -not- in France. If he were still there, or chose to go back, there would be no question at all.
No dichotomy there. If the officers and decision-makers are citizens of or visitors to the US, they should be every bit subject to US law. If those in charge of Yahoo come to the US, they can and should be arrested for crimes against humanity.
Same thing here. If this guy wants to visit France again, they'd be well within their rights to deny his entry until he pays the outstanding judgment. But if he -doesn't-, they're not within their rights to enforce their law over here. Same thing there-if the Yahoo officers with veto power (and spawning off a "subsidiary" is meaningless) live here, they should be held fully accountable for their actions-under US law, -where they reside-.
Actually, I don't see what you're seeing at all. France has every right to bar this person from entering their country again unless he pays the judgment against him, and if that's what they want to do, no problem. They would also have had the right to arrest and charge him or enter a civil judgment against him had he broken their laws while in their country. What they -do not- have the right to do is dictate what he may or may not do once he leaves. French law applies to actions taken in France. The publication of the photos (even if not the taking) took place in the US, and is therefore subject to US, not French, law.
Under the current legal system, no. Harry Potter falls clearly under US copyright law, and the radio reading would be considered a public performance. (My thoughts on how that -should- be are not really on-topic here.)
It does mean that if you put up a website with information a foreign government finds objectionable, they cannot stop you unless what you're doing would also be illegal under US law. This is where the right to free speech is implicated-since websites are by definition viewable worldwide, if it's decided here that foreign judgments are applicable against US site owners, the most repressive governments in the world could submit a judgment against a US site owner, pass it along, and force them to shut down their website exposing, say, the atrocities that government has committed (since of course it is illegal to do so in many countries.) The French would raise hell if we tried to exercise a US law against a French citizen, and rightfully so. Similarly, French law does not and should not apply to those outside France's borders.
Oh I'd imagine they are. Still, it'd be interesting to see how a judge would rule on it. My feeling on it is that if there's a discrepancy between a company's advertising and their contract, whichever one is in larger print should prevail.
My ISP had it on their ad, big red letters: "UNLIMITED broadband service starting at $19.99 depending on speed!" Luckily for them, they seem a decent one, and thus far, they have delivered on that promise of "UNLIMITED", at the speed I pay for. If they ever choose not to, they'll find themselves in court-far as I know, there are still laws against false advertising.
On the other hand, if they want to advertise LIMITED service, in big red letters, no problem. But you better not lie to me about what it is I'm getting for my money.
If you have unhappy employees, you will not long have happy customers. When your boss spends the day yelling at you, you're going to pass that bad mood on to the next person you deal with, be that person a coworker or customer. On the other hand, if your work is something you actually enjoy and you are provided a good environment, your ability and willingness to do that "little extra" that keeps them coming back again and again will always be there.
Oh, I entirely agree. Just a bit of a funny thought, Limbaugh being defended by the ACLU. The point is, though, that if the need arose, they -would- do it without a second thought.
Why does the EFF not defend your Second Amendment rights? Because that's not part of what they do, AND it's already taken care of! There already is a large and very powerful organization known as the NRA. If you're having problems with your Second Amendment rights, call them, they'll be happy to help you with those. If you're having problems with other civil rights, call the ACLU. They'll help you with those problems. If you're hungry, call your local pizza place. They'll help you out in that case. What's wrong with not being everything to everyone, when it's already taken care of by a -more- specialized organization very competent to deal with that issue?
By the way, what is this about the ACLU being the "mouthpiece for the ultraleft"? The ACLU defends all comers whose civil rights have been violated. Granted, minorities' rights tend to be violated more frequently, whether that be gays, blacks, or those with non-mainstream political philosophies. This means that the ACLU will most often be defending those on the fringes-that's not out of their choice, it's because those are the people who will the most frequently need the defending. But the ACLU will defend (and has defended) the right of people to hold Bible studies in public parks at the same time they fight religious language in the Pledge of Allegiance. No contradiction here-the government must stay neutral on religious matters, neither cheerleading nor getting in the way for any particular religion or religion in general. Same for any other matters-one imagines if the government forced Rush Limbaugh off the air tomorrow, the ACLU would scream the first and the loudest, same as if it were Howard Stern. (What Limbaugh's feelings would be on that are another matter entirely.) Howard Stern's simply more likely to see it happen to him.
Seems to be what they were doing here, though I don't have a whole lot of confidence in their measures of "aggression"-asking college students whether it's alright to have a drink or smoke a joint doesn't seem to me a real great way to get an accurate study (and what has that to do with aggression anyway?). Nor does measuring blood pressure after an adrenaline-pumping activity, I imagine you'd get that same result after an intense TV show or action movie. So how does one measure "aggression", especially in the long term?
Besides, while correlations in the general populations certainly cannot be construed as proof of cause and effect, the LACK of such a correlation does generally tend to create the presumption that a given factor has no effect. If I'm to tell you that blue-eyed people are smarter then brown-eyed ones, a study showing near-identical intelligence among blue and brown eyed people would disprove my hypothesis. (Even though finding such a disparity wouldn't necessarily -prove- it.) Similarly, if it can be shown that crime has not increased with the percentage of the population playing video games, that gamers are not statistically more likely to commit violent crimes then non-gamers, and that they are not statistically more likely to commit more heinous or destructive acts, we can say with pretty reasonable certainty that there is no link between gaming and violence. Science, in the end, seeks not to prove but to disprove-those theories we accept as "proven" have in fact just had a good long run without being disproven.
Great. I don't, when I can avoid it. But the one here still hasn't closed yet!
Sometimes, contrary to popular belief, it -is- the government's responsibility to regulate problems when they grow too large for any reasonably-sized segment of the public to deal with. In fact (in its ideal form) the government would simply be an extension of the will of the public, with safeguards in place to ensure that minorities are not trampled.
There's not a thing wrong with saying "Pay your employees decent wages and provide them benefits, or else put a massive chunk toward the state food and health care assistance programs which are, in the end, profiting you to an obscene degree." Do you really expect every blue-collar shopper at Wal-Mart to understand the rapaciousness of their business model, and accordingly refuse to shop at them, even though that very Wal-Mart has sucked so many decently paying blue-collar jobs out of their communities that they can't afford anything else?
I love to see people say "Capitalism can fix it, don't shop there!" but that's overly simplistic thinking. The stark reality is, many current corporations wield great degrees of power. The only force which could reasonably be expected to rein them in is the government with force of law behind it-and they can put up a hell of a fight even against that.
Well, not that I'm a lawyer or a lawmaker, but something to the effect of:
Providers of a product or service may connect to a computer at the owner's request. If the connections will occur at the user's request, the program must inform the user what steps will be taken, and give the user the option to deny the connection. If the connection will be automated, the program must, at installation, provide a clear and complete accounting of what will be done at each connection, and to the extent technically feasible, allow the user to opt out of undesired effects.
Under no circumstances shall the inclusion of any language in a program's license agreement satisfy the previous requirement.
Games being such a widespread phenomenon, one could easily enough look at the crime rate since video games were introduced. Within the past 5-10 years, the portion of the population which plays video games has grown at a very rapid rate. If gaming has even a marginal effect on violence, the violent crime rate should have skyrocketed, and a large portion of convicted violent criminals should be video game players.
I'm afraid you'll have to wait 14 years or so for the answer to that one.:) You certainly could be right there though, I'm no expert on the procedure by any means, just been very happy with it myself. Just thought I'd let you know my experience with it, since you seemed to be thinking about it yourself.
Not if the mugger's pistol is up to your head or his knife to your throat before you notice him, then he just gets a nice shiny new gun to add to the previous list. Now of course, if someone else happening upon the situation has a $900 pistol (or a $100 one, for that matter), the situation might turn out differently...though of course there's still the possibility for it to turn out badly. Generally, the muggers that don't very quickly wind up in jail (or dead) use ambush tactics in relatively deserted areas.
A previous poster mentioned being alert, aware, and an obvious "hard target"-someone who is likely to fight back. This is probably the best advice and defense against common muggings. Many criminals, in that case, will walk right by or stay in their hiding spot, and wait for an easier mark to come along.
(Bit of history here: I was mugged myself once, or almost so. Even had I been carrying, it would not have done me a bit of good, one gun does not beat two guys at close range, one with a large knife and one with a decently-sized section of pipe. Fortunately, these were not the smart variety of muggers, they didn't pick a very deserted area, and a cop car patrolled by while they were in the process. Was very gratifying to watch the cuffs get slapped on them.)
Would it be that hard to develop a standard (perhaps much like meta-tagging), giving one set of data easily digestible by the bots (and not displayed to the human reader), while retaining an entertaining writing style for human consumption? Computers don't always have an easy time digesting data a human would find simple to understand, and vice-versa. Shouldn't that generally be acknowledged by design? (Disclaimer: I don't do much work with web design. If you do and you know why this hasn't been done or won't work, please let me know.)
I had laser surgery about a year ago, and while my extremely close vision was blurry for a few months, it's now returned better than it ever has been. It's not the same in all cases, but given my terrible vision before the surgery (20/900), it's certainly something else to be able to see in the morning. You might ask if they have any improved techniques that don't impact close-up vision, or that only impact it temporarily.
While your points are well-written, I still would certainly like to place some disputes here:
BS. Stopping legislation that would require it has nothing to do with whether or not a provider can be as neutral as they choose. If you don't like the notion of the owner of a network running it as they see fit, start your own network and get customers by telling them that's part of your deal. Bandwidth provided by SBC (or Earthlink, or AT&T or Acme Smalltown Cableco) is not some natural resource: it's a product/service. The person providing the service can do as they please, and you can deal with them, or not. Would you rather the government also told landscaping companies that they have to charge the same rate for a mowed square foot of grass whether their customer is a townhouse owner or the owner of a 500 acre golf course? Let the market decide.
Actually, that bandwidth is in effect a utility. In many areas, just like electrical service and POTS, you don't get a choice-you deal with the one provider in the area, or you don't get online. This is a monopoly situation. Now, that situation tends to lend itself to a monopoly easily enough (same reason as electric/POTS utilities do, massive infrastructure investments). There really are only two choices in a case like this:
Heavily regulate the monopoly. If the monopoly is not only in the business of selling (electricity/phone service/bandwidth) but is also in the business of selling things related to them (light bulbs/content), they should indeed be required to maintain strict neutrality. Otherwise, they can easily abuse their monopoly position to promote their own products.
Require the monopoly to resell use of its service to third parties, with no opportunity to say no and at reasonable, preset rates. This allows genuine competition to spring up.
Allowing the "first in the area" to run roughshod over its customers and shut out its competitors is not a free market, it's the distorted market which monopoly situations inevitably create.
Of course, the third option is municipally-run and financed Wi-Fi-but for one, wifi can't always support the same speed as wired broadband, for another not everyone is set up to use it-and finally, you don't strike me as one that would be too hot on the idea of tax-subsidized net access. Though please correct me if I'm wrong there.
Sometimes, the government's job really is to regulate what businesses can and cannot do. This is ten times as true in a situation where a monopoly or oligopoly exists. Pure free market is just as much a disaster as pure state-run enterprise/communism--like most situations in life, the best solution is in a carefully-tuned balance of the two.
I also find the landscaping analogy flawed, in several ways. For one, landscaping is really not a necessary utility for most people. It can be reasonably expected that most people can mow their own lawns. It is not reasonably expected that most people can start their own ISP. Secondly, there tend to be myriads of landscaping services in any given area-everything from the kid next door that'll mow it for lunch money, to Big National Landscapers. This gives consumers a meaningful choice (do it myself, or have a plethora of options as to who does it for me and how much it'll cost). "Do it yourself", as we discussed, is not a viable option for most in terms of Net access, and for many there are only one or a few ISP's in their area. Finally, even if there is only one lawnmowing service in an area, and it's high-priced and low-quality, it is extremely easy for a competitor to start up. This is certainly not the case for ISP's-maybe it was ten years ago, but it's not anymore. All of these call for far closer scrutiny and regulation of ISP's then lawnmowing services. Quite often, different industries require different levels of regulation, and quite often this is called for (hence why pharmaceutical manufacturers must pass far higher safety and quality standards then manufacturers of CD-R's or guitars, or parts
Generally, carnivorous sea-dwellers (especially at this size) are both predators and prey. It is not uncommon at all for sea creatures such as sea turtles to come ashore for short periods for activities like breeding, where it is safer to do so, while returning to the water for most or all of their food. If there was little or no life on land at this time, breeding on land would have been a huge evolutionary advantage.
Under a definition like that, pretty much any research university would be considered a patent troll, which doesn't seem right.
Seems quite right to me, especially if the university in question receives any public funding or grant money. (I know there are a few that don't, but the vast majority of them do.) Shouldn't discoveries made on the public's dime belong to, well, the public?
Yet even if you're correct, it's a no-brainer now. Just going to show again that patents on technology last far too long. The initial idea of patents was that the inventor would get a limited, short-term monopoly, after which the device and idea would be (and MUST be) released into the public domain rather then held indefinitely as a trade secret.
However, for a device like the TiVo (or any technological device anymore), 17 years is far longer than the useful life of the invention (and if a "newer and better" version comes around, it's patented right before the expiration of the original). By the time it's released to the public domain, it's obsolete. This was NEVER the intent of the patent process.
If we are in fact going to keep patents around, we must reduce their term (especially in technological areas) to 2 or 3 years. This would be plenty of time for the inventor to make a profit, without withholding from the public domain far past obsolescence.
Of course, there are other reforms necessary. Algorithms and knowledge, and anything else which cannot be touched with the hand, should be barred. This includes everything from genetic code to computer code, and from physics equations to knowledge of how chemicals combine. Only a tangible product -itself- (a new HD design, a type of pill) should be patentable. And of course, the "old version" of something should automatically be considered prior art against patenting the "new and improved" one.
And I was wondering if you might share your physical address, the next time you want to put up a religious troll? So that we can join your prayer group, of course.
Unfortunately, it's very easy, and has been used to mask genuine discrimination and poor practices for quite some time.
I hope that either we see a return of strong, powerful unions, or changes to employment law. Some I would advocate would be the following:
Companies should be required to, upon request, provide an honest, detailed explanation of why a person was not hired or was fired. If it comes to light that a lie or omission occurred here, we should be talking both lawsuit and jail time. This may seem like a massive burden, but putting it "on request only" would likely mean that, in reality, less then 1% of applicants would ask. More who are fired would, of course-but if you're fired, you deserve to know, in detail, why.
-Employers may do background checks into the following only: job history (limited to contacting former employers to verify your employment dates and position, not to fish), verification that you really do have any degrees, certifications, or licenses that you claim you do, reports of professional misconduct if such are kept for the field you are applying for, and records of adult convictions. (Yes, I said "convictions", not "arrests"). There is no reason for your employer to be sniffing in your credit report unless they intend to loan you money. There is no reason for them to be combing through arrests from which you were not convicted of a crime. They most damn certainly do not belong nosing around your medical records, and they have no business researching your off-the-cuff activities in your personal time, whether on- or offline.
-Minimum wage should be set so that a person working full time at it could subsist on it (e.g., afford basic food, housing, transportation, and medical care for him/herself and his or her family.) There is no excuse for those who -are- working hard and doing what they should be doing to live in poverty. Alternatively, corporations which insist on paying low wages should be taxed at a rate commensurate with which they rely on public services to keep their employees going (public housing, food stamps, Medicaid, etc.).
Employers which employ large numbers of part-time workers should suffer tax penalties, this is generally a way to pretend to offer benefits while only a few employees actually receive them. There could be some type of "special circumstances" exemption to this (such as a business which is only open for 4 hours in a day or is by definition seasonal).
Employers should have no regulation over what their employees do in their off time, including: No substance testing, it's not your business what Joe did this weekend. No regulation of what would normally be considered free-speech activities. No firing for whistleblowing (and make whistleblowing include acts which could be considered by an average person to be potentially unethical, not just illegal.) No firing for discussing working conditions, even negatively. Layoffs would be allowed but must be a genuine elimination of the person's position (no hiring someone else to do essentially the same thing 3 days later), and if for any reason except that the company is in dire financial distress ("We need to raise our share price" or "We found third-world sweatshops to be cheaper" doesn't count), should trigger massive tax penalties.
-Companies based in the US should be expected to hold to US standards when overseas, including minimum wage (this could again be done at a local reasonable-standard-of-living level rather then "You will pay this much period"), and environmental standards. Failure to do so should be a criminal offense punishable by jail time for anyone knowingly involved and possible revocation of corporate charter. We should also use our international clout to push for extensions of -this- rule worldwide, not million-year copyright terms.
It's about time we saw some corporate reform here. Our Constitution, that so clearly protects against the government overstepping, does not help us if other massive organizations can silence our free speech and snoop us without cause instead.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't believe it's "naive" at all. If I go into an all-you-can-eat buffet, I expect to be able to take as many plates of food as I happen to want to eat. If they have a two-plate-per-person limit, that's fine, but they should be up front about it.
If you want to send viruses, it's the FBI you'll get to have a word with. Same if you want to send child porn-even at low bandwidth. I don't expect ISP's to change the laws by any means, and certainly both of those activities should be illegal. I -do- expect them to be clear about what they're offering. If they want to say "Unlimited connection time, limited bandwidth usage and some activities prohibited" in their ad, then they're every bit within their rights to do so. But that doesn't make good ad copy. They want to have it both ways, and that's where I have a problem with it. I don't believe it's "naive" to expect honesty, whether or not it's currently in rather short supply from corporations.
Same for spam. "Unlimited connection (except sending of spam prohibited)" is fine, and certainly I'm all for it. But they -still- should be up front about what it is you may and may not do. Page 218 of the dense legalese agreement that no one reads and anyone that does can't understand is not up front.
Wow, who said anything about a Jewish conspiracy??? There's a straw man if I ever saw one!
Now that aside, it -is- illegal to copy software in France and the US both. They've simply executed an effective reciprocity agreement, stating that if you do something illegal against a French software company -which would also be illegal in the US-, the judgment will be enforceable in the US.
On the other hand, if the French make it illegal to say anything negative about a software company, and someone in the US does so about a French software firm, that judgment is -not- enforceable here. Why? Because maybe they can make that law in France, but here, that's a free speech issue.
And your point? That's UK law being applied to someone who is in the UK. I specifically stated that France would be well within their rights to say "You are barred from entering our country again unless you pay the judgment against you". The point here, is that this guy is -not- in France. If he were still there, or chose to go back, there would be no question at all.
No dichotomy there. If the officers and decision-makers are citizens of or visitors to the US, they should be every bit subject to US law. If those in charge of Yahoo come to the US, they can and should be arrested for crimes against humanity.
Same thing here. If this guy wants to visit France again, they'd be well within their rights to deny his entry until he pays the outstanding judgment. But if he -doesn't-, they're not within their rights to enforce their law over here. Same thing there-if the Yahoo officers with veto power (and spawning off a "subsidiary" is meaningless) live here, they should be held fully accountable for their actions-under US law, -where they reside-.
Actually, I don't see what you're seeing at all. France has every right to bar this person from entering their country again unless he pays the judgment against him, and if that's what they want to do, no problem. They would also have had the right to arrest and charge him or enter a civil judgment against him had he broken their laws while in their country. What they -do not- have the right to do is dictate what he may or may not do once he leaves. French law applies to actions taken in France. The publication of the photos (even if not the taking) took place in the US, and is therefore subject to US, not French, law.
Under the current legal system, no. Harry Potter falls clearly under US copyright law, and the radio reading would be considered a public performance. (My thoughts on how that -should- be are not really on-topic here.)
It does mean that if you put up a website with information a foreign government finds objectionable, they cannot stop you unless what you're doing would also be illegal under US law. This is where the right to free speech is implicated-since websites are by definition viewable worldwide, if it's decided here that foreign judgments are applicable against US site owners, the most repressive governments in the world could submit a judgment against a US site owner, pass it along, and force them to shut down their website exposing, say, the atrocities that government has committed (since of course it is illegal to do so in many countries.) The French would raise hell if we tried to exercise a US law against a French citizen, and rightfully so. Similarly, French law does not and should not apply to those outside France's borders.
Oh I'd imagine they are. Still, it'd be interesting to see how a judge would rule on it. My feeling on it is that if there's a discrepancy between a company's advertising and their contract, whichever one is in larger print should prevail.
My ISP had it on their ad, big red letters: "UNLIMITED broadband service starting at $19.99 depending on speed!" Luckily for them, they seem a decent one, and thus far, they have delivered on that promise of "UNLIMITED", at the speed I pay for. If they ever choose not to, they'll find themselves in court-far as I know, there are still laws against false advertising.
On the other hand, if they want to advertise LIMITED service, in big red letters, no problem. But you better not lie to me about what it is I'm getting for my money.
If you have unhappy employees, you will not long have happy customers. When your boss spends the day yelling at you, you're going to pass that bad mood on to the next person you deal with, be that person a coworker or customer. On the other hand, if your work is something you actually enjoy and you are provided a good environment, your ability and willingness to do that "little extra" that keeps them coming back again and again will always be there.
Oh, I entirely agree. Just a bit of a funny thought, Limbaugh being defended by the ACLU. The point is, though, that if the need arose, they -would- do it without a second thought.
Why does the EFF not defend your Second Amendment rights? Because that's not part of what they do, AND it's already taken care of! There already is a large and very powerful organization known as the NRA. If you're having problems with your Second Amendment rights, call them, they'll be happy to help you with those. If you're having problems with other civil rights, call the ACLU. They'll help you with those problems. If you're hungry, call your local pizza place. They'll help you out in that case. What's wrong with not being everything to everyone, when it's already taken care of by a -more- specialized organization very competent to deal with that issue?
By the way, what is this about the ACLU being the "mouthpiece for the ultraleft"? The ACLU defends all comers whose civil rights have been violated. Granted, minorities' rights tend to be violated more frequently, whether that be gays, blacks, or those with non-mainstream political philosophies. This means that the ACLU will most often be defending those on the fringes-that's not out of their choice, it's because those are the people who will the most frequently need the defending. But the ACLU will defend (and has defended) the right of people to hold Bible studies in public parks at the same time they fight religious language in the Pledge of Allegiance. No contradiction here-the government must stay neutral on religious matters, neither cheerleading nor getting in the way for any particular religion or religion in general. Same for any other matters-one imagines if the government forced Rush Limbaugh off the air tomorrow, the ACLU would scream the first and the loudest, same as if it were Howard Stern. (What Limbaugh's feelings would be on that are another matter entirely.) Howard Stern's simply more likely to see it happen to him.
Seems to be what they were doing here, though I don't have a whole lot of confidence in their measures of "aggression"-asking college students whether it's alright to have a drink or smoke a joint doesn't seem to me a real great way to get an accurate study (and what has that to do with aggression anyway?). Nor does measuring blood pressure after an adrenaline-pumping activity, I imagine you'd get that same result after an intense TV show or action movie. So how does one measure "aggression", especially in the long term?
Besides, while correlations in the general populations certainly cannot be construed as proof of cause and effect, the LACK of such a correlation does generally tend to create the presumption that a given factor has no effect. If I'm to tell you that blue-eyed people are smarter then brown-eyed ones, a study showing near-identical intelligence among blue and brown eyed people would disprove my hypothesis. (Even though finding such a disparity wouldn't necessarily -prove- it.) Similarly, if it can be shown that crime has not increased with the percentage of the population playing video games, that gamers are not statistically more likely to commit violent crimes then non-gamers, and that they are not statistically more likely to commit more heinous or destructive acts, we can say with pretty reasonable certainty that there is no link between gaming and violence. Science, in the end, seeks not to prove but to disprove-those theories we accept as "proven" have in fact just had a good long run without being disproven.
Great. I don't, when I can avoid it. But the one here still hasn't closed yet!
Sometimes, contrary to popular belief, it -is- the government's responsibility to regulate problems when they grow too large for any reasonably-sized segment of the public to deal with. In fact (in its ideal form) the government would simply be an extension of the will of the public, with safeguards in place to ensure that minorities are not trampled.
There's not a thing wrong with saying "Pay your employees decent wages and provide them benefits, or else put a massive chunk toward the state food and health care assistance programs which are, in the end, profiting you to an obscene degree." Do you really expect every blue-collar shopper at Wal-Mart to understand the rapaciousness of their business model, and accordingly refuse to shop at them, even though that very Wal-Mart has sucked so many decently paying blue-collar jobs out of their communities that they can't afford anything else?
I love to see people say "Capitalism can fix it, don't shop there!" but that's overly simplistic thinking. The stark reality is, many current corporations wield great degrees of power. The only force which could reasonably be expected to rein them in is the government with force of law behind it-and they can put up a hell of a fight even against that.
Well, not that I'm a lawyer or a lawmaker, but something to the effect of:
Providers of a product or service may connect to a computer at the owner's request. If the connections will occur at the user's request, the program must inform the user what steps will be taken, and give the user the option to deny the connection. If the connection will be automated, the program must, at installation, provide a clear and complete accounting of what will be done at each connection, and to the extent technically feasible, allow the user to opt out of undesired effects.
Under no circumstances shall the inclusion of any language in a program's license agreement satisfy the previous requirement.
Games being such a widespread phenomenon, one could easily enough look at the crime rate since video games were introduced. Within the past 5-10 years, the portion of the population which plays video games has grown at a very rapid rate. If gaming has even a marginal effect on violence, the violent crime rate should have skyrocketed, and a large portion of convicted violent criminals should be video game players.
Tell me, is that what the statistics show?
I'm afraid you'll have to wait 14 years or so for the answer to that one. :) You certainly could be right there though, I'm no expert on the procedure by any means, just been very happy with it myself. Just thought I'd let you know my experience with it, since you seemed to be thinking about it yourself.
Not if the mugger's pistol is up to your head or his knife to your throat before you notice him, then he just gets a nice shiny new gun to add to the previous list. Now of course, if someone else happening upon the situation has a $900 pistol (or a $100 one, for that matter), the situation might turn out differently...though of course there's still the possibility for it to turn out badly. Generally, the muggers that don't very quickly wind up in jail (or dead) use ambush tactics in relatively deserted areas.
A previous poster mentioned being alert, aware, and an obvious "hard target"-someone who is likely to fight back. This is probably the best advice and defense against common muggings. Many criminals, in that case, will walk right by or stay in their hiding spot, and wait for an easier mark to come along.
(Bit of history here: I was mugged myself once, or almost so. Even had I been carrying, it would not have done me a bit of good, one gun does not beat two guys at close range, one with a large knife and one with a decently-sized section of pipe. Fortunately, these were not the smart variety of muggers, they didn't pick a very deserted area, and a cop car patrolled by while they were in the process. Was very gratifying to watch the cuffs get slapped on them.)
Would it be that hard to develop a standard (perhaps much like meta-tagging), giving one set of data easily digestible by the bots (and not displayed to the human reader), while retaining an entertaining writing style for human consumption? Computers don't always have an easy time digesting data a human would find simple to understand, and vice-versa. Shouldn't that generally be acknowledged by design? (Disclaimer: I don't do much work with web design. If you do and you know why this hasn't been done or won't work, please let me know.)
I had laser surgery about a year ago, and while my extremely close vision was blurry for a few months, it's now returned better than it ever has been. It's not the same in all cases, but given my terrible vision before the surgery (20/900), it's certainly something else to be able to see in the morning. You might ask if they have any improved techniques that don't impact close-up vision, or that only impact it temporarily.
While your points are well-written, I still would certainly like to place some disputes here:
BS. Stopping legislation that would require it has nothing to do with whether or not a provider can be as neutral as they choose. If you don't like the notion of the owner of a network running it as they see fit, start your own network and get customers by telling them that's part of your deal. Bandwidth provided by SBC (or Earthlink, or AT&T or Acme Smalltown Cableco) is not some natural resource: it's a product/service. The person providing the service can do as they please, and you can deal with them, or not. Would you rather the government also told landscaping companies that they have to charge the same rate for a mowed square foot of grass whether their customer is a townhouse owner or the owner of a 500 acre golf course? Let the market decide.
Actually, that bandwidth is in effect a utility. In many areas, just like electrical service and POTS, you don't get a choice-you deal with the one provider in the area, or you don't get online. This is a monopoly situation. Now, that situation tends to lend itself to a monopoly easily enough (same reason as electric/POTS utilities do, massive infrastructure investments). There really are only two choices in a case like this:
Heavily regulate the monopoly. If the monopoly is not only in the business of selling (electricity/phone service/bandwidth) but is also in the business of selling things related to them (light bulbs/content), they should indeed be required to maintain strict neutrality. Otherwise, they can easily abuse their monopoly position to promote their own products.
Require the monopoly to resell use of its service to third parties, with no opportunity to say no and at reasonable, preset rates. This allows genuine competition to spring up.
Allowing the "first in the area" to run roughshod over its customers and shut out its competitors is not a free market, it's the distorted market which monopoly situations inevitably create.
Of course, the third option is municipally-run and financed Wi-Fi-but for one, wifi can't always support the same speed as wired broadband, for another not everyone is set up to use it-and finally, you don't strike me as one that would be too hot on the idea of tax-subsidized net access. Though please correct me if I'm wrong there.
Sometimes, the government's job really is to regulate what businesses can and cannot do. This is ten times as true in a situation where a monopoly or oligopoly exists. Pure free market is just as much a disaster as pure state-run enterprise/communism--like most situations in life, the best solution is in a carefully-tuned balance of the two.
I also find the landscaping analogy flawed, in several ways. For one, landscaping is really not a necessary utility for most people. It can be reasonably expected that most people can mow their own lawns. It is not reasonably expected that most people can start their own ISP. Secondly, there tend to be myriads of landscaping services in any given area-everything from the kid next door that'll mow it for lunch money, to Big National Landscapers. This gives consumers a meaningful choice (do it myself, or have a plethora of options as to who does it for me and how much it'll cost). "Do it yourself", as we discussed, is not a viable option for most in terms of Net access, and for many there are only one or a few ISP's in their area. Finally, even if there is only one lawnmowing service in an area, and it's high-priced and low-quality, it is extremely easy for a competitor to start up. This is certainly not the case for ISP's-maybe it was ten years ago, but it's not anymore. All of these call for far closer scrutiny and regulation of ISP's then lawnmowing services. Quite often, different industries require different levels of regulation, and quite often this is called for (hence why pharmaceutical manufacturers must pass far higher safety and quality standards then manufacturers of CD-R's or guitars, or parts
Generally, carnivorous sea-dwellers (especially at this size) are both predators and prey. It is not uncommon at all for sea creatures such as sea turtles to come ashore for short periods for activities like breeding, where it is safer to do so, while returning to the water for most or all of their food. If there was little or no life on land at this time, breeding on land would have been a huge evolutionary advantage.
Under a definition like that, pretty much any research university would be considered a patent troll, which doesn't seem right.
Seems quite right to me, especially if the university in question receives any public funding or grant money. (I know there are a few that don't, but the vast majority of them do.) Shouldn't discoveries made on the public's dime belong to, well, the public?
Yet even if you're correct, it's a no-brainer now. Just going to show again that patents on technology last far too long. The initial idea of patents was that the inventor would get a limited, short-term monopoly, after which the device and idea would be (and MUST be) released into the public domain rather then held indefinitely as a trade secret.
However, for a device like the TiVo (or any technological device anymore), 17 years is far longer than the useful life of the invention (and if a "newer and better" version comes around, it's patented right before the expiration of the original). By the time it's released to the public domain, it's obsolete. This was NEVER the intent of the patent process.
If we are in fact going to keep patents around, we must reduce their term (especially in technological areas) to 2 or 3 years. This would be plenty of time for the inventor to make a profit, without withholding from the public domain far past obsolescence.
Of course, there are other reforms necessary. Algorithms and knowledge, and anything else which cannot be touched with the hand, should be barred. This includes everything from genetic code to computer code, and from physics equations to knowledge of how chemicals combine. Only a tangible product -itself- (a new HD design, a type of pill) should be patentable. And of course, the "old version" of something should automatically be considered prior art against patenting the "new and improved" one.
And I was wondering if you might share your physical address, the next time you want to put up a religious troll? So that we can join your prayer group, of course.
Unfortunately, it's very easy, and has been used to mask genuine discrimination and poor practices for quite some time.
I hope that either we see a return of strong, powerful unions, or changes to employment law. Some I would advocate would be the following:
Companies should be required to, upon request, provide an honest, detailed explanation of why a person was not hired or was fired. If it comes to light that a lie or omission occurred here, we should be talking both lawsuit and jail time. This may seem like a massive burden, but putting it "on request only" would likely mean that, in reality, less then 1% of applicants would ask. More who are fired would, of course-but if you're fired, you deserve to know, in detail, why.
-Employers may do background checks into the following only: job history (limited to contacting former employers to verify your employment dates and position, not to fish), verification that you really do have any degrees, certifications, or licenses that you claim you do, reports of professional misconduct if such are kept for the field you are applying for, and records of adult convictions. (Yes, I said "convictions", not "arrests"). There is no reason for your employer to be sniffing in your credit report unless they intend to loan you money. There is no reason for them to be combing through arrests from which you were not convicted of a crime. They most damn certainly do not belong nosing around your medical records, and they have no business researching your off-the-cuff activities in your personal time, whether on- or offline.
-Minimum wage should be set so that a person working full time at it could subsist on it (e.g., afford basic food, housing, transportation, and medical care for him/herself and his or her family.) There is no excuse for those who -are- working hard and doing what they should be doing to live in poverty. Alternatively, corporations which insist on paying low wages should be taxed at a rate commensurate with which they rely on public services to keep their employees going (public housing, food stamps, Medicaid, etc.).
Employers which employ large numbers of part-time workers should suffer tax penalties, this is generally a way to pretend to offer benefits while only a few employees actually receive them. There could be some type of "special circumstances" exemption to this (such as a business which is only open for 4 hours in a day or is by definition seasonal).
Employers should have no regulation over what their employees do in their off time, including: No substance testing, it's not your business what Joe did this weekend. No regulation of what would normally be considered free-speech activities. No firing for whistleblowing (and make whistleblowing include acts which could be considered by an average person to be potentially unethical, not just illegal.) No firing for discussing working conditions, even negatively. Layoffs would be allowed but must be a genuine elimination of the person's position (no hiring someone else to do essentially the same thing 3 days later), and if for any reason except that the company is in dire financial distress ("We need to raise our share price" or "We found third-world sweatshops to be cheaper" doesn't count), should trigger massive tax penalties.
-Companies based in the US should be expected to hold to US standards when overseas, including minimum wage (this could again be done at a local reasonable-standard-of-living level rather then "You will pay this much period"), and environmental standards. Failure to do so should be a criminal offense punishable by jail time for anyone knowingly involved and possible revocation of corporate charter. We should also use our international clout to push for extensions of -this- rule worldwide, not million-year copyright terms.
It's about time we saw some corporate reform here. Our Constitution, that so clearly protects against the government overstepping, does not help us if other massive organizations can silence our free speech and snoop us without cause instead.