I would even say some of my time spent wasting time (what even I would call "wasting time") on the internet has paid off. The thing is, when I'm slacking off a bit at work, I'm still looking at technical pages. I'm an IT guy, and I read slashdot, cnet news, etc. That's my hobby surfing.
Also, while at work, during some down-time, I made a linux server my company didn't need. I experimented with php/mysql/CMS, I scanned the internet for info on new technologies coming out. That's hobby time, spent at work, "wasting time".
Still, that Linux server came in handy when we were in a pinch and we needed a new FTP server. My php/mysql knowledge came in handy when some manager asked the IT group if we had the ability to set up an online forum. Knowing about new technology developments comes in handy enough when making purchasing decisions. "Oh, let's not buy that right now. Rumor is they're about to release a new version."
I'd even dare to say scanning slashdot discussions has given me some insight into technical issues-- issues relevant to my job.
The darndest things can come up handy, and bosses can't always predict what a little aimless stroll around the internet will turn up. "Productivity" isn't everything.
Economics applies as much to auto insurance as it does to anything else. If it COULD be done cheaper, it WOULD be done cheaper. To believe otherwise is to believe that either a) a free market economy doesn't work, and the last 200 years of economics is totally worthless, or b) there's some vast conspiracy among insurance companies to keep rates high.
Yeah, I'm not really seeing your point. To believe that insurance COULD be done cheaper means you would need to believe either A or B.... and?
I guess I'm still waiting for the part of the argument that demonstrates why A and B are unreasonable things to believe.
Yeah, but I think it's obvious that the device won't help people while they touch-type.
Where it might be useful is in education, for learning new shortcuts, for playing games or using apps that you don't use often enough to touch type everything, etc. I could imagine a kiosk where you want the meaning of the keys to change, but you aren't dealing with users who use those apps every day.
The "holding shift causes letters to become capital" is really simple, but at least it would add a sort of consistency. Or how about this: you won't need a caps-lock light anymore. If you look at the keyboard and all the letters are caps, but you aren't pressing shift, then caps-lock is on.
I think the real (everyday) value in your parent post is in shortcuts. Sure, we call know ctrl-X means copy, but there might be loads of shortcuts in a given app that you just don't remember off-hand. Instead of hunting through the menu system, you could just hold down ctrl and see what pops up.
If it's done right, there could even be some driver-magic so that the keyboard can automatically tell what app is active and what shortcuts are available for that app, and then program itself accordingly.
I like it. Besides being very non-abrasive, it would make it very easy to use color as a visual cue. If the components are generally black and white, it really stands out when something red pops up.
You pick "quieter fans" as the silly part of his article? How about:
Wouldn't it just be oh-so cool to have a bottle opener or a soda dispenser built into the case without having to do tedious and sometimes ridiculous amounts of modifications?
So the real innovation these days, the things that computers really need are bottle openers and soda dispensers built into the case. Apparently, though, the problem isn't that you can't get a bottle opener built into the case, but that-- boo hoo-- you would have to make the modification yourself. There aren't any computers being sold with already built-in soda dispensers.
See, but the spread of Firefox doesn't really depend on real knowledge. If you're the geek who all your friends depend on, then the next time it comes up, tell each of your friends about how Firefox is sooooo much better, in ways that they don't even understand. Use technical jargon. At the same time, mention how everything bad that happens to their computer is because of IE. The next time they're having a conversation, they'll just channel your disembodied spirit, and they'll tell all their friends about how horrible IE is and about how great Firefox is.
They don't have to understand it, it'll still spread like an urban myth. In other words, FUD works both ways.
I have an infinite improbability generator in my kitchen, actually, but unfortunately you can't tell that it does anything. See, when the generator is active, the infinitely improbable thing that happens is that that, though an infinite improbability generator is active, nothing at all improbable happens. Therefore, to all but the most clever minds, the generator seems not to work.
However, my roommate doesn't understand any of this, and believes that the generator is, in fact, a toaster.
Statistics (and numbers in general) are an incredibly useful tool. They do help us digest massive amounts of information into forms that we can use.
However, statistics are not determinative. This is a mistake I've heard from both laymen and experts. The fact that, according to what's known (and factored in to the calculation) an event is 99.999999999% likely to happen... well, that doesn't mean it will happen. Really, it doesn't matter how unlikely your statistics demonstrate something to be, it won't prevent the unlikely from happening.
In fact, it's demonstrable from statistical analysis that we should expect tremendously improbable events to happen quite often, and that the chances of the most probable outcomes to occur at every instance is an incredibly unlikely outcome as time stretches on.
So statistics are an interpretive tool, not an answer. Statistics alone cannot tell you what will happen, they can't tell you what has happened, and they certainly cannot tell you what should happen. And all these comments you're talking about, I think they come from a valid frustration borne from sloppy reporting telling us "scientists have discovered that 75% of" this and "they now know that 25% of" that outside of any meaningful context.
And what's the likelihood that all these percentages are correct? What's the margin of error, and what's the margin of error's margin of error? Certainly the people telling us these "facts" (reporters) have no idea.
But if someone give you a book for free, and you have a copy, they cannot revoke that, but can they stop you distributing it? (as copies - based on assumption below)
Except that it's not someone giving you a free book. Like you said, you have access to copy it, so it's a little more like someone putting a free book on display in a public place right next to a xerox machine and encouraging people to xerox the thing and take it home to read.
And, in fact, that book will also be cached elsewhere, so it's as if they've set out this easily xerox-able book, with instructions on how to xerox it, and permission to do so, with the intent of putting it through the "xerox network". So you're in a world filled with xerox machines, and unless they're idiots, they should understand that their distribution model relies on (in some cases) other people taking the xerox copy and setting it next to their own xerox machine for others to copy.
Now, lets say this book publisher releases a new book. And updated version of the same book. They set the new book next to the xerox machine, and ask that everyone in this "xerox network" copy the new book and set that next to their own xerox machines, replacing the old book. Now let's say that one guy just doesn't replace the first edition, but sets the second edition out next to it, leaving the old one where it is, and gives people the choice. He's doing this as a public service, so people can study the evolution of literature. He's doing it for free.
You want page 59? Well, page 59 of the book was publicly available in two different versions. Which one do you want?
In this strange hypothetical situation, would the book publisher have a right to sue? Ok, maybe it's not exactly an apt example either, but saying "the only difference between a copyrighted work as a webpage, and a copyrighted work as a book, is intent" isn't exactly right either.
Here's the deal, and it's not very good. If the Wayback Machine doesn't have permission (implied or otherwise) to archive websites and serve copies of them, it's technically breaking copyright law except in a very small number of cases. I believe in some cases, if you fail to assert your copyright and (and yes, there's an "and" in there) you distribute your content to all-comers for free, it's considered public domain. Asserting your copyright is as simple a matter as putting a copyright notice on your content. I've heard of, albeit third hand, by word of mouth, and IANAL, cases in some juristictions where leaflets pushed in mailboxes without some form of copyright notice were considered public domain.
Can someone who is a lawyer in this field comment? What about fair use previsions? Like, if I library kept a public archive, made no profit, but made copies of published works available identically with how they were originally published?
Like, can a newspaper sue a library for allowing people to view old editions of the newspaper without permission?
How would they feel as they were about to be gassed for a crime they didn't commit?
That's a good question. I wonder how much better I would feel if I were merely forced to live the rest of my life being sodomized on a regular basis while in prison for a crime I didn't commit.
I kinda think both are a little funny. They both seem like compulsive sorts of behavior to me.
Think about it, why should I care if I'm the fastest runner in the world or the 100th fastest? Or the thousandth fastest, or worse. I can understand wanting to be healthy, or even wanting to be fast, especially if you want to be fast for some purpose, but wanting to break the world record for the fastest man alive just seems... arbitrary. What does it diminish by abilities to know that there was someone at some time somewhere has done better?
And let me tell you, they're all parlor tricks. They're specialized little tasks. It's like being the world's best card shuffler. Sure it's a skill. It might even be impressive, but it won't save you from what you're trying to save yourself from. You're not special and winning and immortal and grand. You haven't learned the secret of life by being slightly faster than anyone who's been measured.
I am special, however. I'm the world's best nose-picker. Beat that!
Maybe to people who are as arrogant as you are, "french" would suffice to make my post ignored.
No, not quite enough to be ignored, but enough to illuminate your arrogance as well as your obsession with language as the ultimate expression of culture.
I'm glad you find English easy, being that it's such an important language these days. However, I stand by my position that English is a crazy language. Though generally considered Germanic, modern English is actually a hodgepodge of various languages, which has made for loads or irregularities. Many things have been simplified over time, such as nearly dropping the genitive case and the obsoleting the subjunctive, but pronunciation is often the real hobgoblin of learning English. You think French is amazing because "w" sometimes sounds different, well there's hardly a letter in English that indicates a consistent sound, and the fact that we use no markings or accents to indicate the different sounds doesn't make the situation easier. Ignoring all that, English has an enormous lexicon.
Now, I'm not claiming that English is the hardest language to learn. I've heard some of the Chinese dialects and Native American languages are extremely difficult. I found Attic Greek to be difficult, too-- far more complex than English. Admittedly, I find English to be easy, but then again, I'm a native speaker. I'm never sure exactly to what degree I underestimate the complexities in English due to being a native speaker, but I've had linguists point out to me how irregular it is. Also, I've known non-native speakers (who know several languages) who express that it's easy enough to learn the basics and get by, but extremely difficult to master. It all seems simple and regular until you hit upon one of the exceptions.
In any event, you do seem to be underestimating the subtlety of English.
I actually think the guy who posted the article is mangling two problems together. First, English is a language often spoken badly. I myself, believe it or not, am not perfect in this regard, but many are far worse. Americans, admittedly, tend to be a bit on the casual side with their grammar, and so might be worse, but English is such a crazy language to begin with, you can barely blame us. We aren't alone in abusing the language.
Have you heard a scottish person talk? Maybe they have good grammar, but who can tell?
Second, geeks and such are often a bit autistic-- if not actually clinically suffering from autism, then at least they exhibit symptoms by virtue of being so underexposed to other humans. As a result of this, good grammar or not, they just can't communicate.
As an aside:
The funny/sad thing is when an American will gripe about a foreigner verbally mangling English... yet that same American most likely can't even speak a 2nd language... let alone speak it fluently. Bah.
I'd say it's funny/sad when Europeans try to condemn Americans for having less exposure to the cultures of other countries. Sure, it's easy to become familiar with other countries when you're so tiny that you can't ride a train for more than 2 hours without leaving the country.
To go back to your original point, size alone can explain part of the reason Americans mangle English so badly: the larger an area you're encompassing, the more dialects will emerge. After all, most of europe really just speaks what are essentially dialects of one of two languages: Latin and German.
A video iPod would have to be very large to be worthwhile (I'm more than doubtful of the video success of the new Sony PSP, but it'll take a while for the results to come in on that). A large unit contradicts what the iPod is all about - a small, convenient device for a single purpose.
I agree that video on an iPod-sized screen would be a bit painful, but I think the PSP screen is just big enough. What I think might end up being the biggest hurdle for PSP as a video device is the idea of buying separate media just for that purpose (as in, having to choose between buying a DVD to watch on TV or a PSP disc, whatever they're called).
Lastly - I don't see why people want video while they're out and about. Audio I can understand - you can easily walk around and listen to music. Video? I look forward to the first hysterical warnings brought on by teens walking accidentally into traffic while watching their PSPs. You just can't watch video and do other things. It's too intrusive.
It certainly is easier to listen to music and do other things, but where I can imagine these things really coming in handy are for commuters (train, not car). Of course, if you live outside a big city, you might not consider this, but lots of people end up sitting on a train for a total of a few hours a day with nothing to do. People read books, work on their laptops, play games on portable devices. And yes, watch movies.
That it was done badly in Europe doesn't mean that it can't be done well. I myself am not in favor of big government, but I think all options should be considered. There are all sorts of roles the government might possibly play in the entire process of connecting people to the internet; they wouldn't necessarily need to take over the entire weight of it. For any pitfall you come up with, we could at least look for possible solutions (such as the phone company being run by the post office problem... you could choose not to have the post office run the phone company).
I agree entirely that the problem with the idea of a government-run ISP is the lack of competition brings about inefficiency and lack of innovation. However, privately-owned monopolies tend to suffer the same ills, and I'm not so sure that government-enforced private monopolies are any more healthy than government-enforced government monopolies.
I'm not sure, since I haven't read the whole decision or anything, but if they didn't, I'm sure it's because they weren't asked to decide that. Like I said, it's not the court's job to write laws. They aren't supposed to determine every legal issue concerning the internet the first time someone brings a p2p case to the court.
Sometimes they'll give hints to what they would have decided it a different question were asked, but it's really not their place to do anything but decide the case before them.
Personally, I think that the government should buy up the cable AND phone line networks, and let any company capable have service on it, but that's my "let everyone be equal" stance.
I think this is a compelling idea. I don't know enough to know if it would work well, but I could see an argument that communication lines are comparable to roads. You could still have the ISPs handing things like hosting, dns, dhcp, setup and support, without them being the group that actually lays down the lines.
Considering we're moving more and more toward having one network which provides all telecommunication (telephone, television, and internet on one line), I find it increasingly disturbing to imagine only one company (or only a couple) having a monopoly over how that network works.
I don't really want the government controlling my internet/tv/telephone network either, but I wonder if that would be a good compromise: the government lays down high-speed lines, and you get to choose a service provider who uses those lines.
And let it get processed by the courts. That seems to be the theme this year with the Justices, not giving any solid guidelines to help out, but allowing the courts to be used time and again for sorting this sort of thing out. Far be it from me to tell these people how to do their jobs, but it does seem reasonable to expect them to let the rest of us know how to make a legal judgement in this sort of thing.
And why should they? The court's role is to decide a specific quandary based on existing law, prior precedents, big ideas, and common sense, not to decide in general what's illegal and what's not. It's not the Supreme Court's job to decide en masse the legality of everything imaginable all at once.
In this case, they were in a asked to consider whether developers of a p2p client can be held accountable for illegal usage, and the answer was, yes, if they promote it for that purpose.
You want a complete law laid out describing what p2p activity is legal and what's not, petition your congressmen to formulate such laws, and the SCotUS will make decisions based on those new laws. That's what the congress is there for: making laws.
Better yet, let's all petition our congressmen. Instead of sitting around waiting for some organization or another to inform us what's illegal, why don't we, the people, decide what's illegal. I know, it's a funny idea that we get to decide how our country is run instead of "the government", but I'd like to give it a try one of these days.
You would advertise a gun as a recreational item, or a defensive tool. Not as a killing machine
Well, maybe it's just word choice, but you can advertise it as a "killing machine", just so long as you aren't promoting it's use for illegal killing (murder).
Remember, whatever your moral beliefs, "killing" can be legal. However, if guns makers advertised how their gun is particularly good for drive-bys and cop-killing, I'm sure they'd have legal difficulties.
Wait... why is this a very bad precedent? It's true that if I sell you a gun expressly for the object of helping you murder, I might very well be held accountable. And that should be true. There are many cases where this sort of standard is already applied. In general, if you commit an act with the object of promoting a crime, you are often held accountable, at least to some degree. Very similar acts, made in ignorance to criminal intents, are often not considered criminal.
For example, many medicines/drugs can also have illegal and unethical uses. Drugs can be used to get high, to poison someone else, or to commit suicide. This doesn't mean that doctors are necessarily held responsible for the use of the drugs they prescribe. If a doctor prescribes a drug with a medically valid purpose, even if that drug is used in an illegal act, the doctor is not going to be held accountable. However, if a doctor profits from writing prescriptions for drugs his patients don't need, all the while promoting their use as date-rape drugs, you can bet that doctor will find himself in trouble.
I didn't exactly suggest that it would be a legal requirement that software source be put in escrow with a specialized government agency in order or publish. Just... something. Like I said, I don't know, I'm not a lawyer. But there could be some consideration.
I don't think I'm saying anything too nutty if you think about it. We're talking about expiring the copyright on software and releasing it to the public domain, right? The idea of IP protection and public domain is, as far as I'm concerned, should be that the people, by means of the government, offer protection to certain ideas and innovations for a limited time, and in return, the idea/innovation is offered for public use after that time expires. Well, offering software to the public domain without the source code is like offering DRM'ed books and music to the public domain which don't allow sampling or rewrites. What's the point?
As far as the purpose of this particular social contract, I believe that if software developers aren't willing to share their 20 year old products (which they aren't even offering for sale) with their fellow citizens, then maybe we citizens should bother protecting their rights to a monopoly on those products in the first place.
I don't have an idea for enforcing it to offer. I just have the principle in mind, and the belief that such a principle should be kept in consideration while formulating any laws involving the protection of intellectual property.
Well, and beyond Windows XP, there are all sorts of professional apps that people download to play around with but there's no chance that they'd pay for it. I posted elsewhere, when I was in high school, I downloaded Photoshop to make desktop wallpaper for myself. It was total overkill, sure, but either way, I wasn't going to spend $700 for something to play around with and make desktop wallpaper.
As another example of this, I had friends in high school who were downloading multi-thousand dollar ray-tracing programs for no reason other than to see what was possible. They tried their hands at all sorts of things. Certainly, it can't be argued that the company producing that software was deprived of thousands of dollars in revenue.
Now, of course, this all becomes a slippery-slope sort of thing. I could pirate the latest version of MS Office, which I can afford, and then claim, "But I wouldn't have bought it if I didn't get it for free!" And maybe I wouldn't have. But then again, if you didn't have the option of downloading software for free, surely you would buy SOME software, or else you wouldn't buy a computer at all. On the other hand, with all the expense of hardware and software, I'm sure that, if software piracy didn't exist, there would be many more people who didn't buy a computer at all.
When you get down to it, the issue just isn't as simple as many people (on either side) make it out to be. I think, at least, developers making professional-level software should keep in mind those who are using their software for educational purposes. I'm pleased, at least, to see that companies like Adobe and Macromedia provide "educational" versions that are substantially cheaper (and I haven't heard of any company going after students for using pirated software for amateur purposes). Still, I'd like to see more.
Personally, I think that dropping the copyright length to something more reasonable (on the order or 10-20 years) would really help curtain infringement. People who want the item now will pay for it. People who can wait will wait. People who can't afford the latest and greatest can now use something older rather than priate the lastest stuff.
In addition, I'd like to see some consideration for a legal means to compel companies to open-source their old abandonware. IANAL, nor am I a software developer, so I don't know what would be an appropriate means, of what exceptions should be granted. However, it seems to me that if you're a software company who wrote something 20 years ago, you're not using it, you're not selling it, and you have no plans for it whatsoever-- well, it doesn't seem too unreasonable to me that someone with use for the software should be able to get the government to compel them to release the source code.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, while at work, during some down-time, I made a linux server my company didn't need. I experimented with php/mysql/CMS, I scanned the internet for info on new technologies coming out. That's hobby time, spent at work, "wasting time".
Still, that Linux server came in handy when we were in a pinch and we needed a new FTP server. My php/mysql knowledge came in handy when some manager asked the IT group if we had the ability to set up an online forum. Knowing about new technology developments comes in handy enough when making purchasing decisions. "Oh, let's not buy that right now. Rumor is they're about to release a new version."
I'd even dare to say scanning slashdot discussions has given me some insight into technical issues-- issues relevant to my job.
The darndest things can come up handy, and bosses can't always predict what a little aimless stroll around the internet will turn up. "Productivity" isn't everything.
Yeah, I'm not really seeing your point. To believe that insurance COULD be done cheaper means you would need to believe either A or B.... and?
I guess I'm still waiting for the part of the argument that demonstrates why A and B are unreasonable things to believe.
Where it might be useful is in education, for learning new shortcuts, for playing games or using apps that you don't use often enough to touch type everything, etc. I could imagine a kiosk where you want the meaning of the keys to change, but you aren't dealing with users who use those apps every day.
The "holding shift causes letters to become capital" is really simple, but at least it would add a sort of consistency. Or how about this: you won't need a caps-lock light anymore. If you look at the keyboard and all the letters are caps, but you aren't pressing shift, then caps-lock is on.
I think the real (everyday) value in your parent post is in shortcuts. Sure, we call know ctrl-X means copy, but there might be loads of shortcuts in a given app that you just don't remember off-hand. Instead of hunting through the menu system, you could just hold down ctrl and see what pops up.
If it's done right, there could even be some driver-magic so that the keyboard can automatically tell what app is active and what shortcuts are available for that app, and then program itself accordingly.
I like it. Besides being very non-abrasive, it would make it very easy to use color as a visual cue. If the components are generally black and white, it really stands out when something red pops up.
I hope this kid is joking.
They don't have to understand it, it'll still spread like an urban myth. In other words, FUD works both ways.
However, my roommate doesn't understand any of this, and believes that the generator is, in fact, a toaster.
However, statistics are not determinative. This is a mistake I've heard from both laymen and experts. The fact that, according to what's known (and factored in to the calculation) an event is 99.999999999% likely to happen... well, that doesn't mean it will happen. Really, it doesn't matter how unlikely your statistics demonstrate something to be, it won't prevent the unlikely from happening.
In fact, it's demonstrable from statistical analysis that we should expect tremendously improbable events to happen quite often, and that the chances of the most probable outcomes to occur at every instance is an incredibly unlikely outcome as time stretches on.
So statistics are an interpretive tool, not an answer. Statistics alone cannot tell you what will happen, they can't tell you what has happened, and they certainly cannot tell you what should happen. And all these comments you're talking about, I think they come from a valid frustration borne from sloppy reporting telling us "scientists have discovered that 75% of" this and "they now know that 25% of" that outside of any meaningful context.
And what's the likelihood that all these percentages are correct? What's the margin of error, and what's the margin of error's margin of error? Certainly the people telling us these "facts" (reporters) have no idea.
Except that it's not someone giving you a free book. Like you said, you have access to copy it, so it's a little more like someone putting a free book on display in a public place right next to a xerox machine and encouraging people to xerox the thing and take it home to read.
And, in fact, that book will also be cached elsewhere, so it's as if they've set out this easily xerox-able book, with instructions on how to xerox it, and permission to do so, with the intent of putting it through the "xerox network". So you're in a world filled with xerox machines, and unless they're idiots, they should understand that their distribution model relies on (in some cases) other people taking the xerox copy and setting it next to their own xerox machine for others to copy.
Now, lets say this book publisher releases a new book. And updated version of the same book. They set the new book next to the xerox machine, and ask that everyone in this "xerox network" copy the new book and set that next to their own xerox machines, replacing the old book. Now let's say that one guy just doesn't replace the first edition, but sets the second edition out next to it, leaving the old one where it is, and gives people the choice. He's doing this as a public service, so people can study the evolution of literature. He's doing it for free.
You want page 59? Well, page 59 of the book was publicly available in two different versions. Which one do you want?
In this strange hypothetical situation, would the book publisher have a right to sue? Ok, maybe it's not exactly an apt example either, but saying "the only difference between a copyrighted work as a webpage, and a copyrighted work as a book, is intent" isn't exactly right either.
Can someone who is a lawyer in this field comment? What about fair use previsions? Like, if I library kept a public archive, made no profit, but made copies of published works available identically with how they were originally published?
Like, can a newspaper sue a library for allowing people to view old editions of the newspaper without permission?
Being sodomized for 10 years is also quite irreversible. At least, when you kill me, I probably won't mind after the fact.
That's a good question. I wonder how much better I would feel if I were merely forced to live the rest of my life being sodomized on a regular basis while in prison for a crime I didn't commit.
Maybe we just shouldn't punish anyone?
Think about it, why should I care if I'm the fastest runner in the world or the 100th fastest? Or the thousandth fastest, or worse. I can understand wanting to be healthy, or even wanting to be fast, especially if you want to be fast for some purpose, but wanting to break the world record for the fastest man alive just seems... arbitrary. What does it diminish by abilities to know that there was someone at some time somewhere has done better?
And let me tell you, they're all parlor tricks. They're specialized little tasks. It's like being the world's best card shuffler. Sure it's a skill. It might even be impressive, but it won't save you from what you're trying to save yourself from. You're not special and winning and immortal and grand. You haven't learned the secret of life by being slightly faster than anyone who's been measured.
I am special, however. I'm the world's best nose-picker. Beat that!
No, not quite enough to be ignored, but enough to illuminate your arrogance as well as your obsession with language as the ultimate expression of culture.
I'm glad you find English easy, being that it's such an important language these days. However, I stand by my position that English is a crazy language. Though generally considered Germanic, modern English is actually a hodgepodge of various languages, which has made for loads or irregularities. Many things have been simplified over time, such as nearly dropping the genitive case and the obsoleting the subjunctive, but pronunciation is often the real hobgoblin of learning English. You think French is amazing because "w" sometimes sounds different, well there's hardly a letter in English that indicates a consistent sound, and the fact that we use no markings or accents to indicate the different sounds doesn't make the situation easier. Ignoring all that, English has an enormous lexicon.
Now, I'm not claiming that English is the hardest language to learn. I've heard some of the Chinese dialects and Native American languages are extremely difficult. I found Attic Greek to be difficult, too-- far more complex than English. Admittedly, I find English to be easy, but then again, I'm a native speaker. I'm never sure exactly to what degree I underestimate the complexities in English due to being a native speaker, but I've had linguists point out to me how irregular it is. Also, I've known non-native speakers (who know several languages) who express that it's easy enough to learn the basics and get by, but extremely difficult to master. It all seems simple and regular until you hit upon one of the exceptions.
In any event, you do seem to be underestimating the subtlety of English.
Have you heard a scottish person talk? Maybe they have good grammar, but who can tell?
Second, geeks and such are often a bit autistic-- if not actually clinically suffering from autism, then at least they exhibit symptoms by virtue of being so underexposed to other humans. As a result of this, good grammar or not, they just can't communicate.
As an aside:
The funny/sad thing is when an American will gripe about a foreigner verbally mangling English... yet that same American most likely can't even speak a 2nd language... let alone speak it fluently. Bah.
I'd say it's funny/sad when Europeans try to condemn Americans for having less exposure to the cultures of other countries. Sure, it's easy to become familiar with other countries when you're so tiny that you can't ride a train for more than 2 hours without leaving the country.
To go back to your original point, size alone can explain part of the reason Americans mangle English so badly: the larger an area you're encompassing, the more dialects will emerge. After all, most of europe really just speaks what are essentially dialects of one of two languages: Latin and German.
I agree that video on an iPod-sized screen would be a bit painful, but I think the PSP screen is just big enough. What I think might end up being the biggest hurdle for PSP as a video device is the idea of buying separate media just for that purpose (as in, having to choose between buying a DVD to watch on TV or a PSP disc, whatever they're called).
Lastly - I don't see why people want video while they're out and about. Audio I can understand - you can easily walk around and listen to music. Video? I look forward to the first hysterical warnings brought on by teens walking accidentally into traffic while watching their PSPs. You just can't watch video and do other things. It's too intrusive.
It certainly is easier to listen to music and do other things, but where I can imagine these things really coming in handy are for commuters (train, not car). Of course, if you live outside a big city, you might not consider this, but lots of people end up sitting on a train for a total of a few hours a day with nothing to do. People read books, work on their laptops, play games on portable devices. And yes, watch movies.
I agree entirely that the problem with the idea of a government-run ISP is the lack of competition brings about inefficiency and lack of innovation. However, privately-owned monopolies tend to suffer the same ills, and I'm not so sure that government-enforced private monopolies are any more healthy than government-enforced government monopolies.
Sometimes they'll give hints to what they would have decided it a different question were asked, but it's really not their place to do anything but decide the case before them.
I think this is a compelling idea. I don't know enough to know if it would work well, but I could see an argument that communication lines are comparable to roads. You could still have the ISPs handing things like hosting, dns, dhcp, setup and support, without them being the group that actually lays down the lines.
Considering we're moving more and more toward having one network which provides all telecommunication (telephone, television, and internet on one line), I find it increasingly disturbing to imagine only one company (or only a couple) having a monopoly over how that network works.
I don't really want the government controlling my internet/tv/telephone network either, but I wonder if that would be a good compromise: the government lays down high-speed lines, and you get to choose a service provider who uses those lines.
And why should they? The court's role is to decide a specific quandary based on existing law, prior precedents, big ideas, and common sense, not to decide in general what's illegal and what's not. It's not the Supreme Court's job to decide en masse the legality of everything imaginable all at once.
In this case, they were in a asked to consider whether developers of a p2p client can be held accountable for illegal usage, and the answer was, yes, if they promote it for that purpose.
You want a complete law laid out describing what p2p activity is legal and what's not, petition your congressmen to formulate such laws, and the SCotUS will make decisions based on those new laws. That's what the congress is there for: making laws.
Better yet, let's all petition our congressmen. Instead of sitting around waiting for some organization or another to inform us what's illegal, why don't we, the people, decide what's illegal. I know, it's a funny idea that we get to decide how our country is run instead of "the government", but I'd like to give it a try one of these days.
Well, maybe it's just word choice, but you can advertise it as a "killing machine", just so long as you aren't promoting it's use for illegal killing (murder).
Remember, whatever your moral beliefs, "killing" can be legal. However, if guns makers advertised how their gun is particularly good for drive-bys and cop-killing, I'm sure they'd have legal difficulties.
For example, many medicines/drugs can also have illegal and unethical uses. Drugs can be used to get high, to poison someone else, or to commit suicide. This doesn't mean that doctors are necessarily held responsible for the use of the drugs they prescribe. If a doctor prescribes a drug with a medically valid purpose, even if that drug is used in an illegal act, the doctor is not going to be held accountable. However, if a doctor profits from writing prescriptions for drugs his patients don't need, all the while promoting their use as date-rape drugs, you can bet that doctor will find himself in trouble.
I don't think I'm saying anything too nutty if you think about it. We're talking about expiring the copyright on software and releasing it to the public domain, right? The idea of IP protection and public domain is, as far as I'm concerned, should be that the people, by means of the government, offer protection to certain ideas and innovations for a limited time, and in return, the idea/innovation is offered for public use after that time expires. Well, offering software to the public domain without the source code is like offering DRM'ed books and music to the public domain which don't allow sampling or rewrites. What's the point?
As far as the purpose of this particular social contract, I believe that if software developers aren't willing to share their 20 year old products (which they aren't even offering for sale) with their fellow citizens, then maybe we citizens should bother protecting their rights to a monopoly on those products in the first place.
I don't have an idea for enforcing it to offer. I just have the principle in mind, and the belief that such a principle should be kept in consideration while formulating any laws involving the protection of intellectual property.
As another example of this, I had friends in high school who were downloading multi-thousand dollar ray-tracing programs for no reason other than to see what was possible. They tried their hands at all sorts of things. Certainly, it can't be argued that the company producing that software was deprived of thousands of dollars in revenue.
Now, of course, this all becomes a slippery-slope sort of thing. I could pirate the latest version of MS Office, which I can afford, and then claim, "But I wouldn't have bought it if I didn't get it for free!" And maybe I wouldn't have. But then again, if you didn't have the option of downloading software for free, surely you would buy SOME software, or else you wouldn't buy a computer at all. On the other hand, with all the expense of hardware and software, I'm sure that, if software piracy didn't exist, there would be many more people who didn't buy a computer at all.
When you get down to it, the issue just isn't as simple as many people (on either side) make it out to be. I think, at least, developers making professional-level software should keep in mind those who are using their software for educational purposes. I'm pleased, at least, to see that companies like Adobe and Macromedia provide "educational" versions that are substantially cheaper (and I haven't heard of any company going after students for using pirated software for amateur purposes). Still, I'd like to see more.
In addition, I'd like to see some consideration for a legal means to compel companies to open-source their old abandonware. IANAL, nor am I a software developer, so I don't know what would be an appropriate means, of what exceptions should be granted. However, it seems to me that if you're a software company who wrote something 20 years ago, you're not using it, you're not selling it, and you have no plans for it whatsoever-- well, it doesn't seem too unreasonable to me that someone with use for the software should be able to get the government to compel them to release the source code.