Look at movies where they tell what happend to the main characters. Look at e.g. LotR that did not end when the ring was destroyed (Oops, spoiler.) I like it to see what happens afterwards, unless it is the sole purpose to make you think what might have happend.
It all depends on the story that is being told. Some are just good enough to make it as a one timer, others turn into series, like Calvin and Hobbes. It did not end after the first one. It went on.
Most often a series will not change that much. The 'bald and the plentifull' can be seen after three years and not much has changed. What is hard is to change genre. e.g. your snowwhite example. One is a ferry tale, the other a more realistic genre. And at some point, the new ideas are just not good enough anymore. That is the time to stop, like e.g. Monthy Pyton did.
When will this "War on privacy" end? Most likely only when and if people stand up to it. And they won't as they do not see it as a treath to whatever they have. I rather sit in a plane with a potential terrerist and riks to be blown to smithereens then people taking away my privacy rights because of some bullshit security.
The drive to the airport is still more dangerous then the flight itself and that includes being killed by terrerists.
When looking at it now, the stazi of Eastern Germany were boyscouts.
You should not fear anything but fear itself. But as long as the media is selling news as entertainment, we will be hearing about these outrages dangers that almost never happen. Man bites dog is news and this means that dog bites man isn't and won't be shown. That means that people do not get all the information they need to do some basic risk assesment.
That's why hiring isn't (or shouldn't be) done on solely a candidate's degree.
What is often written (and if not written, often iimplied) in job descriptions is that is says "Degree X or equivalent by experience". This certainly happens in IT. Not in places where a degree is a must, like a docter or a lawer.
That obviously does not make it OK to lie about it, but I can imagine that people might do so, because they are afraid not to get the job and as long as they have the experience, no one is the wiser.
We sometimes outsource translations. You would expect them to be done by people who know the language. Often I wonder if the translations are done by babelfish. There were almost always spelling errors as well as gramatical errors and sometimes even change in the meaning of the content. The word 'not' can be pretty important.
(If you see any errors in it and correct me, I will take that as a comliment for you thinking that English is my first language.)
This female surgeon can't even cook bacon and eggs, what makes the bitch think she can take out my kidney?
Reminds me of something that was actually asked at a docter who was becoming a surgeon. It went like "If you can not even control your hand to hold a pen and produce something readable, how do you think you can become a surgeon and not slice open things you should not?" Not sure what the answer was, but apparently sufficient to pass.
Opt out is NEVER a good thing. But appernetly Google can do so.
I got some copyright. That copyright tells that there is no opt-out. It is all opt-in. So if you, as a company, start to make deals I am not involved in that overstep those rights, you can be sure that I will complain.
What needs to change and can be done by governement is to firstly change the copyright laws. e.g. 14 years and after that it is in public domain. At that moment my rights are not violated and the company (or individual or whoever) can still index it to their harts content after that 14 years.
And to answer who deserves a greater inconvinience, that is easy to answer: the person who does not have the rights. And you are right that you can't trust publishers. However I also can't trust the indexer as they are also profit driven.
You do not have any rights of my copyrighted stuff. At this moment if I write something and have no desire to print more then 100 books, you do not have a right to make book 101, no matter how good or importand it is. If you want to read that content, you either buy one of the books second hand, or convice me to publish book 101. If you want to distribute the content, you better ask permission as you do not have it.
It is not that I am in favour of this system, but what you need to do is slove the cause of the problem, not give ne company rights to ignore my rights.
The first question I, fiends and family ask is: can you talk now? And sometimes the first thing I ask is "Is it impartand?" If not, the conversation is over after a "I'll call you back." and if it is importand, when I am on my cellphone, I excuse myself to the others around me and stand somewhere else.
I even walk away from my desk if have a personal call at the office. Almost everybody does that where I work.
You decided that the alternatives where no good right from the start. Indeed 100% coverage is not possible. So start with 5% or 10% or whatever. The problem is (and that is not a US thing, that happens everywhere) that the place where people live and the place where people work have changed over time. People used to live in the cities and work in the cities. That was also the time that public transport evolved.
So if you want public transport to be successfull, you must tackle several things. 1) How do people get to where the public transport is. 2) What are the highest potentiol routes and times 3) How do get people from that public transport to the office
The shorter the distance and time is with 1 and 3, the more interesting it will become as an alternative. And 2 should be as direct as possible.
e.g. I could take public transport. I live near a train station and where I work there is a train station nearby. However I would need to change trains twice, which will mean I will miss a connection at least 1 time a week going to work, which will mean I will need to get a train earlier, so I am in in time.
So even that I live in Belgium where public transport is not bad, it still is not an alternative for me now. It used to be at another place where I wokred and I would prefere it to driving each day.
Phones now have bluetooth. Car radios now have blutooth. Buy a new radio and talk handsfree. It makes for a HUGE difference if you hold your phone or if you are spaking handsfree. Strangely also for your concentration in traffic.
Number recognition. If it sees the dedicated number, it starts the car. If not, it doesn't. That way you don't even need to make a connection. Just let it ring once.
I am not able to fix my car and yet the governement wants me to have things safe for others. I doubt that I can use that as an excuse driving around in a car that is not up to the standard that they demand. I believe there is a difference between fixing it and fixing it yourself.
We don't seem to believe in using foresight to ease predictable and inevitable suffering of any kind.
We did with the year 2000 issue. Know why there was no issue? because we prevented it. The real problem is that we would need to somehow get along in deciding what and when and that is what we are very bad at. The reason for that is that some people will be willing to compromise for whatwever reason. Just picking a starting date could cause problems. If country A proposes a date, country B will against it, because country A is "Teh Ev1L!" and the other way around. COuntry C can only agree if it proposes a date itself and will decline every other. Then there are people who say countries MUST enforce this, where others say that countries should have absolutely no say in it whatsoever.
So yes, it will sort itself out when we get there. That is what we do since at least 6.000 years and we are pretty good at it.
So how often do cars hit you that you must have a camera with you all the time? And I also never had the real need to take a picture NOW. Sometimes it would be nice, but never a real need. I have a camera on my phone since the last 5 years and I even have no idea how it works, and also never had the need for it. When I think about it, I have never had that need in my whole life.
The same with browsing. I can wait a few hours before I must search something at home or in the office. I am sure nobody will die if I do not reply immidiatly on email.
When Katie Curic asked Sarah Palin what newspapers and magazines she read, Palin should have responded "I don't read Newspapers, I read the news on the internet", and mentioned that all the news stories of the day have been driven by sites like Drudge, LittleGreenFootballs and Daily Kos, and Huffington Post, not by NYT or Washington Post.
From what I heard here tell, she did not read any of the sites you mentioned and gets her info mainly from The Onion.
My only request is for everyone to be open to new ways of paying for the synthesis of information. It is very difficult for humans to compete with the robot link farms and the casual content created on places like Facebook.
Open to it? Sure. Just like I am open to getting stuff WITHOUt paying for the synthesis of information. Sure, competition is hard. We will see in the end what happens and it might be some third option we have not even yet thought about. I will be open for anything as long as you are also open to alternatives, which might mean that your income will go away as it happens now. Just like Gutenberg put a lot of people out of a job, now Internet might do the same. Only in a few years will we see what the result was.
Why this focus on airports? There are plenty of places where you could go and do damage or treaten to do damage. Trains, subways and busses are already done in western countries. Buildings have been done. If your desire is to increase paranoya, select places that are now freely accisible. Nightclubs, bars, footbal stadiums, pop concerts,...
Any place where there are many people together and no paranoya is available now could be a target. And what about bridges and tunnels. Or target traffic on a monday morning.
Also you could go outside the large cities. If people won't feel safe anymore in the small vilages, things can go mental very fast.
The only conclusion is that if somebody wants to blow up something, he will succeed. Unfortunatly that is not a conclusion people want to lve with. People want to be 100% safe and hand over their privacy as if it was free. Privacy is not an issue anymore. We must know what everybody is doing. Be it via twitter, tv shows, newspapers and any other medium. To me privacy is even things I do in public. Even though you can see it, that does (for me) not mean you can fotograph it and store it for any reason.
You want to see me do something, be there. If not, though luck for you. It is about MY rights, not YOUR rights. If that means that you might need permission of 1.000 people and that is not possible, that is YOUR issue and no reason to invade MY privacy.
Slashdot Mirror
How could they? They violated his copyright and took away any incentive for the man to make another movie.
Look at movies where they tell what happend to the main characters. Look at e.g. LotR that did not end when the ring was destroyed (Oops, spoiler.) I like it to see what happens afterwards, unless it is the sole purpose to make you think what might have happend.
It all depends on the story that is being told. Some are just good enough to make it as a one timer, others turn into series, like Calvin and Hobbes. It did not end after the first one. It went on.
Most often a series will not change that much. The 'bald and the plentifull' can be seen after three years and not much has changed. What is hard is to change genre. e.g. your snowwhite example. One is a ferry tale, the other a more realistic genre. And at some point, the new ideas are just not good enough anymore. That is the time to stop, like e.g. Monthy Pyton did.
When will this "War on privacy" end? Most likely only when and if people stand up to it. And they won't as they do not see it as a treath to whatever they have. I rather sit in a plane with a potential terrerist and riks to be blown to smithereens then people taking away my privacy rights because of some bullshit security.
The drive to the airport is still more dangerous then the flight itself and that includes being killed by terrerists.
When looking at it now, the stazi of Eastern Germany were boyscouts.
You should not fear anything but fear itself. But as long as the media is selling news as entertainment, we will be hearing about these outrages dangers that almost never happen. Man bites dog is news and this means that dog bites man isn't and won't be shown. That means that people do not get all the information they need to do some basic risk assesment.
What is often written (and if not written, often iimplied) in job descriptions is that is says "Degree X or equivalent by experience". This certainly happens in IT. Not in places where a degree is a must, like a docter or a lawer.
That obviously does not make it OK to lie about it, but I can imagine that people might do so, because they are afraid not to get the job and as long as they have the experience, no one is the wiser.
We sometimes outsource translations. You would expect them to be done by people who know the language. Often I wonder if the translations are done by babelfish. There were almost always spelling errors as well as gramatical errors and sometimes even change in the meaning of the content. The word 'not' can be pretty important.
(If you see any errors in it and correct me, I will take that as a comliment for you thinking that English is my first language.)
It must be great to be such an optimist and think this will be the biggest scandal this century, even though we still have 90 years to go.
I think a website is harder. I mean, putting a man on the moon should not be that hard. It's not like it's rocket science.
Reminds me of something that was actually asked at a docter who was becoming a surgeon. It went like "If you can not even control your hand to hold a pen and produce something readable, how do you think you can become a surgeon and not slice open things you should not?" Not sure what the answer was, but apparently sufficient to pass.
Opt out is NEVER a good thing. But appernetly Google can do so.
I got some copyright. That copyright tells that there is no opt-out. It is all opt-in. So if you, as a company, start to make deals I am not involved in that overstep those rights, you can be sure that I will complain.
What needs to change and can be done by governement is to firstly change the copyright laws. e.g. 14 years and after that it is in public domain. At that moment my rights are not violated and the company (or individual or whoever) can still index it to their harts content after that 14 years.
And to answer who deserves a greater inconvinience, that is easy to answer: the person who does not have the rights. And you are right that you can't trust publishers. However I also can't trust the indexer as they are also profit driven.
You do not have any rights of my copyrighted stuff. At this moment if I write something and have no desire to print more then 100 books, you do not have a right to make book 101, no matter how good or importand it is. If you want to read that content, you either buy one of the books second hand, or convice me to publish book 101. If you want to distribute the content, you better ask permission as you do not have it.
It is not that I am in favour of this system, but what you need to do is slove the cause of the problem, not give ne company rights to ignore my rights.
I like it when big breasts beat each other. Wait, nevermind.
Logic overload. What will happen is that the raison d'être will change.
In other words, they try to solve a social problem with a technical solution.
The first question I, fiends and family ask is: can you talk now? And sometimes the first thing I ask is "Is it impartand?" If not, the conversation is over after a "I'll call you back." and if it is importand, when I am on my cellphone, I excuse myself to the others around me and stand somewhere else.
I even walk away from my desk if have a personal call at the office. Almost everybody does that where I work.
You decided that the alternatives where no good right from the start. Indeed 100% coverage is not possible. So start with 5% or 10% or whatever. The problem is (and that is not a US thing, that happens everywhere) that the place where people live and the place where people work have changed over time.
People used to live in the cities and work in the cities. That was also the time that public transport evolved.
So if you want public transport to be successfull, you must tackle several things.
1) How do people get to where the public transport is.
2) What are the highest potentiol routes and times
3) How do get people from that public transport to the office
The shorter the distance and time is with 1 and 3, the more interesting it will become as an alternative.
And 2 should be as direct as possible.
e.g. I could take public transport. I live near a train station and where I work there is a train station nearby. However I would need to change trains twice, which will mean I will miss a connection at least 1 time a week going to work, which will mean I will need to get a train earlier, so I am in in time.
So even that I live in Belgium where public transport is not bad, it still is not an alternative for me now. It used to be at another place where I wokred and I would prefere it to driving each day.
Phones now have bluetooth. Car radios now have blutooth. Buy a new radio and talk handsfree. It makes for a HUGE difference if you hold your phone or if you are spaking handsfree. Strangely also for your concentration in traffic.
Number recognition. If it sees the dedicated number, it starts the car. If not, it doesn't. That way you don't even need to make a connection. Just let it ring once.
I am not able to fix my car and yet the governement wants me to have things safe for others. I doubt that I can use that as an excuse driving around in a car that is not up to the standard that they demand.
I believe there is a difference between fixing it and fixing it yourself.
So how often do cars hit you that you must have a camera with you all the time? And I also never had the real need to take a picture NOW. Sometimes it would be nice, but never a real need. I have a camera on my phone since the last 5 years and I even have no idea how it works, and also never had the need for it. When I think about it, I have never had that need in my whole life.
The same with browsing. I can wait a few hours before I must search something at home or in the office. I am sure nobody will die if I do not reply immidiatly on email.
Free as in speech, not as in beer.
From what I heard here tell, she did not read any of the sites you mentioned and gets her info mainly from The Onion.
Open to it? Sure. Just like I am open to getting stuff WITHOUt paying for the synthesis of information.
Sure, competition is hard. We will see in the end what happens and it might be some third option we have not even yet thought about.
I will be open for anything as long as you are also open to alternatives, which might mean that your income will go away as it happens now. Just like Gutenberg put a lot of people out of a job, now Internet might do the same. Only in a few years will we see what the result was.
You mean like acharacter called, well, Sherlock Holmes.
Just one or the first one?
First they cane after the idiots and I did nothing, because I am not an idiot.
[Fill out the rest your self]
Why this focus on airports? There are plenty of places where you could go and do damage or treaten to do damage. Trains, subways and busses are already done in western countries. Buildings have been done. If your desire is to increase paranoya, select places that are now freely accisible. Nightclubs, bars, footbal stadiums, pop concerts, ...
Any place where there are many people together and no paranoya is available now could be a target. And what about bridges and tunnels. Or target traffic on a monday morning.
Also you could go outside the large cities. If people won't feel safe anymore in the small vilages, things can go mental very fast.
The only conclusion is that if somebody wants to blow up something, he will succeed. Unfortunatly that is not a conclusion people want to lve with. People want to be 100% safe and hand over their privacy as if it was free. Privacy is not an issue anymore. We must know what everybody is doing. Be it via twitter, tv shows, newspapers and any other medium. To me privacy is even things I do in public. Even though you can see it, that does (for me) not mean you can fotograph it and store it for any reason.
You want to see me do something, be there. If not, though luck for you. It is about MY rights, not YOUR rights. If that means that you might need permission of 1.000 people and that is not possible, that is YOUR issue and no reason to invade MY privacy.