TFA says that survey does address H1-B visas and Free Trade. I think you can assume that a high score in the sruvey means supporting more H1-Bs and more offshoring.
So are they doing their part to protect the middle class? Only to the extent that middle class people invest in tech companies.
[F]rom what [I] understood from this article, this survey appears to be monumentally biased. [I}t seems to believe that all "tech people" have the same politics . ..
I don't think the survey is intended to reflect opinions of tech people. From TFA:
Internet policy, others covered computer export restrictions, H-1B visas, free trade, research and development, electronic passports and class action lawsuits.
From these issues, by "tech friendly", the survey means "friendly to big corporations involved in tech". They don't mean friendly to tech people at all, but tech investors -- who pay the bills (in congress). You dance with the one that brung ya. For congress, that's corporations.
Diebold could also screw with your bank account while you're withdrawing money through one of their ATM's. No question they could.
Cause there's no way to catch that. No audit trail available, there. No way. Banks don't keep records, and customers don't even balance their books. Not once, not ever.
Now we can rig elections without having to force anyone to do anything. No one is under threat of pain or death for failing to 'vote early and often'.
So crime (vote fraud) has fewer side-effects in the broken limbs and blunt trauma areas, now. But the desired effect, manipulated elections, is still possible. I don't know if I want to return to the bad old days or not. Although if people were actually being assaulted for their votes, perhaps the issue would be more front-and-center. Kind of like the Vietnam-era draft: it brought the war home for many Americans vs. Iraq war today.
Does anyone on Slashdot really have any idea what the words/concepts of "theft" and "stealing" mean anymore?
I think you miss my point in arguing the meaning of the word "steal". Unless you would prosecute baseball players for stealing a base or basketball players for stealing the ball. And let's not even talk about stealing the show, because focusing on the definition of "steal" is doing just that, when it was just an aside in my comment anyway.
My point was to call attention to the allegation in the story that NPR stations are suffering more than their share of interference from the mobile satellite radio RM modulators.
. ..many FM modulators, used to feed programming from portable satellite radio devices into car stereos, exceed FCC power requirements. That means a driver listening to NPR might suddenly hear a blast of obscenities from Howard Stern from a car as far as 100 feet away. NPR stations have received hundreds of complaints from listeners, says Mike Starling, chief technology officer of NPR Labs, which has studied the issue.
NPR stations tend to be located in the same end of the FM band that the FM modulators operate in, so you can see why they would feel put out: Satellite radio is stealing their listeners and kicking them in the shins. Siphoning off listeners is just business, but keying on the same stations (even if it's not intentional) is worth complaining about.
You can't blame someone for complaining about another party unjustly interfering with their business. You can't "just focus on broadcasting" if you're being jammed.
No matter how hot your technology is today, tomorrow's technology will be hotter and the municipality won't be able to react
[sarcasm]And Bells are really speedy about rolling out new technology [/sarcasm]. . . They promised video phone in the 1960s "real soon now".
You say municipal governments won't upgrade their technology. Monopolies, regulated or not, aren't real quick to deploy new technolgy either. Like for instance, broadband internet in areas that are now considering municipal wireless internet.
Also notice in TFA that it's not only municipalities that the Bells want to keep out of the broadband business, but any potential competitor, public or private.
Seriously, why is voting any different from these other very important uses of computers? Doesn't it make more sense to fix the problem rather than ban the machines?
The automated financial transactions (like your "automated ATM machine teller machine") are auditable.
The life & safety equipment is subject to extensive testing.
Unfortunately, the voting machines are not subject to the same scrutiny.
Have you considered that threatening to ban voting machines might just be one way to "fix the problem"?
Plus, do you really think that first responders enjoy scraping your dead ass off the highway or that other motorists want to see your internal organs spread out all over the road, all because you weren't quite comfortable enough with a seat belt on. No, it definitely does hurt other people.
OK, the seat belt analogy was bad, but this argument for requiring seat belt use takes the cake. To prevent others from seeing your mangled remains!?! I guess I can finally ask for my pet law: Mandatory stomach stapling for the morbidly obese and pants-belt legislation for kids whose underwear sticks out above their trousers. Cause I don't enjoy those, and I'm forced to see them.
Why would there be? We're not talking about prosecuting people (yet...), just about filtering copyright materials that legally people shouldn't be uploading anyway.
Why would a court be involved?
You're missing the forest for the trees:
Trees = court judgement.
Forest = human intervention was required to make an accurate judgement call.
Before the president can sign a bill, it has to get passed by both houses of congress. It's one of the least stealthy processes on the planet . . . So why does this writeup make it sound like Bush magically created this law himself?
Remember the USA PATRIOT (sic) Act? Written by the White House, rubber stamped by Congress without anyone reading it? Back on the president's desk for a signature that's only a formality. It was only a few years ago.
The fans response? Retroactively invoice Universal for their services."
Wrong. From TFA:
In other words, this site should not be taken as an attempt to actually bill Universal Pictures for all of our time, energy, and effort, nor encouragement for any fan do try to do so. We just believe that there is a point to be made.
One of these headlines in interesting and makes me want to read the story and discover the quote in the second. The other is not and does not.
Look, if my house has poor security, you're still in trouble if you start a factory to create keys for criminals to break in.
So if you have a front door made of dual-purpose office paper, and I tell other people about it, then I'm the fool? You have a funny definition of that word.
Face it, software activation is here, and here to stay. Get used to it. For the legit user, it's not a problem.
I face it, but I don't want it here to stay. I don't want to get used to it.
Instead, I have been migrating everything I do, even Real Work, to less annoying systems and software.
I am the customer. I am the consumer. Face it, I am here to stay. I don't like dealing with licensing annoyances. For a legit vendor, this is not a problem.
I just use "album", "track", and occasionally "EP".
I do use the term "album" myself, even though the LP did pretty much kill actual "albums". It's a nice term, particularly for popular music realeased ~10 tracks at a time, with its connotation of an intentional collection songs. I guess "track" sticks with me, too. Although we'd be hard pressed to find a "track" on a CD. So, ya, let's keep 'em.
They keep calling themselves record companies, which pretty much explains the problem: just like records, they are trapped way back in a time before the age of the internet.
I have to admit that I still use the term "record" all the time. I don't think another word really describes an audio recording as nicely. I guess I'm just unable to associate "record" with LP the way most people are. When I wish to say "LP" or "cassette" or "CD", I do.
When I hear someone correcting me for calling a CD a "record", I tend to think of them as the one trapped back in 1987.
My point is: these companies are still producing audio recordings, but to go around saying "Audio Recordings" instead of "records" just seems too stuffy even for me. And to update the term with each new medium gets boring.
``Expect it to take place in places where Candidate X carries 70-75% of the vote.
That is, expect it to take place in places where Candidate X carries 75-80% of the vote.''
Why change these results if your candidate already won anyway?
Why? To win a state and the state's electoral votes (in a presidential race).
In the US, the president is elected by the Electoral College. Each state sends a certain number of "Electors" to the Electoral College to cast their vote's for that state's winning candidate. So on a state-by-state basis, it's a winner-take-all system. So you want to change outcomes in counties in order to win a whole state. Here's a way to cheat with the above system (minimizing chances of getting caught):
1. Pick a populous state with a close election like Ohio or Florida or several others.
2. Adjust the vote for your candidate up by 5 or 10% in counties where you expect him to win. This increases the overall statewide vote for your candidate. Enough, you hope, to push your candidate over the top.
3. Your candidate wins the state, gets those electors, and wins the Electoral College vote.
Slashdot Mirror
I think we're supposed to read it as sarcasm. His sig would certainly suggest that.
So are they doing their part to protect the middle class? Only to the extent that middle class people invest in tech companies.
I don't think the survey is intended to reflect opinions of tech people. From TFA:
From these issues, by "tech friendly", the survey means "friendly to big corporations involved in tech". They don't mean friendly to tech people at all, but tech investors -- who pay the bills (in congress). You dance with the one that brung ya. For congress, that's corporations.
Cause there's no way to catch that. No audit trail available, there. No way. Banks don't keep records, and customers don't even balance their books. Not once, not ever.
So crime (vote fraud) has fewer side-effects in the broken limbs and blunt trauma areas, now. But the desired effect, manipulated elections, is still possible. I don't know if I want to return to the bad old days or not. Although if people were actually being assaulted for their votes, perhaps the issue would be more front-and-center. Kind of like the Vietnam-era draft: it brought the war home for many Americans vs. Iraq war today.
I, for one, was not aware of that. I can't find any information about it in a q&d google search. Who set that requirement, and why?
I can't think of anything wrong with that. I think anyone with any sense would defend their rightful spectral claim.
I think you miss my point in arguing the meaning of the word "steal". Unless you would prosecute baseball players for stealing a base or basketball players for stealing the ball. And let's not even talk about stealing the show, because focusing on the definition of "steal" is doing just that, when it was just an aside in my comment anyway.
My point was to call attention to the allegation in the story that NPR stations are suffering more than their share of interference from the mobile satellite radio RM modulators.
NPR stations tend to be located in the same end of the FM band that the FM modulators operate in, so you can see why they would feel put out: Satellite radio is stealing their listeners and kicking them in the shins. Siphoning off listeners is just business, but keying on the same stations (even if it's not intentional) is worth complaining about.
You can't blame someone for complaining about another party unjustly interfering with their business. You can't "just focus on broadcasting" if you're being jammed.
[sarcasm]And Bells are really speedy about rolling out new technology [/sarcasm]. . . They promised video phone in the 1960s "real soon now".
You say municipal governments won't upgrade their technology. Monopolies, regulated or not, aren't real quick to deploy new technolgy either. Like for instance, broadband internet in areas that are now considering municipal wireless internet.
Also notice in TFA that it's not only municipalities that the Bells want to keep out of the broadband business, but any potential competitor, public or private.
In high school, I thought it would be cool to have a democratic principal, rather than the authoritarian one we had.
Someone always brings up this observation in every discussion under "your rights online". If you want another category, suggest it to Taco.
The automated financial transactions (like your "automated ATM machine teller machine") are auditable.
The life & safety equipment is subject to extensive testing.
Unfortunately, the voting machines are not subject to the same scrutiny.
Have you considered that threatening to ban voting machines might just be one way to "fix the problem"?
OK, the seat belt analogy was bad, but this argument for requiring seat belt use takes the cake. To prevent others from seeing your mangled remains!?! I guess I can finally ask for my pet law: Mandatory stomach stapling for the morbidly obese and pants-belt legislation for kids whose underwear sticks out above their trousers. Cause I don't enjoy those, and I'm forced to see them.
You're missing the forest for the trees:
Trees = court judgement.
Forest = human intervention was required to make an accurate judgement call.
Couldn't you use this argument to discontinue the wasteful and inefficient practice of holding elections?
To "Authorize" is to invest with authority. As in, "Bob authorized his broker to make trades for him". To reauthorize is to authorize again.
Remember the USA PATRIOT (sic) Act? Written by the White House, rubber stamped by Congress without anyone reading it? Back on the president's desk for a signature that's only a formality. It was only a few years ago.
One of these headlines in interesting and makes me want to read the story and discover the quote in the second. The other is not and does not.
So if you have a front door made of dual-purpose office paper, and I tell other people about it, then I'm the fool? You have a funny definition of that word.
I face it, but I don't want it here to stay. I don't want to get used to it.
Instead, I have been migrating everything I do, even Real Work, to less annoying systems and software.
I am the customer. I am the consumer. Face it, I am here to stay. I don't like dealing with licensing annoyances. For a legit vendor, this is not a problem.
I do use the term "album" myself, even though the LP did pretty much kill actual "albums". It's a nice term, particularly for popular music realeased ~10 tracks at a time, with its connotation of an intentional collection songs. I guess "track" sticks with me, too. Although we'd be hard pressed to find a "track" on a CD. So, ya, let's keep 'em.
I have to admit that I still use the term "record" all the time. I don't think another word really describes an audio recording as nicely. I guess I'm just unable to associate "record" with LP the way most people are. When I wish to say "LP" or "cassette" or "CD", I do.
When I hear someone correcting me for calling a CD a "record", I tend to think of them as the one trapped back in 1987.
My point is: these companies are still producing audio recordings, but to go around saying "Audio Recordings" instead of "records" just seems too stuffy even for me. And to update the term with each new medium gets boring.
Thanks for the insight, Mr. Cruise.
Why? To win a state and the state's electoral votes (in a presidential race).
In the US, the president is elected by the Electoral College. Each state sends a certain number of "Electors" to the Electoral College to cast their vote's for that state's winning candidate. So on a state-by-state basis, it's a winner-take-all system. So you want to change outcomes in counties in order to win a whole state. Here's a way to cheat with the above system (minimizing chances of getting caught):
1. Pick a populous state with a close election like Ohio or Florida or several others.
2. Adjust the vote for your candidate up by 5 or 10% in counties where you expect him to win. This increases the overall statewide vote for your candidate. Enough, you hope, to push your candidate over the top.
3. Your candidate wins the state, gets those electors, and wins the Electoral College vote.
4. Profit.
Who modded this "Troll"? Humorless dolt.