I hate Apple because:
Every product I have owned, or belonged someone close to me, have failed within two years.
Oh great an anecdote from an anonymous coward. Who modded this up? Even if it is is true, what does it matter? Consumer Reports (whose independent testing I trust a bit more than an anecdote from an AC) says they are among the best in the industry for hardware reliability.
Apple does not respect or honour Norwegian consumer laws. You are required to provide 2 or 5 years of warranty at no additional cost beyong the initial investment in the product, but Apple insists on 90 days.
Umm, they're breaking the law and the cops are ignoring it? Is that your claim?
Apple is all about silos and locking in the user. Look at the iPod, iTunes and the iPhone for the best examples.
Okay, I will. The iPod came out and played the standard MP3 format. It also played the standard MP4 format, but with DRM added... but it was the first company to convince the RIAA to allow them to burn a standard audio CD as a backup of DRM'd music as a way to allow you to move that music to another format. That sounds like the opposite of lock-in to me.
I guess while Apple does a lot of shit I'm not happy with, none of the items you've brought up bother me at all with the exception of breaking the law. I'm very skeptical on that one. Can you provide a citation or evidence?
Just like the "usability" argument that Mac users like to trot out died about 13 years ago......
Spoken like someone who hasn't been to a usability or UI design conference... ever. Apple designed UIs are the gold standard of the industry, including the OS X interface. It sure isn't perfect and experts discuss the flaws regularly, but compared to everything else out there it's not much of a contest.
What is actually causing our Earth to warm up? Is it:
1) Greenhouse gasses
2) Insufficient pollution in the air
3) Sun spots
4) Natural warming and cooling cycles unaffected by anything
5) Some other cause...
It's sad that this is still being seriously argued by people in the states. Get a subscription to Scientific American or New Scientist or just do some unbiased research online. Take a look at the peer reviewed articles with real data. This has been discussed to death. There are multiple causes for global warming, but in general it is very, very clear that the greenhouse effect is taking place and the rapid changes in temperature we're now seeing are not explained by any credible theory other than greenhouse gasses. It's not 100% proven, of course, but it is the most probable cause and the consensus by a huge margin over all other theories. It fits the data well, much better than anything anyone else has studied.
Only in the US is it even still a debate because people here don't seem to understand or pay attention to either the scientific process or the experts, or at least not placing any more credibility in it than they do in the statements of politicians and paid propagandists.
I think you have swallowed the nightmare global warming disaster scenario. If the world is heating up by a couple of degrees its not going to mean the end of humanity.
It might. On possible scenario is the earth heats up by a couple of degrees. The ice caps melt, catastrophically one year. This changes reduces the salinity of the surface layer of water in much of the ocean, which then freezes that winter. This, in turn reflects much more light back into space and results in drastic lowering of temperatures much more than a few degrees and beginning a new ice age cycle.
Now I'm not saying the above will, happen only that it is one possibility. A lot of things could happen if the temperature changed several degrees, rapidly over a few years. We don't know the results for sure, but they could be cataclysmic and pretty much wipe out mankind.
And if its a natural process, then what is there to 'fix'?
Cancer is a natural process. That doesn't mean we don't have a vested interest in fixing it. The human species going extinct may well be a natural process. This does nothing to recommend not fixing it.
What is the optimal temperature for the environment, and how do we know if the fix in the long run is going to end up worse than if we just leave it alone.
For now, the optimal temperature is no change, because it presents the minimal risk and expense. Any significant change will alter regional climates and the expense to humanity will be significant. Just look at Darfur.
Humans already have the ability to survive in the harshest climates, from the eskimo's to desert bedouin, a changing climate just means we will need to adapt to it which we can...
Adapting will cost trillions of dollars and cost millions of lives. It seems less expensive to stop the problem from happening in the first place.
...and it won't break us so much that we need to flee to leave the planet.
No, it likely won't... but it might break so much that ten million children will starve to death, who would otherwise have lived.
My mistake, they replaced Avaunt in this version with some other dock clone, which, reportedly, does not require Compiz, but has even more functionality problems.
It sounds half put together (take the dock, which just relaunches programs rather then displays already running programs)
It's just Avant, a poor clone of the OS X dock. It is in beta and nowhere ready for production use in my opinion. You'd think they could at least wait till it worked before adding it to their product.
Oh yeah, and the review didn't mention a word processor besides the Google Docs (which the reviewer could get to work off line in any case), I'll be sure not to load this distro up for the next twenty four hour plane ride I take (about one or two ever year recently).
From the article, "OpenOffice Writer, Calc and Impress". Also three colored OpenOffice icons are shown in the dock in the screenshots.
Maximum Income: Build into the progressive income tax a 100% tax on all income over ten times the minimum wage.
That means the maximum wage would be $65.50/hr, or about $130,000/yr.
Interesting. Actually they also mandate raising the minimum wage to $26,000 a year, which would cap income at $260,000, rather than $130,000. That's a little less than the top 1.5% of the populace.
You know, I'm coming around to the idea. At the very high end is starts to make sense. Basically no one makes that kind of money working hard, rather than simply profiting from inherited wealth. I'm not really convinced it would have an detrimental impact on people's incentive to work hard at all. In fact, after reading the Green party's platform on economic reform, while I'm not a convert, they seem to have a better handle on how to reverse our run away wealth condensation than any of the other parties. It might be a bit excessive (IMHO) but I don't think you can accuse them of being uninformed about economics. If you go through the list of items I said it would be good for voters to understand, they clearly have an understanding of all of them presented in their manifesto. I don't agree with all their proposals, but they clearly are a reasoned and informed attempt at reform.
Between 43% and 47% of Americans have agreed during this 26-year time period with the creationist view that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so. So, obviously not enough Americans understand science.
I'd like to point out that knowing a specific scientific theory and the huge amount of support for it is different from understanding science. Science is a method and you could understand and use that method, while still not knowing anything about the theory of evolution. Alternately, you could be completely ignorant about the scientific method, but still believe the theory of evolution simply because you trust the source that presented it to you you.
The study you cite shows americans are ignorant about well understood scientific findings, not about the scientific method... an important distinction.
How many voters are informed enough about economics?
Very few.
You know, there are very smart (but ignorant) people out there that want to impose a 100% income tax for salaries over some threshold, say $300,000/yr.
No, I don't know that. In fact, I've never heard anyone, ever, propose such a thing. This rather sounds like a straw man argument to me.
For economics, it would be awfully nice if voters knew what capitalism, socialism, and communism were (as economic terms). It would be nice if they knew the legal basis for corporations and IP laws. It would be great if they understood what wealth condensation is. It would be amazing if they knew how much of their federal taxes were returned to their state and if their state was getting more or less than they put in.
Knowledge of economics is just as important as knowledge of science, yet no one seems to really care about how well the average voter (or politician for that matter) knows.
I've actually seen quite a few articles discussing that very topic over the last year, including breakdowns of proposed tax plans from the two major candidates.
If it was painted in a different time, in a different context, what bearing does it have today? It is historical, and shouldn't really offend anyone today, unless the case is being made that society still holds this view. Right?
Correct. My argument is that some of our society still does hold this view. I'd say most of our society is still racist to some degree. Have you ever seen this site? It's a collection of really racist comments from internet discussion sites. Here's a quote from Yahoo answers from just the other day, "If Obama gets elected, do you think that investing in KFC and chicken stocks will be a good investment? -Rich, YahooAnswers". Go ahead an look through the site a bit. It will turn your stomach.
Friend, fast food is EXPENSIVE. Far more so than most below the poverty line can afford to enjoy on a regular basis.
Fast food is expensive compared to home cooking, but people below the poverty line do eat it and eat it regularly. This is for several reasons including poor financial decision making and the fact that in many cases the parent or parents are at work all day and it is a fast way to feed the kids.In some states McDonald's takes food stamp cards.
I feel that a huge step forward would be to stop indulging people that seek to perpetuate the negativity. By defending the argument that fried chicken carries negative connotations, you're reaffirming that it should.
I disagree. I very strongly assert that acknowledging reality in no way reaffirms it as a good thing.
If we're moving forward - really, truly making progress, then people of all origins should eat fried chicken with pride. I like fried chicken, and I'm not ashamed to admit it. Why should anyone else be?
I don't think people should be ashamed to eat fried chicken. I do, however, understand their hesitation to do so given the very real negative stereotypes.
For example, when the person I was with mad the comment about "he's probably looking for some fried chicken" as a random comment about a black person, should I have ignored the racist implications? One of the most effective ways to counter racism is with negative feedback. There used to be a civil rights campaign called "glower power." Basically, if someone makes a racist comment you don't acknowledge it directly (making them defensive) but simply frown at them and say nothing. It works fairly well because it does not ostracize but does effectively discourage such behavior. By recognizing the racist implications of the comment I heard, I can use this same technique. The racists I know generally stop using such comments around me and I like to think this has helped a little bit. If, on the other hand I pretend I don't understand the racist implications, they seem me as ignorant and they have no negative feedback about the behavior, but a lesser opinion of me making my non-racist comments and actions less likely to be emulated by them.
Just seeing them eating it instantly conjured memories of those hateful cartoons of black kids with exaggerated lips and glazed expressions, dressed in rags; cartoons people used more than just to poke fun, but to argue against equal rights.
Check the age of your friend, because unless they are at least sixty years old, this probably isn't their own memory at all.
She's twenty-seven. How can you argue young people would not have seen such hateful images, when I linked to an image posted a few days ago? Now it was probably painted long ago, but that doesn't mean young people haven't seen it; even seen it used in a racist context.
People can take issue with whatever they wish, and it isn't my place to object. I'm just trying to challenge the willingness to perpetuate negativity that doesn't apply in this modern world.
The problem is it is still used negatively to refer to blacks in the US. There are still a lot of racists around, enough so that I've heard comments like "he's probably looking for some fried chicken" used in reference to a black guy.
KFC does not equal poverty today.
Actually, I'd argue most fast food is associated with poverty today. It's not an ironclad association, but it exists. I've also heard mocking comments that "those people think Red Lobster is fine dining" used specifically to refer to blacks, in an area where that is a spot where you see a lot of black people going for a nice night out.
IN FACT, I'll take this a step farther. My six year old son has NO IDEA what race even means. I once, in trying to get him to clarify which he was talking about asked him 'the white boy or the black boy?' and he was stumped. Didn't know what it meant.
That's probably a good thing at this stage, but a lot of those things depend upon who is raising a kid and where. I'll bet he knows by the time he's in high school and I'll bet he's heard plenty of racist comments by then too.
I take that as a sign that if we wanted it to, the negativity of ALL OF THIS would just die away. I'm not planning on teaching my child any different, so here's hoping...
I'd like to think that it will just go away over time... but I'm not convinced. I simply know too many racists and have to deal with them on a regular basis. I'm not just talking whites here either. I know a lot of very racist black people, both who make comments about blacks being stupid or who make comments about whites all being rich and spoiled. I once had a guy outright refuse to believe I knew what government cheese tasted like because I was white and white people are all rich in his world view.
I seriously hope negative and positive racial stereotypes go away and people start judging one another as individuals without race playing a significant part. I just don't think it will happen for quite a while yet.
Science has *nothing* to say about the existence, or otherwise, of a supreme being.
Well, technically the scientific method can be used to assess the likelihood of such a being existing... but given the dearth of data, not very well. More importantly, however, there have been a great many studies looking at IQ, scientific knowledge, and scientific achievement and their correlation with both wealth disparity and religiosity. People who believe strongly in a god tend to have lower IQs and be poorer. Even when normalizing for wealth, the correlation is significant. The U.S. is important for such studies because it breaks the trend for wealth and religiosity to some degree, but looking at all the studies going back many decades it is clear there is a relationship between people who claim to believe in a personal god and people who suck at science. I'll leave you to infer what causation you think is occurring.
Wait, wait, wait. At exactly what point did all stereotypes about a minority become negative?
They are not. For example, black men having larger penises is a stereotype, but most would consider it positive. Asian people being good at math is a stereotype and most here would consider that positive, although others consider it negative.
Seriously, look at what you're saying:
"Likes fried chicken" is now an insult.
"Prefers watermelon" is likewise.
In whose reality does this make sense???
In a vacuum, it doesn't make any sense, but that stereotype did not form in a vacuum. It originated with racist caricatures and depictions of blacks, associating them with sloth and mental inferiority. Watermelon originated in Africa, but when the stereotype of all african americans loving it took root in our culture, the association was not with the origin, but with the fact that it was very inexpensive. The same goes with fried chicken. It predated the pressure cooking method. Chicken was cheap meat compared to pork and beef and frying could be done over a fire or stove without the need for an expensive oven. The implication was that blacks were poor... which is still true today statistically, but is considered a negative by pretty much everyone.
Now I'm not african american, but I have discussed this topic with friends who are. It is a sensitive one and one they think of negatively, to the point where one friend would not let her kids eat watermelon in public. Just seeing them eating it instantly conjured memories of those hateful cartoons of black kids with exaggerated lips and glazed expressions, dressed in rags; cartoons people used more than just to poke fun, but to argue against equal rights.
So I say again, if you ignore history or don't think that history is relevant any longer, then there is nothing wrong with associating watermelon and fried chicken with black people. I'd like to say America has moved on. The other day, someone posted this image in a discussion thread about the death of comedian Bernie Mac. Looking at that image, do you see why some people would consider such a stereotype to be a negative one?
Copyright was extended over there to life + 70 years right? Why? Why do music artists (and others why benefit from this) have it so good?
I think you're making a mistake. About the time copyright was extended is about the same time the RIAA formed an illegal cartel controlling music distribution. They used this cartel to force artists to give up their copyrights to the labels or be locked out of mainstream distribution.
Artists that benefit greatly from extended copyrights are a rare exception. For the most part it is the record labels benefiting, while the artists make little or nothing. Too many people look at the the 1% of superstars (who have the leverage to actually negotiate better deals later in their careers) and assume they are representative of musicians. In truth, the median musician working for the RIAA works hard to make music and has to sign over their rights to the label and ends up in debt to the label to boot. Five years ago most RIAA musicians were surviving mostly on t-shirt and memorabilia sales, but the labels have started requiring bigger and bigger cuts of those revenues as well.
The sad thing is, most musicians want to be famous and want their music to be heard and they are willing to sign ludicrous deals and go into serious debt just for a slight chance at that. The alternatives are not very glamorous, keep their day job and play a few gigs on the side, give it up altogether, or go the indy route and know even if they have ten times the talent, they'll probably never have any real chance to make it big like the bands promoted by the big labels.
Irish+Punk makes no sense in venues without booze.
Just think of the uproar if you said "Blacks+Rap makes no sense in venues without watermelon and fried chicken". Aren't double standards great?
I think there is a significant difference. Watermelon and fried chicken are not integral parts of black musical culture, but negative stereotypes about said culture. They have nothing to do with rap music as far as I know.
On the other hand booze is a proud tradition among both the irish music and punk music cultures. Half of Flogging Molly's songs are about drinking. When a band is singing "Whiskey You're the Devil" or "Drunken Lullabies" or "Finnegan's Wake" and the band is discretely drinking dark liquid out of plastic cups... and you have nothing to cheers with and no shots to down, well it is sort of like listening to polka music without beer or a dance floor. It loses half the fun. A goodly number of their songs are traditional Irish drinking songs with specific spots for cheers, played with some faster beats and more nontraditional instruments.
Is it OK for me to go to a concert first? (I just heard and saw Flogging Molly for the first time two days ago.)
So long as it it isn't one of their college circuit shows. Irish+Punk makes no sense in venues without booze.:) I'd also note SideOneDummy Records (their label) is not RIAA affiliated, so none of your cash goes to them for buying Flogging Molly CDs. Also check out Gogol Bordello and Go Betty Go. All three are from the same label and way above average bands (IMHO).
What are the penalties in Michigan for practicing as a private detective?
The law says, "A person violating this section is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 4 years or by a fine of not more than $5,000.00, or both."
Once you get all your data back, buy a Mac, subscribe to MobileMe and be safe, knowing that all your data is in the safe hands of a single compa...
You chose a poor example. Pretty much all the Mobile Me services store the data both on Apple's servers and on the local machine, by default.
I know you meant this as a joke, but your suggestion actually would allow a user to regain control of their data, albeit probably not in the most flexible way.
Two points. First, even if we went back to a 14/14 system today, the greater majority of works being distributed on P2P networks would still be illegal distributions.
I never recommended a specific solution in the comment you are responding to. I did mention some ideas in a different post here and it sure isn't going back to a fourteen year system with a fourteen year extension. That said, I have a couple of problems with your statement. First, my goal in reforming copyright is not to get works off P2P, but to preserve our cultural heritage. Second, prior to 1976 to works on P2P would have been legal, as they are not being distributed for profit.
Second, 14 years might be too long if you assume that ALL works are going to lose value but when you consider that some properties can have sequels and derivatives made well after 14 years. I'm currently playing Civilization: Revolution, a game made well after the 14 year cutoff you seem to think is such a great idea... The public domain is NOT going away.
Where did you get this idea that I'm advocating fourteen years? I'm not. I'd also like to point out that your example is not a good one. Sid Meier feels very strongly about contributing to our cultural heritage and released the source code for Civilization. That is not unheard of for old games, but it is pretty bloody rare. If he simply did the minimum required by copyright law (like most game publishers do) you wouldn't be playing Civilization: Revolution or the original game because they wouldn't work on a modern computer system and they would not be modifiable to do so. The game "Civilization" has not vanished, but the vast majority of it's contemporaries have. For many it is unclear who even owns the copyrights or if the source code still exists.
The public domain is NOT going away. Current legislation is not killing the public domain.
Please. It is unclear if anything will ever enter the public domain again in the U.S. Here's an idea, why don't you take a look at an american art form... blues. About 90% of the classic blues is copyrighted by Motown records and about 5% of that catalog is actually for sale. For the rest of it, it is unclear if even they have any copies, but it is still illegal for someone who happens to have an old record laying around to upload that data for others to listen to. Do you suppose this large chunk of our cultural heritage is benefiting the music industry and benefiting our society or do you suppose it is erased for all intents and purposes (since people can't listen to it)?
Any good artist (of which I am one) can be inspired by works both in the public domain and works protected by copyright without touching the original work at all.
You can't be inspired by works you haven't had access to. The vast majority of copyrighted works are unavailable to people, because while the law prevents their copying and distribution by all but one company, only a few copies still exist for sale anywhere. Have you been inspired by all those blues albums you've never heard and never will? Will kids today be inspired by the cool video games of our youth, even though they can never see or play them because they are no longer for sale and all the source code is missing and all the consoles that could play them are in museums?
Sadly you seem to have largely missed my point. Our artistic heritage is vanishing because the majority of works (probably including some unrecognized ones that would be very influential) cannot be easily acquired even though they are not making money for anyone.
I'm tempted to say it is a moot point. So long as it is legal for corporations to give large donations to congresscritters' campaign funds, laws will be passed to favor them over the people as a whole.
Still, you asked. My compromise is automatic copyright of two years for any work. That is extended to four years, free of charge, if a reference copy is filed with the Library of Congress. Reference copies must be DRM-free and include everything needed to view/use a work (if it is a XBox game, Congress needs to have at least one free Xbox console). Finally, provided a reference copy is filed, copyright holders should be able to file for extensions on that work in four year increments for up to 100 years, total, with the cost increasing by an order of magnitude every extension. I'd say $1000 is a reasonable fee for the first extension.
The main problem I have with our current copyright laws is 99% of copyrighted works cannot purchased at a regular market price because they are no longer being published and aren't making any money for anyone... but it is still illegal to make copies and distribute them.
I think a lot of people discussing the issue of copyright law in the U.S. are missing out on a big part of the picture. This is not just about greed sucking money from our wallets needlessly. Sure that sicks, but it is just money. The real problem is the irreparable damage. It's the works that are gone completely, or exist only in tiny quantities and may as well not exist as far as the average person is concerned. The U.S. no longer requires reference copies of works to be submitted, so when the last copy of a movie corrodes, the last copy of a book is burned in a fire, the last recording of a song is shattered... that's it. Society will never get those back and we're no longer able to build on those works and progress like we used to.
Have you ever read about how the great works of art, film, and literature were received by the public? Often it is the case that they were not well received and were recognized only by later generations. The film "It's a Wonderful Life" is a good example. It bombed at the box office and sat on a shelf for decades until copyright expired and PBS ran it (because it was free). That story is not one that will be repeated. Our current laws assure that similar works today will sit on those shelves forever. Heck, they've even re-copyrighted "It's a Wonderful Life" through a technicality. The laws have not kept up with technology either, allowing DRM to further make sure it will be very, very difficult for works to be viewed by future generations.
Fourteen years was enough time back when books had to be printed with slow, old fashioned presses and shipped by horse or ship. Now, works can move instantly across the net and fourteen years after a console video game is released (locked by DRM to specific machine) will there be any machines left that can even play it? Huge portions of our artistic heritage are simply being flushed down the toilet... and for what? So companies can continue to make a profit from that tenth of a percent of copyrighted works that are still being sold after ten years? Greed may be the cause of the problem, but it's a lot more than just money that is being taken from us.
Slashdot Mirror
I hate Apple because: Every product I have owned, or belonged someone close to me, have failed within two years.
Oh great an anecdote from an anonymous coward. Who modded this up? Even if it is is true, what does it matter? Consumer Reports (whose independent testing I trust a bit more than an anecdote from an AC) says they are among the best in the industry for hardware reliability.
Apple does not respect or honour Norwegian consumer laws. You are required to provide 2 or 5 years of warranty at no additional cost beyong the initial investment in the product, but Apple insists on 90 days.
Umm, they're breaking the law and the cops are ignoring it? Is that your claim?
Apple is all about silos and locking in the user. Look at the iPod, iTunes and the iPhone for the best examples.
Okay, I will. The iPod came out and played the standard MP3 format. It also played the standard MP4 format, but with DRM added... but it was the first company to convince the RIAA to allow them to burn a standard audio CD as a backup of DRM'd music as a way to allow you to move that music to another format. That sounds like the opposite of lock-in to me.
I guess while Apple does a lot of shit I'm not happy with, none of the items you've brought up bother me at all with the exception of breaking the law. I'm very skeptical on that one. Can you provide a citation or evidence?
Just like the "usability" argument that Mac users like to trot out died about 13 years ago......
Spoken like someone who hasn't been to a usability or UI design conference... ever. Apple designed UIs are the gold standard of the industry, including the OS X interface. It sure isn't perfect and experts discuss the flaws regularly, but compared to everything else out there it's not much of a contest.
What is actually causing our Earth to warm up? Is it: 1) Greenhouse gasses 2) Insufficient pollution in the air 3) Sun spots 4) Natural warming and cooling cycles unaffected by anything 5) Some other cause...
It's sad that this is still being seriously argued by people in the states. Get a subscription to Scientific American or New Scientist or just do some unbiased research online. Take a look at the peer reviewed articles with real data. This has been discussed to death. There are multiple causes for global warming, but in general it is very, very clear that the greenhouse effect is taking place and the rapid changes in temperature we're now seeing are not explained by any credible theory other than greenhouse gasses. It's not 100% proven, of course, but it is the most probable cause and the consensus by a huge margin over all other theories. It fits the data well, much better than anything anyone else has studied.
Only in the US is it even still a debate because people here don't seem to understand or pay attention to either the scientific process or the experts, or at least not placing any more credibility in it than they do in the statements of politicians and paid propagandists.
I think you have swallowed the nightmare global warming disaster scenario. If the world is heating up by a couple of degrees its not going to mean the end of humanity.
It might. On possible scenario is the earth heats up by a couple of degrees. The ice caps melt, catastrophically one year. This changes reduces the salinity of the surface layer of water in much of the ocean, which then freezes that winter. This, in turn reflects much more light back into space and results in drastic lowering of temperatures much more than a few degrees and beginning a new ice age cycle.
Now I'm not saying the above will, happen only that it is one possibility. A lot of things could happen if the temperature changed several degrees, rapidly over a few years. We don't know the results for sure, but they could be cataclysmic and pretty much wipe out mankind.
And if its a natural process, then what is there to 'fix'?
Cancer is a natural process. That doesn't mean we don't have a vested interest in fixing it. The human species going extinct may well be a natural process. This does nothing to recommend not fixing it.
What is the optimal temperature for the environment, and how do we know if the fix in the long run is going to end up worse than if we just leave it alone.
For now, the optimal temperature is no change, because it presents the minimal risk and expense. Any significant change will alter regional climates and the expense to humanity will be significant. Just look at Darfur.
Humans already have the ability to survive in the harshest climates, from the eskimo's to desert bedouin, a changing climate just means we will need to adapt to it which we can...
Adapting will cost trillions of dollars and cost millions of lives. It seems less expensive to stop the problem from happening in the first place.
...and it won't break us so much that we need to flee to leave the planet.
No, it likely won't... but it might break so much that ten million children will starve to death, who would otherwise have lived.
But my main point is the whole debate about global warming misses the point. Who cares why the Earth is warming up? The question is, how do we fix it?
You don't think knowing why the earth is warming might be useful to know when trying to decide how to prevent it from continuing?
Even if any effort we make is doomed in the long run, we can at least buy time to leave the planet...
I doubt even the most dramatic climate change would make the earth less habitable than space or other planets.
My mistake, they replaced Avaunt in this version with some other dock clone, which, reportedly, does not require Compiz, but has even more functionality problems.
...and a web app sure loads a lot faster than OOo.
Except, it comes with OO too.
It sounds half put together (take the dock, which just relaunches programs rather then displays already running programs)
It's just Avant, a poor clone of the OS X dock. It is in beta and nowhere ready for production use in my opinion. You'd think they could at least wait till it worked before adding it to their product.
Oh yeah, and the review didn't mention a word processor besides the Google Docs (which the reviewer could get to work off line in any case), I'll be sure not to load this distro up for the next twenty four hour plane ride I take (about one or two ever year recently).
From the article, "OpenOffice Writer, Calc and Impress". Also three colored OpenOffice icons are shown in the dock in the screenshots.
Under "Progressive and Ecological Taxes":
Maximum Income: Build into the progressive income tax a 100% tax on all income over ten times the minimum wage.
That means the maximum wage would be $65.50/hr, or about $130,000/yr.
Interesting. Actually they also mandate raising the minimum wage to $26,000 a year, which would cap income at $260,000, rather than $130,000. That's a little less than the top 1.5% of the populace.
You know, I'm coming around to the idea. At the very high end is starts to make sense. Basically no one makes that kind of money working hard, rather than simply profiting from inherited wealth. I'm not really convinced it would have an detrimental impact on people's incentive to work hard at all. In fact, after reading the Green party's platform on economic reform, while I'm not a convert, they seem to have a better handle on how to reverse our run away wealth condensation than any of the other parties. It might be a bit excessive (IMHO) but I don't think you can accuse them of being uninformed about economics. If you go through the list of items I said it would be good for voters to understand, they clearly have an understanding of all of them presented in their manifesto. I don't agree with all their proposals, but they clearly are a reasoned and informed attempt at reform.
Between 43% and 47% of Americans have agreed during this 26-year time period with the creationist view that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so. So, obviously not enough Americans understand science.
I'd like to point out that knowing a specific scientific theory and the huge amount of support for it is different from understanding science. Science is a method and you could understand and use that method, while still not knowing anything about the theory of evolution. Alternately, you could be completely ignorant about the scientific method, but still believe the theory of evolution simply because you trust the source that presented it to you you.
The study you cite shows americans are ignorant about well understood scientific findings, not about the scientific method... an important distinction.
How many voters are informed enough about economics?
Very few.
You know, there are very smart (but ignorant) people out there that want to impose a 100% income tax for salaries over some threshold, say $300,000/yr.
No, I don't know that. In fact, I've never heard anyone, ever, propose such a thing. This rather sounds like a straw man argument to me.
For economics, it would be awfully nice if voters knew what capitalism, socialism, and communism were (as economic terms). It would be nice if they knew the legal basis for corporations and IP laws. It would be great if they understood what wealth condensation is. It would be amazing if they knew how much of their federal taxes were returned to their state and if their state was getting more or less than they put in.
Knowledge of economics is just as important as knowledge of science, yet no one seems to really care about how well the average voter (or politician for that matter) knows.
I've actually seen quite a few articles discussing that very topic over the last year, including breakdowns of proposed tax plans from the two major candidates.
Better evidence is here.
How could our government monopoly socialized school system have allowed this to happen????
To correct your post: the school system is socialized, but is not a monopoly.
If it was painted in a different time, in a different context, what bearing does it have today? It is historical, and shouldn't really offend anyone today, unless the case is being made that society still holds this view. Right?
Correct. My argument is that some of our society still does hold this view. I'd say most of our society is still racist to some degree. Have you ever seen this site? It's a collection of really racist comments from internet discussion sites. Here's a quote from Yahoo answers from just the other day, "If Obama gets elected, do you think that investing in KFC and chicken stocks will be a good investment? -Rich, YahooAnswers". Go ahead an look through the site a bit. It will turn your stomach.
Friend, fast food is EXPENSIVE. Far more so than most below the poverty line can afford to enjoy on a regular basis.
Fast food is expensive compared to home cooking, but people below the poverty line do eat it and eat it regularly. This is for several reasons including poor financial decision making and the fact that in many cases the parent or parents are at work all day and it is a fast way to feed the kids.In some states McDonald's takes food stamp cards.
I feel that a huge step forward would be to stop indulging people that seek to perpetuate the negativity. By defending the argument that fried chicken carries negative connotations, you're reaffirming that it should.
I disagree. I very strongly assert that acknowledging reality in no way reaffirms it as a good thing.
If we're moving forward - really, truly making progress, then people of all origins should eat fried chicken with pride. I like fried chicken, and I'm not ashamed to admit it. Why should anyone else be?
I don't think people should be ashamed to eat fried chicken. I do, however, understand their hesitation to do so given the very real negative stereotypes.
For example, when the person I was with mad the comment about "he's probably looking for some fried chicken" as a random comment about a black person, should I have ignored the racist implications? One of the most effective ways to counter racism is with negative feedback. There used to be a civil rights campaign called "glower power." Basically, if someone makes a racist comment you don't acknowledge it directly (making them defensive) but simply frown at them and say nothing. It works fairly well because it does not ostracize but does effectively discourage such behavior. By recognizing the racist implications of the comment I heard, I can use this same technique. The racists I know generally stop using such comments around me and I like to think this has helped a little bit. If, on the other hand I pretend I don't understand the racist implications, they seem me as ignorant and they have no negative feedback about the behavior, but a lesser opinion of me making my non-racist comments and actions less likely to be emulated by them.
Just seeing them eating it instantly conjured memories of those hateful cartoons of black kids with exaggerated lips and glazed expressions, dressed in rags; cartoons people used more than just to poke fun, but to argue against equal rights.
Check the age of your friend, because unless they are at least sixty years old, this probably isn't their own memory at all.
She's twenty-seven. How can you argue young people would not have seen such hateful images, when I linked to an image posted a few days ago? Now it was probably painted long ago, but that doesn't mean young people haven't seen it; even seen it used in a racist context.
People can take issue with whatever they wish, and it isn't my place to object. I'm just trying to challenge the willingness to perpetuate negativity that doesn't apply in this modern world.
The problem is it is still used negatively to refer to blacks in the US. There are still a lot of racists around, enough so that I've heard comments like "he's probably looking for some fried chicken" used in reference to a black guy.
KFC does not equal poverty today.
Actually, I'd argue most fast food is associated with poverty today. It's not an ironclad association, but it exists. I've also heard mocking comments that "those people think Red Lobster is fine dining" used specifically to refer to blacks, in an area where that is a spot where you see a lot of black people going for a nice night out.
IN FACT, I'll take this a step farther. My six year old son has NO IDEA what race even means. I once, in trying to get him to clarify which he was talking about asked him 'the white boy or the black boy?' and he was stumped. Didn't know what it meant.
That's probably a good thing at this stage, but a lot of those things depend upon who is raising a kid and where. I'll bet he knows by the time he's in high school and I'll bet he's heard plenty of racist comments by then too.
I take that as a sign that if we wanted it to, the negativity of ALL OF THIS would just die away. I'm not planning on teaching my child any different, so here's hoping...
I'd like to think that it will just go away over time... but I'm not convinced. I simply know too many racists and have to deal with them on a regular basis. I'm not just talking whites here either. I know a lot of very racist black people, both who make comments about blacks being stupid or who make comments about whites all being rich and spoiled. I once had a guy outright refuse to believe I knew what government cheese tasted like because I was white and white people are all rich in his world view.
I seriously hope negative and positive racial stereotypes go away and people start judging one another as individuals without race playing a significant part. I just don't think it will happen for quite a while yet.
Science has *nothing* to say about the existence, or otherwise, of a supreme being.
Well, technically the scientific method can be used to assess the likelihood of such a being existing... but given the dearth of data, not very well. More importantly, however, there have been a great many studies looking at IQ, scientific knowledge, and scientific achievement and their correlation with both wealth disparity and religiosity. People who believe strongly in a god tend to have lower IQs and be poorer. Even when normalizing for wealth, the correlation is significant. The U.S. is important for such studies because it breaks the trend for wealth and religiosity to some degree, but looking at all the studies going back many decades it is clear there is a relationship between people who claim to believe in a personal god and people who suck at science. I'll leave you to infer what causation you think is occurring.
Wait, wait, wait. At exactly what point did all stereotypes about a minority become negative?
They are not. For example, black men having larger penises is a stereotype, but most would consider it positive. Asian people being good at math is a stereotype and most here would consider that positive, although others consider it negative.
Seriously, look at what you're saying: "Likes fried chicken" is now an insult. "Prefers watermelon" is likewise. In whose reality does this make sense???
In a vacuum, it doesn't make any sense, but that stereotype did not form in a vacuum. It originated with racist caricatures and depictions of blacks, associating them with sloth and mental inferiority. Watermelon originated in Africa, but when the stereotype of all african americans loving it took root in our culture, the association was not with the origin, but with the fact that it was very inexpensive. The same goes with fried chicken. It predated the pressure cooking method. Chicken was cheap meat compared to pork and beef and frying could be done over a fire or stove without the need for an expensive oven. The implication was that blacks were poor... which is still true today statistically, but is considered a negative by pretty much everyone.
Now I'm not african american, but I have discussed this topic with friends who are. It is a sensitive one and one they think of negatively, to the point where one friend would not let her kids eat watermelon in public. Just seeing them eating it instantly conjured memories of those hateful cartoons of black kids with exaggerated lips and glazed expressions, dressed in rags; cartoons people used more than just to poke fun, but to argue against equal rights.
So I say again, if you ignore history or don't think that history is relevant any longer, then there is nothing wrong with associating watermelon and fried chicken with black people. I'd like to say America has moved on. The other day, someone posted this image in a discussion thread about the death of comedian Bernie Mac. Looking at that image, do you see why some people would consider such a stereotype to be a negative one?
Copyright was extended over there to life + 70 years right? Why? Why do music artists (and others why benefit from this) have it so good?
I think you're making a mistake. About the time copyright was extended is about the same time the RIAA formed an illegal cartel controlling music distribution. They used this cartel to force artists to give up their copyrights to the labels or be locked out of mainstream distribution.
Artists that benefit greatly from extended copyrights are a rare exception. For the most part it is the record labels benefiting, while the artists make little or nothing. Too many people look at the the 1% of superstars (who have the leverage to actually negotiate better deals later in their careers) and assume they are representative of musicians. In truth, the median musician working for the RIAA works hard to make music and has to sign over their rights to the label and ends up in debt to the label to boot. Five years ago most RIAA musicians were surviving mostly on t-shirt and memorabilia sales, but the labels have started requiring bigger and bigger cuts of those revenues as well.
The sad thing is, most musicians want to be famous and want their music to be heard and they are willing to sign ludicrous deals and go into serious debt just for a slight chance at that. The alternatives are not very glamorous, keep their day job and play a few gigs on the side, give it up altogether, or go the indy route and know even if they have ten times the talent, they'll probably never have any real chance to make it big like the bands promoted by the big labels.
Irish+Punk makes no sense in venues without booze.
Just think of the uproar if you said "Blacks+Rap makes no sense in venues without watermelon and fried chicken". Aren't double standards great?
I think there is a significant difference. Watermelon and fried chicken are not integral parts of black musical culture, but negative stereotypes about said culture. They have nothing to do with rap music as far as I know.
On the other hand booze is a proud tradition among both the irish music and punk music cultures. Half of Flogging Molly's songs are about drinking. When a band is singing "Whiskey You're the Devil" or "Drunken Lullabies" or "Finnegan's Wake" and the band is discretely drinking dark liquid out of plastic cups... and you have nothing to cheers with and no shots to down, well it is sort of like listening to polka music without beer or a dance floor. It loses half the fun. A goodly number of their songs are traditional Irish drinking songs with specific spots for cheers, played with some faster beats and more nontraditional instruments.
Is it OK for me to go to a concert first? (I just heard and saw Flogging Molly for the first time two days ago.)
So long as it it isn't one of their college circuit shows. Irish+Punk makes no sense in venues without booze. :) I'd also note SideOneDummy Records (their label) is not RIAA affiliated, so none of your cash goes to them for buying Flogging Molly CDs. Also check out Gogol Bordello and Go Betty Go. All three are from the same label and way above average bands (IMHO).
What are the penalties in Michigan for practicing as a private detective?
The law says, "A person violating this section is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 4 years or by a fine of not more than $5,000.00, or both."
Once you get all your data back, buy a Mac, subscribe to MobileMe and be safe, knowing that all your data is in the safe hands of a single compa...
You chose a poor example. Pretty much all the Mobile Me services store the data both on Apple's servers and on the local machine, by default.
I know you meant this as a joke, but your suggestion actually would allow a user to regain control of their data, albeit probably not in the most flexible way.
Two points. First, even if we went back to a 14/14 system today, the greater majority of works being distributed on P2P networks would still be illegal distributions.
I never recommended a specific solution in the comment you are responding to. I did mention some ideas in a different post here and it sure isn't going back to a fourteen year system with a fourteen year extension. That said, I have a couple of problems with your statement. First, my goal in reforming copyright is not to get works off P2P, but to preserve our cultural heritage. Second, prior to 1976 to works on P2P would have been legal, as they are not being distributed for profit.
Second, 14 years might be too long if you assume that ALL works are going to lose value but when you consider that some properties can have sequels and derivatives made well after 14 years. I'm currently playing Civilization: Revolution, a game made well after the 14 year cutoff you seem to think is such a great idea... The public domain is NOT going away.
Where did you get this idea that I'm advocating fourteen years? I'm not. I'd also like to point out that your example is not a good one. Sid Meier feels very strongly about contributing to our cultural heritage and released the source code for Civilization. That is not unheard of for old games, but it is pretty bloody rare. If he simply did the minimum required by copyright law (like most game publishers do) you wouldn't be playing Civilization: Revolution or the original game because they wouldn't work on a modern computer system and they would not be modifiable to do so. The game "Civilization" has not vanished, but the vast majority of it's contemporaries have. For many it is unclear who even owns the copyrights or if the source code still exists.
The public domain is NOT going away. Current legislation is not killing the public domain.
Please. It is unclear if anything will ever enter the public domain again in the U.S. Here's an idea, why don't you take a look at an american art form... blues. About 90% of the classic blues is copyrighted by Motown records and about 5% of that catalog is actually for sale. For the rest of it, it is unclear if even they have any copies, but it is still illegal for someone who happens to have an old record laying around to upload that data for others to listen to. Do you suppose this large chunk of our cultural heritage is benefiting the music industry and benefiting our society or do you suppose it is erased for all intents and purposes (since people can't listen to it)?
Any good artist (of which I am one) can be inspired by works both in the public domain and works protected by copyright without touching the original work at all.
You can't be inspired by works you haven't had access to. The vast majority of copyrighted works are unavailable to people, because while the law prevents their copying and distribution by all but one company, only a few copies still exist for sale anywhere. Have you been inspired by all those blues albums you've never heard and never will? Will kids today be inspired by the cool video games of our youth, even though they can never see or play them because they are no longer for sale and all the source code is missing and all the consoles that could play them are in museums?
Sadly you seem to have largely missed my point. Our artistic heritage is vanishing because the majority of works (probably including some unrecognized ones that would be very influential) cannot be easily acquired even though they are not making money for anyone.
Where exactly is the compromise?
I'm tempted to say it is a moot point. So long as it is legal for corporations to give large donations to congresscritters' campaign funds, laws will be passed to favor them over the people as a whole.
Still, you asked. My compromise is automatic copyright of two years for any work. That is extended to four years, free of charge, if a reference copy is filed with the Library of Congress. Reference copies must be DRM-free and include everything needed to view/use a work (if it is a XBox game, Congress needs to have at least one free Xbox console). Finally, provided a reference copy is filed, copyright holders should be able to file for extensions on that work in four year increments for up to 100 years, total, with the cost increasing by an order of magnitude every extension. I'd say $1000 is a reasonable fee for the first extension.
The main problem I have with our current copyright laws is 99% of copyrighted works cannot purchased at a regular market price because they are no longer being published and aren't making any money for anyone... but it is still illegal to make copies and distribute them.
I think a lot of people discussing the issue of copyright law in the U.S. are missing out on a big part of the picture. This is not just about greed sucking money from our wallets needlessly. Sure that sicks, but it is just money. The real problem is the irreparable damage. It's the works that are gone completely, or exist only in tiny quantities and may as well not exist as far as the average person is concerned. The U.S. no longer requires reference copies of works to be submitted, so when the last copy of a movie corrodes, the last copy of a book is burned in a fire, the last recording of a song is shattered... that's it. Society will never get those back and we're no longer able to build on those works and progress like we used to.
Have you ever read about how the great works of art, film, and literature were received by the public? Often it is the case that they were not well received and were recognized only by later generations. The film "It's a Wonderful Life" is a good example. It bombed at the box office and sat on a shelf for decades until copyright expired and PBS ran it (because it was free). That story is not one that will be repeated. Our current laws assure that similar works today will sit on those shelves forever. Heck, they've even re-copyrighted "It's a Wonderful Life" through a technicality. The laws have not kept up with technology either, allowing DRM to further make sure it will be very, very difficult for works to be viewed by future generations.
Fourteen years was enough time back when books had to be printed with slow, old fashioned presses and shipped by horse or ship. Now, works can move instantly across the net and fourteen years after a console video game is released (locked by DRM to specific machine) will there be any machines left that can even play it? Huge portions of our artistic heritage are simply being flushed down the toilet... and for what? So companies can continue to make a profit from that tenth of a percent of copyrighted works that are still being sold after ten years? Greed may be the cause of the problem, but it's a lot more than just money that is being taken from us.