I don't know anything about low-salary workers, but high-salary workers suffer from the H1-B system.
At least half a dozen of my friends (from London) have been offered jobs (by Microsoft, Google, Six Apart and Qwest) in the US using the H1-B system, and let me tell you, it's a slow and painful process to put yourself through, especially considering that you're already uprooting your entire life.
One friend was even considering moving to Central America and commuting for a few weeks at a time because the H1-Bs had run out for the year.
I'm sure there are plenty of MPs who are into that sort of thing. Powerful people tend to crave the opposite (annecdotally).
Making it all more and more illegal is probably an extra thrill for them.
Agreed.
Why was this modded Troll? Parent has a pertinent point.
The critical BBC documentary is due to be screened as part of the Panorama programme, and the allegation has been made that the Church of Scientology has released this video as part of a pre-emptive damage control operation.
If you could get U2 CD's (legally) from multiple sources that were in competition with each other, and they still all charged the same price, then THAT might be evidence of collusion.
The natural price of a good is the sum of the costs involved in it's production, including transport, storage, retail overheads, salaries, and enough profit to push back into A&R to fund the number of failures it takes to find a successful act. Since almost all of those costs will be the same or similar for any two similar outlets, similar pricing shouldn't be taken as evidence of collusion.
Another difference is that with a regular web app you'd have to insert the Javascript into multiple pages in order to have complete control over the target app. In order for there to be a danger to the user's data there'd have to be some data on the page where the Javascript was executed or you'd have to take the user to a custom-built phishing site to get them to enter their data for you.
With an app written entirely in Javascript you'd only have to get your code executed once, and/or you wouldn't have to build a replica site.
I didn't say that the supermarkets had planned it that way. I just left the option open.
On the one hand you could claim "market forces" and that it's the consumers' fault, on the other hand you could say that if the supermarkets had labelled their produce differently or been more willing to engage wider consumer demographics then there would still be more choice. Personally I don't know enough about the history of retail to say.
How is the DRM going to make a profit if their product's marginal utility (apparently) is -$.30?
Without DRM there'd be far less excuse to charge extra for the DRM-free version. The $1.30 version will subsidise the $1 DRM-encumbered version.
It's a bit like the way the supermarkets virtually wiped out tastier (but odd-looking) varieties of fruit and veg for cosmetic reasons. They're then selling them back to us as luxury items now we're used to eating the pretty (but tasteless) varieties.
Nobody eats corn as it was created by nature: All the variaties of corn in use today are the result of a centuries-long selective-breeding program.
When did nature create this corn that we're no longer eating? This whole line of thought is like a fallacy inside a fallacy inside a fallacy... it's making me dizzy.
Of course, part 2, if correctly applied, can pretty much eliminate part 1.
Quite.
To choose only one of the restrictions: "The exercise of these freedoms... may be subject to such... restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law... for the protection of... morals"
The question really is, what would they do with it if they had (theoretically) unlimited funds?
Good point. If they use the money as has been suggested to support "free knowledge and free software projects" this will, for better or worse, provide an incentive structure in those areas. The exact nature of those incentives will depend on how funds are distributed. It's a potential source of political wrangling, if not corruption.
Either they aren't particularly worried about Amazon being a threat or they have it in for Apple.
Amazon are still limited by the fact that they're selling boxed media that have to be stored, tracked, delivered by hand, etc. The fact that you're buying the same boxed media online instead of in a shop is just a matter for regular competition, territory that Walmart is familiar with. Apple is distributing media entirely digitally, which means the costs and profit margins are very different. I suspect that's what's scaring Walmart.
With fossils unearthed recently showing _tropical_ weather in Northern Canada, I think it's safe to say that the Arctic ice cap is a temporary feature.
I disagree and refer you to your comment about sweeping statements. I don't think it is "safe" to say that the Arctic ice cap is a temporary feature, because it could well encourage complacency among those who wish to ignore the situation. Whether the ice cap is natural or not, its melting is going to cause serious problems.
Agreed - editors are the one thing why sites like slashdot are worthwhile compared with digg. If you only want to read random shit written by monkeys digg is unbeatable, slashdot should be different
Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him, Horatio: a fellow
of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy: he hath
borne me on his back a thousand times; and now, how
abhorred in my imagination it is! My gorge rims at
it. Here hung those lips that I have kissed I know
not how oft. Where be your gibes now? your
gambols? your songs? your flashes of merriment,
that were wont to set the table on a roar? Not one
now, to mock your own grinning? quite chap-fallen?
Now get you to my lady's chamber, and tell her, let
her paint an inch thick, to this favour she must
come; make her laugh at that.
I think it's a pain when you see some cool feature or eyecandy or whatever appearing in the desktop environment you aren't using... but it isn't enough to make you totally switch your current desktop. And just when you do go and switch, your old environment will come out with some sweet feature and you're back to square one.
I agree with other posters in that competition is a good thing in this sort of environment. Ideally it'd be made easy to transfer your data and applications from one environment to the other (much like moving your laptop, notepad and pencils from one desk to another) although I appreciate that it's more complicated than that.
You should be clear on this point: they won't go away if left alone, they will eventually come for you and what you hold dear.
Yes, let's be absolutely clear on this point. Invading Iraq and Afghanistan has made the situation worse, not better. Perhaps the terrorists are militarily weaker, but they have far greater popular support and will now last for much longer (thanks to high civilian casualties, prisoner abuse, use of chemical weapons, divide and conquer tactics, etc.)
For example the bombings in London, which were perpetrated by british citizens, could not possibly have been prevented by invading another country or any publically acceptable act of legislation. They could however have been prevented (as indicated by the bombers' own statements) by a more fair and consistent foriegn policy.
I suspect you've bought into the gung-ho rhetoric of the UK/US administrations who have much to gain from the distraction from domestic problems provided by an enemy.
The USA can never kill all the terrorists without creating more, the terrorists can never seriously damage the USA, and neither side is likely to back down any time soon.
You can shove your little NYC victim mentality right up your arse. It's exactly that mentality that has allowed Bush and his cronies to drag the world into a "war" that's unwinnable by either side and results in wars, hatred, and an authoritarian wet dream.
Dissent gets stifled using anti-terror legislation... government fuck-ups get buried beneath terror headlines... people are given an enemy, and a reason to be obedient.
Terrorism makes it easy for politicians to get their own way. Considering the mind-bogglingly small impact of terrorism, why wouldn't they want to encourage it?
So, it all goes back to: yes, you have a right to do something (and in this case, maybe not even then) but that doesn't mean you _should_ do it.
I completely agree, and am fairly sure he acted illegally. He doesn't own the copyright on that text, or the images within them, so I doubt he can have acted legally by publishing them. Even if he'd taken the photos himself he'd still need a model release form. That's not even opening the "can of worms" that is privacy.
Sadly the publicity involved in taking this to court would probably reduce the chance of legal action.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know anything about low-salary workers, but high-salary workers suffer from the H1-B system. At least half a dozen of my friends (from London) have been offered jobs (by Microsoft, Google, Six Apart and Qwest) in the US using the H1-B system, and let me tell you, it's a slow and painful process to put yourself through, especially considering that you're already uprooting your entire life. One friend was even considering moving to Central America and commuting for a few weeks at a time because the H1-Bs had run out for the year.
I'm sure there are plenty of MPs who are into that sort of thing. Powerful people tend to crave the opposite (annecdotally). Making it all more and more illegal is probably an extra thrill for them.
Agreed. Why was this modded Troll? Parent has a pertinent point. The critical BBC documentary is due to be screened as part of the Panorama programme, and the allegation has been made that the Church of Scientology has released this video as part of a pre-emptive damage control operation.
If you could get U2 CD's (legally) from multiple sources that were in competition with each other, and they still all charged the same price, then THAT might be evidence of collusion.
The natural price of a good is the sum of the costs involved in it's production, including transport, storage, retail overheads, salaries, and enough profit to push back into A&R to fund the number of failures it takes to find a successful act. Since almost all of those costs will be the same or similar for any two similar outlets, similar pricing shouldn't be taken as evidence of collusion.
This theory has been around for ages. Is the recent discussion of this because of a new development? I don't see it anywhere.
Another difference is that with a regular web app you'd have to insert the Javascript into multiple pages in order to have complete control over the target app. In order for there to be a danger to the user's data there'd have to be some data on the page where the Javascript was executed or you'd have to take the user to a custom-built phishing site to get them to enter their data for you. With an app written entirely in Javascript you'd only have to get your code executed once, and/or you wouldn't have to build a replica site.
I'm just glad I have enough land to grow my own.
Good for you. I wish I could do the same. Maybe one day... right now property prices are way too high for me to be comfortable buying land.
That's a bit paranoid.
I didn't say that the supermarkets had planned it that way. I just left the option open.
On the one hand you could claim "market forces" and that it's the consumers' fault, on the other hand you could say that if the supermarkets had labelled their produce differently or been more willing to engage wider consumer demographics then there would still be more choice. Personally I don't know enough about the history of retail to say.
How is the DRM going to make a profit if their product's marginal utility (apparently) is -$.30?
Without DRM there'd be far less excuse to charge extra for the DRM-free version. The $1.30 version will subsidise the $1 DRM-encumbered version.
It's a bit like the way the supermarkets virtually wiped out tastier (but odd-looking) varieties of fruit and veg for cosmetic reasons. They're then selling them back to us as luxury items now we're used to eating the pretty (but tasteless) varieties.
Nobody eats corn as it was created by nature: All the variaties of corn in use today are the result of a centuries-long selective-breeding program.
When did nature create this corn that we're no longer eating? This whole line of thought is like a fallacy inside a fallacy inside a fallacy... it's making me dizzy.
Of course, part 2, if correctly applied, can pretty much eliminate part 1.
Quite.
To choose only one of the restrictions: "The exercise of these freedoms... may be subject to such... restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law... for the protection of... morals"
Who's morals?
The question really is, what would they do with it if they had (theoretically) unlimited funds?
Good point. If they use the money as has been suggested to support "free knowledge and free software projects" this will, for better or worse, provide an incentive structure in those areas. The exact nature of those incentives will depend on how funds are distributed. It's a potential source of political wrangling, if not corruption.
Quite. Mod parent +1 Used Brain Before Typing
In court, they do not even try to equate them, their figure is more in the line of 1 download = 100 to 1000 lost sales.
Wasn't that uploads?
Try and think about the damage a script kiddie could do if he got ahold of a list of people's passwords and phone numbers.
I doubt they'll need script kiddies to screw this up for them.
Either they aren't particularly worried about Amazon being a threat or they have it in for Apple.
Amazon are still limited by the fact that they're selling boxed media that have to be stored, tracked, delivered by hand, etc. The fact that you're buying the same boxed media online instead of in a shop is just a matter for regular competition, territory that Walmart is familiar with. Apple is distributing media entirely digitally, which means the costs and profit margins are very different. I suspect that's what's scaring Walmart.
With fossils unearthed recently showing _tropical_ weather in Northern Canada, I think it's safe to say that the Arctic ice cap is a temporary feature.
I disagree and refer you to your comment about sweeping statements. I don't think it is "safe" to say that the Arctic ice cap is a temporary feature, because it could well encourage complacency among those who wish to ignore the situation. Whether the ice cap is natural or not, its melting is going to cause serious problems.
Agreed - editors are the one thing why sites like slashdot are worthwhile compared with digg. If you only want to read random shit written by monkeys digg is unbeatable, slashdot should be different
Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him, Horatio: a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy: he hath borne me on his back a thousand times; and now, how abhorred in my imagination it is! My gorge rims at it. Here hung those lips that I have kissed I know not how oft. Where be your gibes now? your gambols? your songs? your flashes of merriment, that were wont to set the table on a roar? Not one now, to mock your own grinning? quite chap-fallen? Now get you to my lady's chamber, and tell her, let her paint an inch thick, to this favour she must come; make her laugh at that.
I think it's a pain when you see some cool feature or eyecandy or whatever appearing in the desktop environment you aren't using... but it isn't enough to make you totally switch your current desktop. And just when you do go and switch, your old environment will come out with some sweet feature and you're back to square one.
I agree with other posters in that competition is a good thing in this sort of environment. Ideally it'd be made easy to transfer your data and applications from one environment to the other (much like moving your laptop, notepad and pencils from one desk to another) although I appreciate that it's more complicated than that.
You should be clear on this point: they won't go away if left alone, they will eventually come for you and what you hold dear.
Yes, let's be absolutely clear on this point. Invading Iraq and Afghanistan has made the situation worse, not better. Perhaps the terrorists are militarily weaker, but they have far greater popular support and will now last for much longer (thanks to high civilian casualties, prisoner abuse, use of chemical weapons, divide and conquer tactics, etc.) For example the bombings in London, which were perpetrated by british citizens, could not possibly have been prevented by invading another country or any publically acceptable act of legislation. They could however have been prevented (as indicated by the bombers' own statements) by a more fair and consistent foriegn policy. I suspect you've bought into the gung-ho rhetoric of the UK/US administrations who have much to gain from the distraction from domestic problems provided by an enemy.You obviously don't live in New York.
The USA can never kill all the terrorists without creating more, the terrorists can never seriously damage the USA, and neither side is likely to back down any time soon.
You can shove your little NYC victim mentality right up your arse. It's exactly that mentality that has allowed Bush and his cronies to drag the world into a "war" that's unwinnable by either side and results in wars, hatred, and an authoritarian wet dream.
Dissent gets stifled using anti-terror legislation... government fuck-ups get buried beneath terror headlines... people are given an enemy, and a reason to be obedient. Terrorism makes it easy for politicians to get their own way. Considering the mind-bogglingly small impact of terrorism, why wouldn't they want to encourage it?
But more importantly, Google's motto doesn't work that way. It says "do no evil"...
Evil as defined by the morality of whom?
So, it all goes back to: yes, you have a right to do something (and in this case, maybe not even then) but that doesn't mean you _should_ do it.
I completely agree, and am fairly sure he acted illegally. He doesn't own the copyright on that text, or the images within them, so I doubt he can have acted legally by publishing them. Even if he'd taken the photos himself he'd still need a model release form. That's not even opening the "can of worms" that is privacy.
Sadly the publicity involved in taking this to court would probably reduce the chance of legal action.
I am in the UK.
Thanks for the info... very helpful of you.