So if I called your phone every hour every day of the year you would value that?
If I called you and told you that I had kidnapped your loved one and that you should pay me $100k if you ever wanted to see them again you value that freedom of speech?
If I told you that in the next week I was going to sneak into your home and shoot you you would be ok with that.
If I walked up behind you and said I had a gun and you should drop your wallet and run away without looking back you're ok with that?
Except in this case the Judge provided a list of easily and widely accepted attributes for "Journalist" which could include a blogger. In fact at no point did the Judge dismiss the "journalist" credentials for this woman because of her delivery medium. That's just Slashdot being its normal clinically paranoid, borderline commitable self.
Defendant fails to bring forth any evidence suggestive of her status as a journalist. For example, there is no evidence of (1) any education in journalism; (2) any credentials or proof of any affiliation with any recognized news entity; (3) proof of adherence to journalistic standards such as editing, fact-checking, or disclosures of conflicts of interest; (4) keeping notes of conversations and interviews conducted; (5) mutual understanding or agreement of confidentiality between the defendant and his/her sources; (6) creation of an independent product rather than assembling writings and postings of others; or (7) contacting "the other side" to get both sides of a story. Without evidence of this nature, defendant is not "media."
Posting random shit on the internet does not make you a journalist.
Whether or not most reporters meet these guidelines is irrelevant... they aren't on trial. If they were they would need to meet the same bar.
This case has NOTHING to do whether or not bloggers are journalists. This has everything to do with whether or not some random woman in Oregon is a journalist. And the judge ruled that she isn't... and even if she was it would still be libel.
What makes facebook good is all the stuff that the paranoid hate: Photo Tagging, Auto-updating email/phone contact lists on my phone and interconnected profiles.
Blogs just post status updates. But how many people's blogs do you follow? I regularly see 10+ people's facebook posts on a nearly daily basis. Completely different level of interaction.
Saying something that someone doesn't like isn't legally "Hate Speech".
It's pretty privileged to say "Grow thicker skin" when you don't have someone actively trying to get people to murder you and living in constant threat.
I think people should have the freedom to live their life without constant harassment and intimidation just as I do. It's the old adage "your rights end where my nose begins". The categories of hate speech which are not protected by the first amendment are all cases where someone else's rights are being infringed by that speech.
The libertarian always looks at a law from an isolated egotistical position instead of a higher broader definition.
If you take something like hate speech if you only look at it from an extremely egotistical position "I can't say ___ therefore *my* right to free speech is being infringed."
That's a legitimate egotistical position. However that's not how a government can look at any given action. It has to take into account the *net* effect of speech on its citizens.
So while it's true that stopping someone from saying "We need to round up the Mexicans and gas them." would infringe on their speech... hate speech by its legal definition is speech which infringes on others' rights.
If someone's advocating for violence against a group of law abiding citizens and threatening them if they freely assemble then their speech infringes on a large group of people's rights. The net effect of the hate speech is that a large number of people lose their own freedoms and rights. So their speech must be reduced in order to protect the speech of others.
Hate speech suppresses the rights of minorities since it impedes their ability to live free of the threat of constant violence. When they're living under the threat of violence numerous freedoms will be taken from them.
This is a pretty standard situation in __any_large_organization__: lots and lots of money is spent, with poor planning, sweetheart deals with incompetent firms, and then a bunch of fallout.
Capitalism inevitably results in a few monopolies destroying capitalism. It's not a self sustaining economic structure.
So we prop it up here and regulate it there to try and keep it under control and from over-merging and consolidating like the blog consuming our entire economy.
Then the libertarians claim that capitalism needs to be free of oversight so they scale back the watch guard every decade or so and the beast grows. Then it steps on something we all treasure and the public pushes back to shorten its leash. And so on and so forth.
If we had capitalism (which we never really have) then we would probably have a handful of mega-corporation that looks quite a bit like the government with a bunch of little niche organizations operating in their shadows.
Capitalism without corporations would just shift the corporatism to a plutocracy where a few wealthy individuals control large portions of the economy. So really corporatism is just a short sighted complaint about our current form of capitalism.
Functioning economies only really function when you use the useful parts and try and mitigate the problems through splicing in hybrid solutions. If raw capitalism results in massive income inequality and hardship for the majority then you splice in a little social security communism.
Capitalism was the economic foundation of a successful post-industrial economy. The age of the cheap widget. We were able in the 30s to temper most of its ills through infused socialism. Europe took it a step further in many respects.
But we're now leaving the hay day of capitalism and entering the information age. I don't think capitalism will function in this new era. I think within 100 years trying to fit capitalism to an information economy would be like trying to sell a spotify customer on the joys of FM radio.
Expect the composition of our economic philosophy to change dramatically. What will harm us probably more than anything will be a nostalgic ideological insistence to use solutions for problems we no longer face.
This was my first thought as well. I'm in my mid 20s and for my age bracket I'm not just "The 1%" I'm the.001%. If I had the same pay and I was 50 years old I would only just barely be in the top 10% of income. I would have to make something like 15x as much as I do now to retain my same relative status.
When you're young like me and can still live affordably you can live like a king. Start having kids and maybe you or your wife wants to take some time off for the baby so you're down to one income supporting 3 people. Start saving for a college fund. Maybe you're underwater on a mortgage. Maybe you need to be putting more into your retirement. Healthcare starts getting more expensive just through your deductibles and co-pays more frequently.
The reality is that when I'm 50 to maintain my lifestyle I'll probably need to about double my income. But while experience is very valuable is it worth 2x as much as my current experience? Sure... for a couple leadership positions. But I doubt a 50 year old developer is twice as fast as a mid twenties wonderkid.
The other aspect of this is that you only need so much management. If you hire 100 fresh developers you only need about 20-25 managers with development experience. So the job pool is going to start shrinking as you get older.
Some little guy comes up with some clever new widget and the big guys buy out his company *to get his patents*.
If it weren't for the patent system the big guys wouldn't bother even buying him out or sending him a nastygram they would just clone his tech and exploit their efficient existing infrastructure to out market the up-start.
Except that you're already paying them through FICA and unemployment has a cost on society through systemic reactions. e.g. Even if 90% of the population has a job if 70% is afraid for their security they'll restrict their spending.
That was my thought. And to answer the Summary's question, no it won't because the people who aren't buying a Kindle because of remote-wipe capability are the same people who will now complain that there is DRM somewhere or that the chip design isn't also open or...
Otherwise all this sounds like is Varuka Saltz stamping her feet and shouting "Daddy, I want it NAOOOOOOOOOOO".
Maybe he would be willing to pay for it.
I'm exactly like Varuka stamping her feet. And after parting with my cash I have an expectation that my slice of the development costs is reflected in feature development.
I agree with almost everything you said... BUT I would remind you that it was a US government employed bio-warfare scientist that launched the Anthrax Attack. Thank God he was only working with weaponized Anthrax.
So one of the only examples of a bio-weapon being used wasn't the result of a nutjob but a nutjob employed in a very similar manor to this flu strain scientist.
The trick though is that machinery adds expenses without necessarily adding labor.
If you have a back-hoe it might cost you $1k a day in rental but with that $1k a day you could also hire 8 $16 an hour employees.
So the question then becomes which can do it faster 8 people for $1k a day or a back-hoe at $1k a day?
Even if it were twice as fast as 8 people, or equal to 16 people then you look at your budget like this:
2 1-day projects with a back hoe: $2k 2 1 day projects with 8 people @ $16 an hour: $4k
You could say "wow what an inefficient job program wasting $2k!"
Or you look at the job balance: 2 1-day projects with a back hoe: maybe 4 man days labor for maintanance and operation... MAYBE. 2 1-day projects with 8 people: 16 man days.
By that metric the people with shovels produced 16 man days of employment for $4k vs 8 man days of employment for $4k for the back hoe.
By that metric the people with shovels are actually *more efficient*... if you're measuring job days per $.
Actually, there isn't a single reason why programs shouldn't be sandboxed like that as a default
Because it's really #()@# annoying would be the biggest reason they shouldn't be sandboxed like that.
If you start prompting the user every time an application wants access to My Documents you can guarantee it'll be like the EULA "Yes, whatever just save the goddamn file."
What expense? They bought an AV company a while back. There is no additional expense.
Ummm, Anti-Virus definitions have to be *constantly* updated. They don't do that through magic.
Maintaining an AV package is a high cost endeavor. And giving it away for free only costs them money. I assume though that they concluded that maintaining AV was cheaper than the impossible task of plugging every possible exploit.
That and employees are no longer valued they're viewed as an expense. Most of these small businesses are developing ideas from ex-employees who weren't valued adequately and have started a new company to develop their idea.
Companies like Apple spend millions re-buying what probably could have been kept in house if the employees had been given a fat raise and recognition.
Then again there is such a lack of vision and creativity in management today I don't really trust most companies to recognize their valuable assets. So maybe admitting you're nothing more than a spreadsheet jockey who should just wait to buy successful ideas is the best use of their talents.
Why on earth would Microsoft want to put the AV competition out of business? It only costs them money.
It's neither boon nor monopoly, it's acknowledging a begrudging reality that no matter how secure your OS you need AV on top and you can't rely on your users to purchase it.
I'm sure Microsoft would be more than happy for everyone to run Norton and save the development expense but... that would be like requiring your customers to buy hamburger bun separately.
Real trolling would be pointing out that the whole premise of universal healthcare is that the collective wisdom of the government can make better decisions about how to spend money on health than individuals can.
We already have collective wisdom of the government deciding how to spend money on health care. They do it through what the FDA approves and does not approve. This will just go one step further and instead of just approving will also rate the efficacy of various treatments so that we aren't accidentally using leaches when an antibiotic is 10x more effective.
Slashdot Mirror
I value absolute freedom of speech.
So if I called your phone every hour every day of the year you would value that?
If I called you and told you that I had kidnapped your loved one and that you should pay me $100k if you ever wanted to see them again you value that freedom of speech?
If I told you that in the next week I was going to sneak into your home and shoot you you would be ok with that.
If I walked up behind you and said I had a gun and you should drop your wallet and run away without looking back you're ok with that?
I call bulslhit.
Except in this case the Judge provided a list of easily and widely accepted attributes for "Journalist" which could include a blogger. In fact at no point did the Judge dismiss the "journalist" credentials for this woman because of her delivery medium. That's just Slashdot being its normal clinically paranoid, borderline commitable self.
Defendant fails to bring forth any evidence suggestive of her status as a journalist. For example, there is no evidence of (1) any education in journalism; (2) any credentials or proof of any affiliation with any recognized news entity; (3) proof of adherence to journalistic standards such as editing, fact-checking, or disclosures of conflicts of interest; (4) keeping notes of conversations and interviews conducted; (5) mutual understanding or agreement of confidentiality between the defendant and his/her sources; (6) creation of an independent product rather than assembling writings and postings of others; or (7) contacting "the other side" to get both sides of a story. Without evidence of this nature, defendant is not "media."
Posting random shit on the internet does not make you a journalist.
Whether or not most reporters meet these guidelines is irrelevant... they aren't on trial. If they were they would need to meet the same bar.
This case has NOTHING to do whether or not bloggers are journalists. This has everything to do with whether or not some random woman in Oregon is a journalist. And the judge ruled that she isn't... and even if she was it would still be libel.
Except that this technology doesn't help with head turning either.
Imagine a situation where the cost to buy something from Amazon was dependent on your distance from an Amazon distribution centre
This position would be more substantial if I had ever received a package from Amazon through USPS. They almost exclusively use UPS for my deliveries.
Private isn't what makes facebook good.
What makes facebook good is all the stuff that the paranoid hate:
Photo Tagging, Auto-updating email/phone contact lists on my phone and interconnected profiles.
Blogs just post status updates. But how many people's blogs do you follow? I regularly see 10+ people's facebook posts on a nearly daily basis. Completely different level of interaction.
Saying something that someone doesn't like isn't legally "Hate Speech".
It's pretty privileged to say "Grow thicker skin" when you don't have someone actively trying to get people to murder you and living in constant threat.
I think people should have the freedom to live their life without constant harassment and intimidation just as I do. It's the old adage "your rights end where my nose begins". The categories of hate speech which are not protected by the first amendment are all cases where someone else's rights are being infringed by that speech.
The libertarian always looks at a law from an isolated egotistical position instead of a higher broader definition.
If you take something like hate speech if you only look at it from an extremely egotistical position "I can't say ___ therefore *my* right to free speech is being infringed."
That's a legitimate egotistical position. However that's not how a government can look at any given action. It has to take into account the *net* effect of speech on its citizens.
So while it's true that stopping someone from saying "We need to round up the Mexicans and gas them." would infringe on their speech... hate speech by its legal definition is speech which infringes on others' rights.
If someone's advocating for violence against a group of law abiding citizens and threatening them if they freely assemble then their speech infringes on a large group of people's rights. The net effect of the hate speech is that a large number of people lose their own freedoms and rights. So their speech must be reduced in order to protect the speech of others.
Hate speech suppresses the rights of minorities since it impedes their ability to live free of the threat of constant violence. When they're living under the threat of violence numerous freedoms will be taken from them.
This is a pretty standard situation in __any_large_organization__: lots and lots of money is spent, with poor planning, sweetheart deals with incompetent firms, and then a bunch of fallout.
*There fixed that for you.
Capitalism isn't capitalism and will never be.
Capitalism inevitably results in a few monopolies destroying capitalism. It's not a self sustaining economic structure.
So we prop it up here and regulate it there to try and keep it under control and from over-merging and consolidating like the blog consuming our entire economy.
Then the libertarians claim that capitalism needs to be free of oversight so they scale back the watch guard every decade or so and the beast grows. Then it steps on something we all treasure and the public pushes back to shorten its leash. And so on and so forth.
If we had capitalism (which we never really have) then we would probably have a handful of mega-corporation that looks quite a bit like the government with a bunch of little niche organizations operating in their shadows.
Capitalism without corporations would just shift the corporatism to a plutocracy where a few wealthy individuals control large portions of the economy. So really corporatism is just a short sighted complaint about our current form of capitalism.
Functioning economies only really function when you use the useful parts and try and mitigate the problems through splicing in hybrid solutions. If raw capitalism results in massive income inequality and hardship for the majority then you splice in a little social security communism.
Capitalism was the economic foundation of a successful post-industrial economy. The age of the cheap widget. We were able in the 30s to temper most of its ills through infused socialism. Europe took it a step further in many respects.
But we're now leaving the hay day of capitalism and entering the information age. I don't think capitalism will function in this new era. I think within 100 years trying to fit capitalism to an information economy would be like trying to sell a spotify customer on the joys of FM radio.
Expect the composition of our economic philosophy to change dramatically. What will harm us probably more than anything will be a nostalgic ideological insistence to use solutions for problems we no longer face.
My Galaxy Tab seems to respect our exchange policies.
But it's pretty much the exact same price as a comparable iPad.
This was my first thought as well. I'm in my mid 20s and for my age bracket I'm not just "The 1%" I'm the .001%. If I had the same pay and I was 50 years old I would only just barely be in the top 10% of income. I would have to make something like 15x as much as I do now to retain my same relative status.
When you're young like me and can still live affordably you can live like a king. Start having kids and maybe you or your wife wants to take some time off for the baby so you're down to one income supporting 3 people. Start saving for a college fund. Maybe you're underwater on a mortgage. Maybe you need to be putting more into your retirement. Healthcare starts getting more expensive just through your deductibles and co-pays more frequently.
The reality is that when I'm 50 to maintain my lifestyle I'll probably need to about double my income. But while experience is very valuable is it worth 2x as much as my current experience? Sure... for a couple leadership positions. But I doubt a 50 year old developer is twice as fast as a mid twenties wonderkid.
The other aspect of this is that you only need so much management. If you hire 100 fresh developers you only need about 20-25 managers with development experience. So the job pool is going to start shrinking as you get older.
Actually it's almost always the exact reverse.
Some little guy comes up with some clever new widget and the big guys buy out his company *to get his patents*.
If it weren't for the patent system the big guys wouldn't bother even buying him out or sending him a nastygram they would just clone his tech and exploit their efficient existing infrastructure to out market the up-start.
Can you name ONE thing about Windows that's more "user friendly?"
Last time I tried to get a dual monitor setup working it took about 3 days.
No, it wasn't ten years ago.
Immaculate Conception!
Except that you're already paying them through FICA and unemployment has a cost on society through systemic reactions. e.g. Even if 90% of the population has a job if 70% is afraid for their security they'll restrict their spending.
Better to have people working than idle.
That was my thought. And to answer the Summary's question, no it won't because the people who aren't buying a Kindle because of remote-wipe capability are the same people who will now complain that there is DRM somewhere or that the chip design isn't also open or...
Well, get coding. It's open source after all
Otherwise all this sounds like is Varuka Saltz stamping her feet and shouting "Daddy, I want it NAOOOOOOOOOOO".
Maybe he would be willing to pay for it.
I'm exactly like Varuka stamping her feet. And after parting with my cash I have an expectation that my slice of the development costs is reflected in feature development.
I agree with almost everything you said... BUT I would remind you that it was a US government employed bio-warfare scientist that launched the Anthrax Attack. Thank God he was only working with weaponized Anthrax.
So one of the only examples of a bio-weapon being used wasn't the result of a nutjob but a nutjob employed in a very similar manor to this flu strain scientist.
The trick though is that machinery adds expenses without necessarily adding labor.
If you have a back-hoe it might cost you $1k a day in rental but with that $1k a day you could also hire 8 $16 an hour employees.
So the question then becomes which can do it faster 8 people for $1k a day or a back-hoe at $1k a day?
Even if it were twice as fast as 8 people, or equal to 16 people then you look at your budget like this:
2 1-day projects with a back hoe: $2k
2 1 day projects with 8 people @ $16 an hour: $4k
You could say "wow what an inefficient job program wasting $2k!"
Or you look at the job balance:
2 1-day projects with a back hoe: maybe 4 man days labor for maintanance and operation... MAYBE.
2 1-day projects with 8 people: 16 man days.
By that metric the people with shovels produced 16 man days of employment for $4k vs 8 man days of employment for $4k for the back hoe.
By that metric the people with shovels are actually *more efficient*... if you're measuring job days per $.
Actually, there isn't a single reason why programs shouldn't be sandboxed like that as a default
Because it's really #()@# annoying would be the biggest reason they shouldn't be sandboxed like that.
If you start prompting the user every time an application wants access to My Documents you can guarantee it'll be like the EULA "Yes, whatever just save the goddamn file."
What expense? They bought an AV company a while back. There is no additional expense.
Ummm, Anti-Virus definitions have to be *constantly* updated. They don't do that through magic.
Maintaining an AV package is a high cost endeavor. And giving it away for free only costs them money. I assume though that they concluded that maintaining AV was cheaper than the impossible task of plugging every possible exploit.
That and employees are no longer valued they're viewed as an expense. Most of these small businesses are developing ideas from ex-employees who weren't valued adequately and have started a new company to develop their idea.
Companies like Apple spend millions re-buying what probably could have been kept in house if the employees had been given a fat raise and recognition.
Then again there is such a lack of vision and creativity in management today I don't really trust most companies to recognize their valuable assets. So maybe admitting you're nothing more than a spreadsheet jockey who should just wait to buy successful ideas is the best use of their talents.
Why on earth would Microsoft want to put the AV competition out of business? It only costs them money.
It's neither boon nor monopoly, it's acknowledging a begrudging reality that no matter how secure your OS you need AV on top and you can't rely on your users to purchase it.
I'm sure Microsoft would be more than happy for everyone to run Norton and save the development expense but... that would be like requiring your customers to buy hamburger bun separately.
Sounds like the tax is pocketed by the french government.
You might buy $50 in music from iTunes, but instead you download it.
Tax on that $50 is $5 so french government takes its sales tax on pirated items.
RIAA can sue you if they want a share. Kind of like taxing a radar detector I guess for lost speeding tickets.
Real trolling would be pointing out that the whole premise of universal healthcare is that the collective wisdom of the government can make better decisions about how to spend money on health than individuals can.
We already have collective wisdom of the government deciding how to spend money on health care. They do it through what the FDA approves and does not approve. This will just go one step further and instead of just approving will also rate the efficacy of various treatments so that we aren't accidentally using leaches when an antibiotic is 10x more effective.