Wow, you really don't get it. stewbacca goes to work at 8 am... according to whom? There is a potentially huge difference between, "stewbacca says he goes to work at 8 am" and "a spokesman for stewbacca's employer says he goes to work at 8 am."
You're right, to add "allegedly" by itself inserts bias, but to identify who alleges is reporting the source of the opinion. An unattributed opinion looks like it's coming from the reporter.
I'm not being a troll here, I'm asking a serious question. Wouldn't we be better off for it?
All right, here's a serious answer. No, we wouldn't be better off. Excising history would not excise social injustice from the present, it would only rob us of the perspective necessary to recognize and redress it.
Apple today released Mac OS X 10.6.6 which which [sic] increases the stability, compatibility, and security of your Mac
Looks like CmdrTaco has been studying at the Fox News School of Journalistic Neutrality. I believe the preferred formulation would be,
"Apple today released Mac OS X 10.6.6 which Apple claims 'increases the stability, compatibility, and security of your Mac'".
Isn't it interesting how the mention of these two most important goals of learning--truth and beauty--now evokes snickers and ridicule, almost as if by instinct, from those who shrink from all that is not superficial.
The key word here is "jury award." Exorbitant jury awards are routinely reduced by a judge. But then, the actual amount of damages Seagate ends up paying would not make as big a headline.
IANAL but I've been on a jury. It is hard enough to get 12 people to agree on findings of law, that I think trying to determine appropriate damages is just asking too much. Juries are bad at it, and the judge's instructions on awarding damages (for us at least) were surprisingly vague.
So before any libertarians (I know you're out there) get worked up over Seagate getting screwed by the courts, please bear in mind two things:
This large amount of damages was decided by a jury, not an "activist judge"
Is there anything gameplay-wise here that we haven't experienced before?
You're missing the point. This is on an iPhone. Think of it from the point of view of an Apple fanboi. It's on an iPhone! Certainly falls into the category "stuff that matters" when you put it that way!
AFAIC you are the one who is completely shortsighted, not able to understand that a economy is the most important part of society in the first place.
Let's see here...
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
And you say the economy ("general Welfare") is the only one of those that matters. You're entitled to that opinion of course, but you and I have very different ideas of what democracy is all about. I suggest China is a better society for you.
Exceptions should be made for personal pages, but for organizations, governments, and commerce sites that deal with the public, there shouldn't be any excuse.
Well I kind of see the point of those who say the government shouldn't force private businesses to run their business a certain way. But I also see that that is the same argument of the manager who refused to serve black customers at the Woolworth's lunch counter.
It boils down to the age-old questions: the conservative asks "what kind of government can we tolerate?" and the liberal asks "what kind of society do we want to be?"
So I think you're going too far to say "there shouldn't be any excuse --" private property rights and general freedom from government interference are strong and valid arguments. On the other hand I don't want to turn back the clock to 1963, either. Life is better with civil rights legislation. It's easier to be proud to be an American. So I'm inclined to take your side and say to Web site operators, "suck it up, follow the law."
I also think the government should be the first to implement its own usability requirements... stating with the Web site of the court that handed down this decision.
A curious part of this is that they've mostly been persuaded by the growing number of people carrying a "smart phone", and it's getting through their heads that web pages forced to width=1200 or requiring javascript are limiting their audience
Amen, brother! I keep scratching my head over why certain Web sites are willing to shell out the cash to make a whole parallel "mobile" version, when what they really need is just a couple of different style sheets and some good engineering. That whole idea of separating content from layout, that seemed so quaint and idealistic back in 1995, actually makes sense in today's marketplace.
Furthermore, copyright infringement (even if it was real) is a civil matter. Referral to the police station is of very quesitonable legality.
Clearly you must not read the non-skippable copyright notices at the start of every home video/DVD. "Criminal copyright infringement is investigated by the FBI and carries penalties of up to five years in prison and/or a $250,000 fine" (or words to that effect; I'm working from memory here).
Under U.S. law, copyright infringement can be a felony; right up there with homicide, rape, and arson. I'm not saying it's right; I'm saying the law exists. (I don't know of any felony prosecutions except where the infringer was mass-producing and selling the material, but IANAL).
I think any sensible definition of "terrorism" has to involve violence -- people in meatspace getting killed or at least hurt. I read TFA and the only connection it had to terrorism was in the headline. Skimming credit card numbers is not terrorism (though it could be used to finance terrorist activities). Spreading malware through Facebook is not terrorism (though a botnet could be used in conjunction with a terrorist attack, maybe).
I am not aware of terrorists ever having made a "cyber terror attack." Most extremist groups are looking for a bigger shock value than they can get by knocking out Google's Web server or even bringing down the electric grid in half the United States (either of which could be accomplished by a misplaced backhoe or a freak thunderstorm). Actually they would much rather blow up a school bus or something. A lone gunman can create more of a scare and get more PR for the cause than could a group of crack cyber-terrorists who managed to reproduce the U.S. blackout of 2005.
To label any and all malicious activity is disingenuous. It grabs some attention and helps you sell something in the short run, but in the long run, crying wolf is a disservice to the public and it doesn't pay off.
but actual physical damage is not the goal of terrorists: spreading the message is the goal, and the spreading of that message is greatly heightened by a dramatic delivery, such as the deaths of innocent people.
You are absolutely right about that.
Clearly, what offends people here is the invasive nature of the screening.
Not in my case. What offends me is being subject to search and detention without any evidence or probable cause. I do not want the TSA to so much as peek inside my carry-on without a duly executed search warrant signed by a judge. I believe we have a right to privacy (re-read the Fourth Amendment, and if that doesn't convince you, read the Ninth) and a right to go about our lawful business without being stopped, searched, or questioned by any government official.
It shouldn't, but it amazes me how a military force from one country can take action based on information from a free service offered by a company in another country. It boggles the mind.
It's possible that you're mistaking a pretext for the actual cause of the "mistake."
That's typical of jury awards. Once they've decided on a verdict, they seem to me to give undue weight to the (victorious) plaintiff's arguments regarding the amount of damages. Judges then commonly reduce the outrageous awards to something more feasible, but then those are not huge, shocking numbers so they don't grab the headlines.
IANAL. I just have noticed this by following the news for a couple of decades.
The same way the president can issue edicts that are not laws, they're "Executive Orders." Or the Guantanamo prisoners are not prisoners of war, they're "Enemy Combatants." Or security for the G8 summit is not suppressing dissent, it's "designating Free Speech Zones." Sometimes the law or the Constitution is inconvenient to the President, so he makes up a new label for something he's not allowed to do, and decrees that the law or Constitution doesn't apply because of that label.
This is not a Democrat/Republican thing: George W. Bush and Obama are pretty different from one another yet they have both used these shenanigans routinely. It's a "power corrupts" thing. (Or perhaps a "Congress is asleep at the wheel" thing, or a "why haven't the people stormed the White House with torches and pitchforks?" thing.)
Yes. I believe I lost a half-day of work in that. Maybe a whole day. It was more than 5 years ago, and for most (not all) of the people affected it was an inconvenience, not a crisis. It was not a national disaster on the scale of Hurricane Katrina or the 9/11 attacks, which is what the fear mongers are trying to compare solar flares with.
What is the biggest power failure that happened since then?
I am getting tired of people quoting imaginary threats against the electrical grid. Y2K could bring down the electrical grid worldwide. Hackers could bring down the electrical grid worldwide. Terrorists could bring down the electrical grid worldwide. Cyber-warfare could bring down the electrical grid nationwide. Now, solar flares.
Your mama could bring down the electrical grid. When will the reality come through, that the electrical grid is actively maintained and it ain't that fragile? Major power failures happen what, once in 5 years in developed countries? And for most "victims" they are merely an inconvenience. More people die every year from food poisoning or slipping in the bathroom than in the blackout of the decade.
The guy took a HUGE risk here, which is an intrinsic part of being a hero, but I pity his kids a little.
Actually, no. He understood the physics of the situation well enough to know exactly what would happen. That's pretty much the opposite of taking a risk.
Assuming that people cannot become more stupid, but the rules can become more stupid
That is a wildly optimistic assumption. Both people and rules have repeatedly demonstrated an unlimited potential for stupidity. There is no reason to think either have bottomed out yet.
Agreed: Handicapped accessible == machine readable. For too long has the Web been dominated by marketing people who care everything about controlling the "visual experience" and just don't get the concept of separating layout from semantics. If you grok HTML and CSS then I fail to see how an accessible design costs a whole lot more than a non-accessible one. Well, aside from the fact that CMS designers don't seem to give a damn about accessibility or standards compliance either.
Disclaimer: this comes from a guy who works at a company whose idea of putting information on the Intranet is to post a link to a Word document. *facepalm*
Because if they don't, men with guns will come to their offices, arrest everyone, and impound all the computers and manuscripts they can find. Maybe 3 years down the road a court will exonerate them but that will be cold comfort now that their business is destroyed.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, you really don't get it. stewbacca goes to work at 8 am ... according to whom? There is a potentially huge difference between, "stewbacca says he goes to work at 8 am" and "a spokesman for stewbacca's employer says he goes to work at 8 am."
You're right, to add "allegedly" by itself inserts bias, but to identify who alleges is reporting the source of the opinion. An unattributed opinion looks like it's coming from the reporter.
All right, here's a serious answer. No, we wouldn't be better off. Excising history would not excise social injustice from the present, it would only rob us of the perspective necessary to recognize and redress it.
Looks like CmdrTaco has been studying at the Fox News School of Journalistic Neutrality. I believe the preferred formulation would be, "Apple today released Mac OS X 10.6.6 which Apple claims 'increases the stability, compatibility, and security of your Mac'".
From TFA:
Yeah, daily releases sound great for the press but it does beg the question how they're going to deal with a new major release of glibc or something.
The key word here is "jury award." Exorbitant jury awards are routinely reduced by a judge. But then, the actual amount of damages Seagate ends up paying would not make as big a headline.
IANAL but I've been on a jury. It is hard enough to get 12 people to agree on findings of law, that I think trying to determine appropriate damages is just asking too much. Juries are bad at it, and the judge's instructions on awarding damages (for us at least) were surprisingly vague.
So before any libertarians (I know you're out there) get worked up over Seagate getting screwed by the courts, please bear in mind two things:
Is there anything gameplay-wise here that we haven't experienced before?
You're missing the point. This is on an iPhone. Think of it from the point of view of an Apple fanboi. It's on an iPhone! Certainly falls into the category "stuff that matters" when you put it that way!
http://profusion.mobi/first_product_of_profusion_and_electrolux_partnership This fridge looks bigger than my car. Clearly it is a high-end "prestige" product. I think it is a bit silly myself, but whatever.
Well I kind of see the point of those who say the government shouldn't force private businesses to run their business a certain way. But I also see that that is the same argument of the manager who refused to serve black customers at the Woolworth's lunch counter.
It boils down to the age-old questions: the conservative asks "what kind of government can we tolerate?" and the liberal asks "what kind of society do we want to be?"
So I think you're going too far to say "there shouldn't be any excuse --" private property rights and general freedom from government interference are strong and valid arguments. On the other hand I don't want to turn back the clock to 1963, either. Life is better with civil rights legislation. It's easier to be proud to be an American. So I'm inclined to take your side and say to Web site operators, "suck it up, follow the law."
I also think the government should be the first to implement its own usability requirements... stating with the Web site of the court that handed down this decision.
A curious part of this is that they've mostly been persuaded by the growing number of people carrying a "smart phone", and it's getting through their heads that web pages forced to width=1200 or requiring javascript are limiting their audience
Amen, brother! I keep scratching my head over why certain Web sites are willing to shell out the cash to make a whole parallel "mobile" version, when what they really need is just a couple of different style sheets and some good engineering. That whole idea of separating content from layout, that seemed so quaint and idealistic back in 1995, actually makes sense in today's marketplace.
Furthermore, copyright infringement (even if it was real) is a civil matter. Referral to the police station is of very quesitonable legality.
Clearly you must not read the non-skippable copyright notices at the start of every home video/DVD. "Criminal copyright infringement is investigated by the FBI and carries penalties of up to five years in prison and/or a $250,000 fine" (or words to that effect; I'm working from memory here).
Under U.S. law, copyright infringement can be a felony; right up there with homicide, rape, and arson. I'm not saying it's right; I'm saying the law exists. (I don't know of any felony prosecutions except where the infringer was mass-producing and selling the material, but IANAL).
I think any sensible definition of "terrorism" has to involve violence -- people in meatspace getting killed or at least hurt. I read TFA and the only connection it had to terrorism was in the headline. Skimming credit card numbers is not terrorism (though it could be used to finance terrorist activities). Spreading malware through Facebook is not terrorism (though a botnet could be used in conjunction with a terrorist attack, maybe).
I am not aware of terrorists ever having made a "cyber terror attack." Most extremist groups are looking for a bigger shock value than they can get by knocking out Google's Web server or even bringing down the electric grid in half the United States (either of which could be accomplished by a misplaced backhoe or a freak thunderstorm). Actually they would much rather blow up a school bus or something. A lone gunman can create more of a scare and get more PR for the cause than could a group of crack cyber-terrorists who managed to reproduce the U.S. blackout of 2005.
To label any and all malicious activity is disingenuous. It grabs some attention and helps you sell something in the short run, but in the long run, crying wolf is a disservice to the public and it doesn't pay off.
but actual physical damage is not the goal of terrorists: spreading the message is the goal, and the spreading of that message is greatly heightened by a dramatic delivery, such as the deaths of innocent people.
You are absolutely right about that.
Clearly, what offends people here is the invasive nature of the screening.
Not in my case. What offends me is being subject to search and detention without any evidence or probable cause. I do not want the TSA to so much as peek inside my carry-on without a duly executed search warrant signed by a judge. I believe we have a right to privacy (re-read the Fourth Amendment, and if that doesn't convince you, read the Ninth) and a right to go about our lawful business without being stopped, searched, or questioned by any government official.
It's possible that you're mistaking a pretext for the actual cause of the "mistake."
That's typical of jury awards. Once they've decided on a verdict, they seem to me to give undue weight to the (victorious) plaintiff's arguments regarding the amount of damages. Judges then commonly reduce the outrageous awards to something more feasible, but then those are not huge, shocking numbers so they don't grab the headlines.
IANAL. I just have noticed this by following the news for a couple of decades.
I guess whether being "open" and "transparent" is a good thing or not depends on whether you're also "honest" and "courageous".
The same way the president can issue edicts that are not laws, they're "Executive Orders." Or the Guantanamo prisoners are not prisoners of war, they're "Enemy Combatants." Or security for the G8 summit is not suppressing dissent, it's "designating Free Speech Zones." Sometimes the law or the Constitution is inconvenient to the President, so he makes up a new label for something he's not allowed to do, and decrees that the law or Constitution doesn't apply because of that label.
This is not a Democrat/Republican thing: George W. Bush and Obama are pretty different from one another yet they have both used these shenanigans routinely. It's a "power corrupts" thing. (Or perhaps a "Congress is asleep at the wheel" thing, or a "why haven't the people stormed the White House with torches and pitchforks?" thing.)
Remember the blackout of 2003?
Yes. I believe I lost a half-day of work in that. Maybe a whole day. It was more than 5 years ago, and for most (not all) of the people affected it was an inconvenience, not a crisis. It was not a national disaster on the scale of Hurricane Katrina or the 9/11 attacks, which is what the fear mongers are trying to compare solar flares with.
What is the biggest power failure that happened since then?
I am getting tired of people quoting imaginary threats against the electrical grid. Y2K could bring down the electrical grid worldwide. Hackers could bring down the electrical grid worldwide. Terrorists could bring down the electrical grid worldwide. Cyber-warfare could bring down the electrical grid nationwide. Now, solar flares.
Your mama could bring down the electrical grid. When will the reality come through, that the electrical grid is actively maintained and it ain't that fragile? Major power failures happen what, once in 5 years in developed countries? And for most "victims" they are merely an inconvenience. More people die every year from food poisoning or slipping in the bathroom than in the blackout of the decade.
Actually, no. He understood the physics of the situation well enough to know exactly what would happen. That's pretty much the opposite of taking a risk.
That is a wildly optimistic assumption. Both people and rules have repeatedly demonstrated an unlimited potential for stupidity. There is no reason to think either have bottomed out yet.
Agreed: Handicapped accessible == machine readable. For too long has the Web been dominated by marketing people who care everything about controlling the "visual experience" and just don't get the concept of separating layout from semantics. If you grok HTML and CSS then I fail to see how an accessible design costs a whole lot more than a non-accessible one. Well, aside from the fact that CMS designers don't seem to give a damn about accessibility or standards compliance either.
Disclaimer: this comes from a guy who works at a company whose idea of putting information on the Intranet is to post a link to a Word document. *facepalm*
It looks like their page is back up now. Was it Slashdotted or something?
Because if they don't, men with guns will come to their offices, arrest everyone, and impound all the computers and manuscripts they can find. Maybe 3 years down the road a court will exonerate them but that will be cold comfort now that their business is destroyed.