Let us hope *not*. This bill ignores all the other companies that do business in China and either directly or indirectly provide support to the current regime. While it's convenient to go after the search engines, it's hardly fair considering that a large portion of our goods are produced by people in much worse conditions than those who have access to a computer. This is purely political and it only serves those who are political, bloggers and the like, at the expense of those suffering far worse than political repression.
The fair solution is stop all business by all companies who either receive products from or supply products to China, which is unrealistic in the extreme. However, an unfair solution like the one being cooked up is no better than an unrealistic solution and only hobbles our corporations, and eventually, our economy.
I agree with the aims of the bill, but we need a better law to support those aims.
Any system that rewards also needs to include a system of punishments as well, though. Under the described system, it is entirely possible to perpertrate a fraud and reward the effort. In the long term, withholding of funds is an effective solution. However, there needs to be a short-term solution as well. As a example, consider the case of Limp Bizkit, who got sued for presenting a 17-minute concert. Certainly, we shouldn't expect consumers to suffer through more episodes like that.
Word-of-mouth can have an effect, as in the case of Ben Afflect and Jennifer Lopez's movie Gigli, but the first wave of movie-goers was stuck with having paid some amount of money for an unsatisfactory product. The primary lesson was learned by Hollywood, which was to clamp down even further on pre-show publicity, etc.
What it comes down to is that donating X amount of dollars toward a project is a "pay for performance" system, and in that case, one expects performance, not half-hearted effort. If the effort presented fails to satisfy, then the consumer needs a method of recouping their loss. We should not be rewarding half-assed attempts.
The one thing left out of your method is a system of refunding unsatisfied consumers. If I spend that buck on a show and I'm seriously dissatisfied, I want my money back (the same as with any other good or service). It's not the buck that's important, per se, it's the idea that unsatisfactory effort remains rewarded and unpunished.
In light of recent Congressional attempts to sanitize biographies, will there be any additional steps taken to ensure that biographical information is not only neutral in content, but accurate and complete? How much outcry was there in your attempts to sanitize your own biography and what have you learned from that?
It's more likely to assume they just didn't give a damn. It's way over "there", not "here". Things that happen to foreigners don't matter to the average US citizen. Even in the wake of horrendous tsunamis, it's really only a small percentage that donate and only a slightly larger percentage who note that something happened at all.
Good point. However, Blizzard sets the rules - it's their server. There's nothing that says they have to accommodate everyone who shows up. Having language-based guilds makes sense, since that's a communication issue that transcends gender identity. But gender-identity is meaningless in an online game, beyond some superficial details such as body type.
In the end, it all comes down to what Blizzard does or does not want to support. They own the servers, they make the rules. They can choose to accommodate whomever they wish to.
OTOH, not having to pay taxes for services I don't use sounds pretty good. Makes me wish I could direct my tax money to projects I consider important, like space travel and universal healthcare.
But, this guy sounds like a wacko and I'm not going to vote for him.
That's way less risky than a return to old party machine politics.
In the old days, getting elected was all about who had the most money to pay off voters. Now, it's about who has the most money to pay for media. At least under the old system, the voters got something besides good intentions and empty promises.
Because the typical response to marketing software, be it through retail channels for commercial software, or as free software for *nix variants, is to offer a "one-size fits all" solution. There may be variations for differences in platform usage (ie., desktop, server, etc.) but everyone pays lip service to the differences in how users work within a given platform.
Consider Windows XP, with the Home and Professional versions. Both are much the same thing, with all the same utilities, but XP Home has some window-dressing (ha-ha) to dumb it down for home users.
Variations within the Linux world are even less differentiated on the user side, with most of the real differences appearing in update methodology. Sometimes the differences are political, with no real affect on the user interface.
On the commercial software side, having multiple variants of a single platform software set can lead to some real problems in marketing. Money would have to be spent to emphasize the differences between sets and there's a very real risk of upsetting consumers when they realize they undershot their needs.
On the free software side, the downside comes from alienating developers and users, who may feel left out if their favorite projects are not considered important enough to be included in a distribution.
It's a catch-22 and in the end, it's just cheaper and easier to make less-specialized, more inclusive software releases.
Now FIRING SOMEONE... that's different. In that case, I compartmentalize them starting the day before, backing up anything that they can touch. I then shut off their machine after they leave, remove or lock accounts and remove their remote access if they had it.
You left out: pouring bleach on their chair and torching the office so as to remove all traces of their odious stain upon the soul of your company, YOU SLACKER!
"Just as store owners will put pornographic magazines behind the counter to appease a vocal minority..."
What? The last time I checked, no one was protesting the lack of pornography at my local convenience store. Typically, shopkeepers stock porn because it sells and it's behind the counter because putting it in easy reach of children is just asking for trouble.
The teenagers in question may not be monsters, but they are definitely an annoyance to someone. Having a device that gets rid of the annoyance in a relatively peaceful manner is certainly preferable to less-peaceful, although far more satisfying, methods.
You are right about public property, though. If they're on it, it's legal for them to be there, barring other circumstances (truancy, etc.). However, the article stated that several shop owners have had problems with the kids coming into the store and stealing or harassing other customers. This provides a reasonable solution to possibly stop such actions by removing the teens before the problem starts.
If I had teens hanging out in my parking lot causing problems within and without the store, I would certainly hope for such a device.
It isn't anyone's business what software a particular company chooses to use, be it Open Source or Commercial. For public offices, I can see it as having some importance, but people are making way too much noise about the use of commercial software.
The only metric that matters is whether or not a particular piece of software gets the job done with the least amount of problems.
They managed to go through a whole sequence of fund-raising and hire a branding company which came back with a totally inappropriate and appropriated name... which tells me that they aren't smart enough to be in charge of all the money that they've been given.
Your proposal only works if 'aslan' is indeed tied to your own server, but suppose the Asian Language Society or perhaps CS Lewis fans want 'aslan' tied to their servers instead?
What happens if 'aslan' is trademarked in one country, but not in another?
I think DRM will win in the end - why? The people pushing are willing to put their money where there mouth is. They are buying the politicians, etc., and doing the work necessary to make DRM acceptable - something that the opposition isn't doing.
Yes, it sucks. The people who believe they'll see justice because they're right need to grow up and start playing the game. Buy your politicians just like everyone else.
If you don't read the licensing agreement and are not aware of the terms, then that is your problem. What you choose to do afterwards is also your problem. This applies to any software you use. It's not more or less right based on who's doing it.
It disgusts me how little sense of real community/. folks have.
Hey, no offense meant, but this isn't meatspace. You want community, go outside and talk to your neighbors. Here, you're just a name with a uid and a rant.
Slashdot Mirror
Let us hope *not*. This bill ignores all the other companies that do business in China and either directly or indirectly provide support to the current regime. While it's convenient to go after the search engines, it's hardly fair considering that a large portion of our goods are produced by people in much worse conditions than those who have access to a computer. This is purely political and it only serves those who are political, bloggers and the like, at the expense of those suffering far worse than political repression.
The fair solution is stop all business by all companies who either receive products from or supply products to China, which is unrealistic in the extreme. However, an unfair solution like the one being cooked up is no better than an unrealistic solution and only hobbles our corporations, and eventually, our economy.
I agree with the aims of the bill, but we need a better law to support those aims.
Any system that rewards also needs to include a system of punishments as well, though. Under the described system, it is entirely possible to perpertrate a fraud and reward the effort. In the long term, withholding of funds is an effective solution. However, there needs to be a short-term solution as well. As a example, consider the case of Limp Bizkit, who got sued for presenting a 17-minute concert. Certainly, we shouldn't expect consumers to suffer through more episodes like that.
Word-of-mouth can have an effect, as in the case of Ben Afflect and Jennifer Lopez's movie Gigli, but the first wave of movie-goers was stuck with having paid some amount of money for an unsatisfactory product. The primary lesson was learned by Hollywood, which was to clamp down even further on pre-show publicity, etc.
What it comes down to is that donating X amount of dollars toward a project is a "pay for performance" system, and in that case, one expects performance, not half-hearted effort. If the effort presented fails to satisfy, then the consumer needs a method of recouping their loss. We should not be rewarding half-assed attempts.
The one thing left out of your method is a system of refunding unsatisfied consumers. If I spend that buck on a show and I'm seriously dissatisfied, I want my money back (the same as with any other good or service). It's not the buck that's important, per se, it's the idea that unsatisfactory effort remains rewarded and unpunished.
In light of recent Congressional attempts to sanitize biographies, will there be any additional steps taken to ensure that biographical information is not only neutral in content, but accurate and complete? How much outcry was there in your attempts to sanitize your own biography and what have you learned from that?
It's more likely to assume they just didn't give a damn. It's way over "there", not "here". Things that happen to foreigners don't matter to the average US citizen. Even in the wake of horrendous tsunamis, it's really only a small percentage that donate and only a slightly larger percentage who note that something happened at all.
GIMP isn't going to gain any real acceptance or artist input
And the likely answer is going to be: "Well, if you want it, why don't you write it?".
I have yet to know someone that can relate to a Pooh better then another human
There are 26,000 species of dung beetle who would vehemently disagree with you.
And saying they're wrong doesn't make them wrong. You have to prove it - claims require proof.
Really, we could go on about this for the next millenium like some stupid remake of The Argument Clinic, but what it boils down to is:
1) Their servers, their rules. End of story.
Good point. However, Blizzard sets the rules - it's their server. There's nothing that says they have to accommodate everyone who shows up. Having language-based guilds makes sense, since that's a communication issue that transcends gender identity. But gender-identity is meaningless in an online game, beyond some superficial details such as body type.
In the end, it all comes down to what Blizzard does or does not want to support. They own the servers, they make the rules. They can choose to accommodate whomever they wish to.
OTOH, not having to pay taxes for services I don't use sounds pretty good. Makes me wish I could direct my tax money to projects I consider important, like space travel and universal healthcare.
But, this guy sounds like a wacko and I'm not going to vote for him.
That's way less risky than a return to old party machine politics.
In the old days, getting elected was all about who had the most money to pay off voters. Now, it's about who has the most money to pay for media. At least under the old system, the voters got something besides good intentions and empty promises.
Because the typical response to marketing software, be it through retail channels for commercial software, or as free software for *nix variants, is to offer a "one-size fits all" solution. There may be variations for differences in platform usage (ie., desktop, server, etc.) but everyone pays lip service to the differences in how users work within a given platform.
Consider Windows XP, with the Home and Professional versions. Both are much the same thing, with all the same utilities, but XP Home has some window-dressing (ha-ha) to dumb it down for home users.
Variations within the Linux world are even less differentiated on the user side, with most of the real differences appearing in update methodology. Sometimes the differences are political, with no real affect on the user interface.
On the commercial software side, having multiple variants of a single platform software set can lead to some real problems in marketing. Money would have to be spent to emphasize the differences between sets and there's a very real risk of upsetting consumers when they realize they undershot their needs.
On the free software side, the downside comes from alienating developers and users, who may feel left out if their favorite projects are not considered important enough to be included in a distribution.
It's a catch-22 and in the end, it's just cheaper and easier to make less-specialized, more inclusive software releases.
I didn't realize "winning" involved changing diapers - it seems mutually exclusive.
So the big question is: how do you attract developers that are interested in fixing bugs?
Pay them.
Now FIRING SOMEONE... that's different. In that case, I compartmentalize them starting the day before, backing up anything that they can touch. I then shut off their machine after they leave, remove or lock accounts and remove their remote access if they had it.
You left out: pouring bleach on their chair and torching the office so as to remove all traces of their odious stain upon the soul of your company, YOU SLACKER!
"Just as store owners will put pornographic magazines behind the counter to appease a vocal minority ..."
What? The last time I checked, no one was protesting the lack of pornography at my local convenience store. Typically, shopkeepers stock porn because it sells and it's behind the counter because putting it in easy reach of children is just asking for trouble.
The teenagers in question may not be monsters, but they are definitely an annoyance to someone. Having a device that gets rid of the annoyance in a relatively peaceful manner is certainly preferable to less-peaceful, although far more satisfying, methods.
You are right about public property, though. If they're on it, it's legal for them to be there, barring other circumstances (truancy, etc.). However, the article stated that several shop owners have had problems with the kids coming into the store and stealing or harassing other customers. This provides a reasonable solution to possibly stop such actions by removing the teens before the problem starts.
If I had teens hanging out in my parking lot causing problems within and without the store, I would certainly hope for such a device.
Having a basement helps, though. A dedicated gaming area is something that a lot of gamers aspire to.
Plus, you can play till 5AM without disturbing anyone.
So, as a Libertarian, you're saying the shop owner does NOT have the right to set rules on his own property?
It isn't anyone's business what software a particular company chooses to use, be it Open Source or Commercial. For public offices, I can see it as having some importance, but people are making way too much noise about the use of commercial software.
The only metric that matters is whether or not a particular piece of software gets the job done with the least amount of problems.
They managed to go through a whole sequence of fund-raising and hire a branding company which came back with a totally inappropriate and appropriated name ... which tells me that they aren't smart enough to be in charge of all the money that they've been given.
Has anyone mentioned this to their investors?
Last I looked, Referrer is spelled with 4 "r"s, not one OR 2.
It's two R's. They're just get re-used..
Your proposal only works if 'aslan' is indeed tied to your own server, but suppose the Asian Language Society or perhaps CS Lewis fans want 'aslan' tied to their servers instead?
What happens if 'aslan' is trademarked in one country, but not in another?
I think DRM will win in the end - why? The people pushing are willing to put their money where there mouth is. They are buying the politicians, etc., and doing the work necessary to make DRM acceptable - something that the opposition isn't doing.
Yes, it sucks. The people who believe they'll see justice because they're right need to grow up and start playing the game. Buy your politicians just like everyone else.
If you don't read the licensing agreement and are not aware of the terms, then that is your problem. What you choose to do afterwards is also your problem. This applies to any software you use. It's not more or less right based on who's doing it.
It disgusts me how little sense of real community /. folks have.
Hey, no offense meant, but this isn't meatspace. You want community, go outside and talk to your neighbors. Here, you're just a name with a uid and a rant.