Why would young people enter science and engineering when they can go into management and finance? Then they can take the credit and pay that would have been taken from them if they had gone into STEM.
Fortunately not everyone is motivated by money, or else there would be nobody sticking around with a science or engineering career. If you want my 2 cents, I believe the issue is that the current American culture celebrates the wealthy and looks down upon the educated, unless they are using that education to gain wealth. Its hardly surprising then that in my group (theoretical physics at a big Ivy league university) something like 90% of the PhD students are non-Americans, and of the few American PhD students I have known, most have left physics to work in the finance sector after completing their studies.
My suspicion is that eventually the US will become a sort of internet backwater, with most internet companies blocking US users rather than having to go through the legal minefield. It's already happening with content-hosting sites after the US went after MegaUpload. Considering the tech industry is vital to the US economy, this is probably not a good thing.
A little research shows that Bodog is operating legally under Canadian law. So the issue is that they did not have a license to offer gambling in Maryland? Should they be expected to get gambling licenses for *everywhere in the world* then? That's clearly impractical, so the only solution is that they somehow block people based on their IP address? Maybe every website should start accepting only whitelisted IP addresses lest they fall foul of the laws in some backwater hole that noone has ever heard of? I don't see that ending well.
My question is: why should it be an internet companies responsibility to police its users?
Or are you going to argue that if you stand on one side of the border and shoot someone on the other side, the other justice system on the side cannot demand that you be extradited and tried for shooting them?
I'm not convinced your analogy is a good one here. The company did not *do* anything *to* a US citizen, they simply offered a service that a US citizen chose to break the law in order to use. Maybe a different analogy? How about 'a Chinese citizen breaks the law by using a VPN to view articles about the Tiananmen Square massacres on a computer hosted in the US. Chinese government sends goons overseas to shut down the server'. I doubt the US would stand up to this sort of thing, do you?
The external party (bodog.com) doesn't enjoy immunity from breaking US law, any more than a server in the US would enjoy immunity for breaking a Canadian law that is also recognized in the US.
Could you show me evidence for this? I'm sure there are plenty of governments unfriendly to the US who would be very happy to hear that they can start shutting down US sites because they break their laws. Lets start big. I'll start a nice protest movement in Germany to get US sites belonging to Neo-Nazis and Holocaust-Deniers shut down. What's that? Freedom of Speech? Nah, sorry, doesn't work like that in Germany.
I think that's all part of the problem. Most likely, they were serving US customers. They probably made no attempt to turn away customers from other jurisdictions where the website may not have been legal. To operate within the law, they should probably do like all the media sites (like Hulu and Netflix) and assure that all payments are done on credit cards within countries that have legalized online gambling, and that traffic is coming from proper IPs. sure there are ways around this stuff but if they were making an effort to block US traffic, I'm sure they wouldn't be in this position in the first place.
Think about what you are saying! Essentially you are asking website owners to not only be fully versed of the legal situation of every single goddamn visitor to their site, but also somehow to police it. The site can be accessed from anywhere in the world: Thousands and thousands of independent jurisdictions with their own silly little contradicting laws that you have to obey. Ridiculous. If some guy from Bumfuck, USA is breaking the law then it is up to the legal system in Bumfuck to deal with it, NOT the website owner.
recent supreme court ruling said domain names if hosted in canada are property....
THAT means the US GOVT JUST ILLEGALLY STOLE SOMEOENS PROPERTY.
The fact is that the Canadian government should have shut it down long ago - online gambling that is not sanctioned by one of the government-run provincial monopolies is just as illegal in Canada as the US.
So, quit yer whinin', eh?
So what? The US should not be allowed to interfere in the legal procedures of a sovereign nation. If it was illegal in Canada, then pressure the Canadians to do something about it. Team America are not actually the World Police, sorry to burst your bubble there.
A DNS request is analogous to looking up someone's number in a phonebook. Publishing a phone number (or DNS entry), even for a criminal, should be protected free speech.
I thought the constitutional protection of freedom of speech only applied to corporations? Wow, learn something new every day.
No need.
They long since have clinked all the wine glasses and slapped all the back, and chuckled at all the jokes.
They know exactly what wikileaks has and aren't worried a bit, in spite of the grave face they put on to entertain the naive.
For people who aren't worried, they do seem to have put in an unusually large amount of effort in trying to shut Wikileaks down and making Bradley Manning out as some kind of arch-villain.
the Intelligence Community is not authorized to collect on US Persons, except where allowed by law or authorized by a properly adjudicated warrant from a court of law. I know people on Slashdot don't like to believe this, and prefer to imagine that the sole purpose of the Intelligence Community is spying on our own citizens instead of, you know, doing the jobs they've been charged to do.
If that is the case, then how do you explain this or this or this. Sorry buddy, but you have to get your head out of the sand.
My point is that government surveillance organisations aren't as dumb as the article seem to suggest.
This suggests otherwise! A couple of dumbass kids tweeting about their vacation using generic slang gets them denied access to the US. Score one for paranoia.
Good thing that people who rant about out of control government are always so reasoned and intellectual about it. They'd never post poorly proofread rants with dubious historical analogies or anything.
Maybe by using the term 'rouge government' he was implying that the government has been taken over by Communists?
It wouldn't be just one. They aren't reusable, so it's going to cost $900 per sequencing operation - apparently, you have to throw away the whole device afterwards.
Isn't $900 close to the amount of money a GP charges the insurance company for an hour anyway?
You make a good point. However I would argue that Greece's woes stem not from large government debt but from not having control of their currency. To be honest, I'm not convinced that government debt is anywhere near as important as the politicians would have us believe. As Krugman says, Britain has had a debt exceeding GDP for 81 of the last 170 years, much of that during a time in which living standards rose drastically. Greece is stuck in a situation where it cannot afford to run the country and it cannot use any of the financial tools available to countries with sovereign currencies. It must beg for money from the EU, and pay for it by taxing its citizens into poverty.
Why are the British, who fought Hitler and the Nazis, and then the red communism menace, so hell bent on emulating and surpassing, the spy on our own people methodologies of both evils? The boogeyman (aka 'terrorist') is winning and he/they don't even have to do a damn thing...
Perhaps it is as my parents say; that Britain lost its soul when Thatcher ripped the country apart and built an Americanised consumer culture in its place.
Government is like fire, and should be treated very much the same, and for nearly identical reasons. Both are extremely useful, but at the same time extremely destructive, dangerous, swift-spreading, and hard to control, particularly the larger either grows.
I've always said exactly the same thing about the free market. Extremely useful, but destructive, hard to control, becoming more difficult to control when it becomes large enough that the corporations can essentially buy the government. In my opinion the only system that has a hope of working out in the long term is one in which the free market is strongly regulated by the government.
Search Engines and Youtube are- not really considered part of a social network. As it is, EU appears to have a real hard-on about going after Google or other American businesses. So, will EU extend this new ruling to You Tube/Search engines?
I don't think the EU go after American businesses in particular. You will likely find that the reason you hear about so many American businesses getting into trouble in Europe is that a lot of Americans are very anti-Europe and thus kick up a lot of fuss when they see them challenging anything remotely American. Just look at the amount of anti-Europe rhetoric (ZOMG he speaks French?!?!) in the Republican primaries, or the anger levelled at Britain after the BP oil spill (BP operates in over 80 countries and has its largest division in the US).
If you copy media you didn't purchase AND you make a profit off of it, you're a thief.
If you copy media and sell it you are not a thief as nothing has been taken. There is already a perfectly good way to describe these people: copyright infringer. The media cartels have been trying to rebrand copyright infringers as thieves because everyone knows stealing is wrong. However as far as the law goes, there is certainly a difference (cf the section on "Theft" on the wikipedia page).
Since when should foreign stakeholders get a vote as to how laws are built in the U.S.? Another problem with the SEC overstepping their bounds.
As soon as you guys force your government to stop interfering with the passing of laws in the rest of the world then I will cede you the moral high ground.
If at least one will adopt net neutrality, then the users will have a choice.
I wish it worked that way, but there are two problems: firstly in many places there are only one or two available ISPs, and secondly most people will not care unless their Netflix starts cutting out all the time. Sometimes free market ideals just do not work.
The beverage companies have profited greatly from their monopoly on drinks in the airport. I would not be surprised if some law gets passed making it illegal to bring in drinks due to pressure by the ABA even if it is no longer a security risk. After all, protecting dying business models while lining the wallets of our leaders is what the law is *for*... isn't it?
Seriously though, as someone who has a hearing range beyond the standard I sympathise with people forced to endure irritating stimuli that noone else notices and hence cares about. I remember having to leave a bar once because the tube was going on their old television; the high pitched screech was like nails down a blackboard. My girlfriend thought I was mad.
The only difference to Gnome 2 I've found is that it's now easy to maximize by pulling the window to the top, or left/right edges for maximizing or half-maximizing respectively. Maybe everything will be forced full screen in the future, but Gnome 3 is fine.
Ugh, aside from the application menu being separated from the window, the whole pulling the window to the top/sides is the most frustrating aspect of the new paradigm. Its so irritating when you're repositioning multiple windows to have one of them decide to maximise when you get even near the edge of the screen. XFCE ftw.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would young people enter science and engineering when they can go into management and finance? Then they can take the credit and pay that would have been taken from them if they had gone into STEM.
Fortunately not everyone is motivated by money, or else there would be nobody sticking around with a science or engineering career. If you want my 2 cents, I believe the issue is that the current American culture celebrates the wealthy and looks down upon the educated, unless they are using that education to gain wealth. Its hardly surprising then that in my group (theoretical physics at a big Ivy league university) something like 90% of the PhD students are non-Americans, and of the few American PhD students I have known, most have left physics to work in the finance sector after completing their studies.
My suspicion is that eventually the US will become a sort of internet backwater, with most internet companies blocking US users rather than having to go through the legal minefield. It's already happening with content-hosting sites after the US went after MegaUpload. Considering the tech industry is vital to the US economy, this is probably not a good thing.
A little research shows that Bodog is operating legally under Canadian law. So the issue is that they did not have a license to offer gambling in Maryland? Should they be expected to get gambling licenses for *everywhere in the world* then? That's clearly impractical, so the only solution is that they somehow block people based on their IP address? Maybe every website should start accepting only whitelisted IP addresses lest they fall foul of the laws in some backwater hole that noone has ever heard of? I don't see that ending well.
My question is: why should it be an internet companies responsibility to police its users?
Or are you going to argue that if you stand on one side of the border and shoot someone on the other side, the other justice system on the side cannot demand that you be extradited and tried for shooting them?
I'm not convinced your analogy is a good one here. The company did not *do* anything *to* a US citizen, they simply offered a service that a US citizen chose to break the law in order to use. Maybe a different analogy? How about 'a Chinese citizen breaks the law by using a VPN to view articles about the Tiananmen Square massacres on a computer hosted in the US. Chinese government sends goons overseas to shut down the server'. I doubt the US would stand up to this sort of thing, do you?
The external party (bodog.com) doesn't enjoy immunity from breaking US law, any more than a server in the US would enjoy immunity for breaking a Canadian law that is also recognized in the US.
Could you show me evidence for this? I'm sure there are plenty of governments unfriendly to the US who would be very happy to hear that they can start shutting down US sites because they break their laws. Lets start big. I'll start a nice protest movement in Germany to get US sites belonging to Neo-Nazis and Holocaust-Deniers shut down. What's that? Freedom of Speech? Nah, sorry, doesn't work like that in Germany.
I think that's all part of the problem. Most likely, they were serving US customers. They probably made no attempt to turn away customers from other jurisdictions where the website may not have been legal. To operate within the law, they should probably do like all the media sites (like Hulu and Netflix) and assure that all payments are done on credit cards within countries that have legalized online gambling, and that traffic is coming from proper IPs. sure there are ways around this stuff but if they were making an effort to block US traffic, I'm sure they wouldn't be in this position in the first place.
Think about what you are saying! Essentially you are asking website owners to not only be fully versed of the legal situation of every single goddamn visitor to their site, but also somehow to police it. The site can be accessed from anywhere in the world: Thousands and thousands of independent jurisdictions with their own silly little contradicting laws that you have to obey. Ridiculous. If some guy from Bumfuck, USA is breaking the law then it is up to the legal system in Bumfuck to deal with it, NOT the website owner.
The fact is that the Canadian government should have shut it down long ago - online gambling that is not sanctioned by one of the government-run provincial monopolies is just as illegal in Canada as the US.
So, quit yer whinin', eh?
So what? The US should not be allowed to interfere in the legal procedures of a sovereign nation. If it was illegal in Canada, then pressure the Canadians to do something about it. Team America are not actually the World Police, sorry to burst your bubble there.
A DNS request is analogous to looking up someone's number in a phonebook. Publishing a phone number (or DNS entry), even for a criminal, should be protected free speech.
I thought the constitutional protection of freedom of speech only applied to corporations? Wow, learn something new every day.
Please tell that to that to the US Government
No need. They long since have clinked all the wine glasses and slapped all the back, and chuckled at all the jokes. They know exactly what wikileaks has and aren't worried a bit, in spite of the grave face they put on to entertain the naive.
For people who aren't worried, they do seem to have put in an unusually large amount of effort in trying to shut Wikileaks down and making Bradley Manning out as some kind of arch-villain.
the Intelligence Community is not authorized to collect on US Persons, except where allowed by law or authorized by a properly adjudicated warrant from a court of law. I know people on Slashdot don't like to believe this, and prefer to imagine that the sole purpose of the Intelligence Community is spying on our own citizens instead of, you know, doing the jobs they've been charged to do.
If that is the case, then how do you explain this or this or this. Sorry buddy, but you have to get your head out of the sand.
My point is that government surveillance organisations aren't as dumb as the article seem to suggest.
This suggests otherwise! A couple of dumbass kids tweeting about their vacation using generic slang gets them denied access to the US. Score one for paranoia.
Or L'Oréal?
L'Oreal are a French company with a quarter of their shares and voting rights owned by Nestle. Think I'd rather have the communists in charge!
Good thing that people who rant about out of control government are always so reasoned and intellectual about it. They'd never post poorly proofread rants with dubious historical analogies or anything.
Maybe by using the term 'rouge government' he was implying that the government has been taken over by Communists?
It wouldn't be just one. They aren't reusable, so it's going to cost $900 per sequencing operation - apparently, you have to throw away the whole device afterwards.
Isn't $900 close to the amount of money a GP charges the insurance company for an hour anyway?
You make a good point. However I would argue that Greece's woes stem not from large government debt but from not having control of their currency. To be honest, I'm not convinced that government debt is anywhere near as important as the politicians would have us believe. As Krugman says, Britain has had a debt exceeding GDP for 81 of the last 170 years, much of that during a time in which living standards rose drastically. Greece is stuck in a situation where it cannot afford to run the country and it cannot use any of the financial tools available to countries with sovereign currencies. It must beg for money from the EU, and pay for it by taxing its citizens into poverty.
How can you have a free and fair market with a small and limited government?
Why are the British, who fought Hitler and the Nazis, and then the red communism menace, so hell bent on emulating and surpassing, the spy on our own people methodologies of both evils? The boogeyman (aka 'terrorist') is winning and he/they don't even have to do a damn thing...
Perhaps it is as my parents say; that Britain lost its soul when Thatcher ripped the country apart and built an Americanised consumer culture in its place.
Government is like fire, and should be treated very much the same, and for nearly identical reasons. Both are extremely useful, but at the same time extremely destructive, dangerous, swift-spreading, and hard to control, particularly the larger either grows.
I've always said exactly the same thing about the free market. Extremely useful, but destructive, hard to control, becoming more difficult to control when it becomes large enough that the corporations can essentially buy the government. In my opinion the only system that has a hope of working out in the long term is one in which the free market is strongly regulated by the government.
Search Engines and Youtube are- not really considered part of a social network. As it is, EU appears to have a real hard-on about going after Google or other American businesses. So, will EU extend this new ruling to You Tube/Search engines?
I don't think the EU go after American businesses in particular. You will likely find that the reason you hear about so many American businesses getting into trouble in Europe is that a lot of Americans are very anti-Europe and thus kick up a lot of fuss when they see them challenging anything remotely American. Just look at the amount of anti-Europe rhetoric (ZOMG he speaks French?!?!) in the Republican primaries, or the anger levelled at Britain after the BP oil spill (BP operates in over 80 countries and has its largest division in the US).
The US has zero balance in its laws.
The US is 100% for the rich powerful interests and 0% for the citizens.
This is just as ludicrous as what the parent poster wrote. We wouldn't have elections if that was the case.
These aren't elections, they're distractions for the sheep while the wolves munch away behind.
If you copy media you didn't purchase AND you make a profit off of it, you're a thief.
If you copy media and sell it you are not a thief as nothing has been taken. There is already a perfectly good way to describe these people: copyright infringer. The media cartels have been trying to rebrand copyright infringers as thieves because everyone knows stealing is wrong. However as far as the law goes, there is certainly a difference (cf the section on "Theft" on the wikipedia page).
Since when should foreign stakeholders get a vote as to how laws are built in the U.S.? Another problem with the SEC overstepping their bounds.
As soon as you guys force your government to stop interfering with the passing of laws in the rest of the world then I will cede you the moral high ground.
If at least one will adopt net neutrality, then the users will have a choice.
I wish it worked that way, but there are two problems: firstly in many places there are only one or two available ISPs, and secondly most people will not care unless their Netflix starts cutting out all the time. Sometimes free market ideals just do not work.
The beverage companies have profited greatly from their monopoly on drinks in the airport. I would not be surprised if some law gets passed making it illegal to bring in drinks due to pressure by the ABA even if it is no longer a security risk. After all, protecting dying business models while lining the wallets of our leaders is what the law is *for*... isn't it?
...when you have X-ray vision!
Seriously though, as someone who has a hearing range beyond the standard I sympathise with people forced to endure irritating stimuli that noone else notices and hence cares about. I remember having to leave a bar once because the tube was going on their old television; the high pitched screech was like nails down a blackboard. My girlfriend thought I was mad.
The only difference to Gnome 2 I've found is that it's now easy to maximize by pulling the window to the top, or left/right edges for maximizing or half-maximizing respectively. Maybe everything will be forced full screen in the future, but Gnome 3 is fine.
Ugh, aside from the application menu being separated from the window, the whole pulling the window to the top/sides is the most frustrating aspect of the new paradigm. Its so irritating when you're repositioning multiple windows to have one of them decide to maximise when you get even near the edge of the screen. XFCE ftw.