I wonder how long it will take for Bethesda to start suing over the name, particularly when the inevitable video game comes out. I mean surely the typical gamer will confuse Skyfall with Bethesda's trademarks "Daggerfall" and "Skyrim".
Unless this bill is crafted right I can easily see this causing an "interesting" behavior whereby students will initially enroll into science/engineering programs for the sake of lower tuition, get their "generals" out of the way then transfer into the program for their desired field of study. I know if I wanted to major in "paper crafts of ancient Asian cultures" that's what I'd do.
Competent software developers are a rare commodity. Companies are the ones competing to attract the talent. We are not the dime-a-dozen crowd that can be treated poorly and compensated minimally. If we're not happy with our employer there are 50 waiting in the wings to snatch us up. If we leave our employer they lose the significant investment in both time and money that they made in us to be productive with their environment.
In 2011 software developers ranked number one for having the "best" job in both 2011 and 2012. Why the hell would any of us want to slap our employers in the face for treating us well? To suggest that we should form a union is about as stupid and counter productive as trying to suggest that every pub in Ireland should replace the Guinness taps with Bud Lite.
The plan advocated by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan
that is embodied in the House Budget Resolution (H.Con.Res. 112), the Path to Prosperity, also
proposes to reduce income tax rates by broadening the tax base.
There is not conclusive
evidence, however, to substantiate a clear relationship between the 65-year steady reduction in the
top tax rates and economic growth. Analysis of such data suggests the reduction in the top tax
rates have had little association with saving, investment, or productivity growth. However, the top
tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top
of the income distribution. The share of income accruing to the top 0.1% of U.S. families
increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007
Roughly interpreted: Ryan doesn't know what he's talking about, by extension neither does Romney. In fact, the only thing accomplished by reducing taxes on the rich is a money grab that increases the disparity between the 1% and the other 99%.
You know I really cannot understand why the Republicans would take issue with this report. I mean really, you'd think they'd like to know that their domestic policy is specious so that they can find real solutions. Unless, perhaps they already understood the reality of their talking point...
Actually if you note their campaigning methods you'll see that they spend most of their time attempting to play to emotions rather than facts and logic. It is no coincidence that their talking points focus on issues more likely to provoke a visceral reaction in the public such as religion, abortion, don't tread on me, and military/defense.
I think the point of the post was more about the clueless decisions made by an 83 year old and his equally clueless appointee. In fact there's no mention of the FBI enforcing the law against open-source software users of DeCSS or libdvdcss. To date I never heard of them ever doing so.
I do not recall any claims as to having "figured it out". I have a very hard time with anti-intellectual bigots. I'm not sure I'll ever learn to respect those kinds of people. I do however get along reasonably well with those whom respect my knowledge and abilities just as I do their's.
Oh, I don't know. Maybe they got the idea from that country that runs around sticking its nose into everyone's business, spreading democracy at the point of a sword only to follow up with election monitors at polling places to ensure a "fair" election.
Who better to provide applicable advice than the subset of your peers that have "figured it out". With due respect I'd never ask a plumber for medical advice, nor would I ask a doctor for plumbing advice. If you ask the 99% about how the 1% should interact with them you simply get "eat the rich" type comments. I'm sorry but it is not appropriate for me to throw may brains into the refuse and be as stupid as they are. My doctor shouldn't limit his abilities to that of my own just to make me comfortable with my inadequacies in medicine. I would however appreciate it if he understood how to create the bridge between us when we're discussing my health and that is what this fellow is asking about. To understand how to do that you first need to understand what it is you're trying to bridge.
It isn't always proper to operate from the lowest common denominator. You can say blue or you can say azure. You can say thingy-ma-bob or you can say electrolytic capacitor. The former may be correct, however, so much meaning is lost compared to the latter. It is more appropriate to speak at (or slightly above) the level of your audience in as much as you are able without feeling or worse, sounding condescending. This fellow was soliciting his peers for advice based upon their common experience trying to relate to and interact with those having a different or lesser station.
Also, the words we use represent our culture as well as personal style. It would be unfortunate if everyone spoke in the same, plain, unsophisticated manner much as it would be if there was no diversity and expression in our art. Unnecessary? Yes, but so too the styles and colors of our clothes, our cars, our homes. You may not appreciate his speech but I may not appreciate your car. Would it be proper for me to tell you to get the more practical Camery (assuming you had a Hummer) for your daily commute?
To the fellow asking the question: By the time we've moved on to college, us geeks/nerds have more than had our fill of the attitude that we must conform to the the level of the dumbest kids in class. We're tired of being picked on because we inherently understand what they cannot comprehend. We're tired of being ostracized if we don't follow the social norms. College is the time for us to unshackle ourselves from the fools, the morons, the wannabes, the clones. We finally have peers and it is our time to shine. Surely we cannot be blamed if our pendulum swings a bit in excess the opposite direction. Who could fault us for wanting to gloat at the mediocrity of those we've left behind? The trouble is, we may have the brains but neither of us the maturity. There is wisdom in not personally trying to settle the score. Life has a way of doing that for us anyway. It is far more preferable to live the overwhelming remainder of your life in peace than to act on grudges. Many of your tormentors will now be your customers and employees. The quality of these relationships and your ensuing success or failure will be directly tied to your ability to conduct yourself with humility. This isn't so much a rote set of behaviors you must learn but an attitude you must mindfully adopt. You might speak like a geek but do you harbor compassion as a friend?
Ideas may be cheap to copy but ideas are not inexpensive to originate. The resources both tangible and intangible required to create them are just as real as a tangible good. If this were not true then they would be a near valueless commodity and not of interest as a subject for business pursuits. By copying an idea you are not depriving its author of the idea, but you are depriving them of a return on the investment they made to originate it.
It really doesn't matter that the language being used to discuss this subject isn't well fit for it. It is inappropriate behavior in a society that wishes to foster the development of new ideas. As a member of society that both produces and consumes I am offended by those that choose to rationalize and pursue a parasitic, greedy, and selfish lifestyle. I am offended by the burdens and consequences that you provoke upon us and I will surely not stay the hand of misery that will inevitably visit you.
Pirating does not equate to a 1 for 1 sales loss and that is the general understanding on Slashdot. However, pirating does erode revenue streams of content creators as well as incur expenses for those facilitating the throughput. When you folks figure the world's content is yours to copy you're might not be causing a lost sale but you sure as hell are sh*tting on me and everyone else. My connection degrades because of your disproportionate use of capacity. The goods and services I purchase are encumbered and/or degraded because you've got content providers throwing in every kind of roadblock or speed bump they can dream up in an attempt to slow down if not prevent your activities. You've got politicians dreaming up all manner of intrusive, overreaching and unjust laws that create a dystopic environment for everyone.
Yes, the demographic has broadened however, of us nerds, we now have money that we didn't then. Given limited time I'd rather throw money at the problem and work on a personal project of my choosing. For business, it usually isn't considered acceptable practice to "fix" something, particularly when it's cheaper to just replace it.
If you wish to be pedantic then no the example isn't a good fit. However, if you allow for a slightly less precise brush stroke then you can see illustrated the same kind of political damage control that I was originally describing. He was a very prominent face in the Confederacy and arm of its administration. The people of which came from and returned to the US.
If not the already purchased machines, then newly purchased alternatives... Operating costs are not relevant unless one is substantially more expensive to operate.
This sounds to me to be a case of risk mitigation. Take the more dangerous (medically and/or politically) devices out of heavily traveled airports and place them in less traveled ones. In so doing they are not throwing away the capital investment and at the same time reducing exposure to the general population.
To the best of my recollection there has been no US president in history, regardless of affiliation, that has prosecuted past administrations for their actions. It's been traditionally viewed as a political landmine both with the citizenry and fellow politicians alike.
So since most of the cost in any given NASA science project is in the hardware research and engineering not the construction, neither launch nor operation side why they hell aren't they making use of economies of scale? Stop building only one of something (well technically two, the "on earth version" and the "mission" version). Spread the risk out by flying in multiples. It would be unfortunate if one of them hits a "pebble" but the science returned would be magnitudes better because they're able to take advantage of opportunities that wouldn't be possible due to risk aversion. Take it a step further and make use of the same hardware R&D for multiple missions. Engineer a few platforms that are robust, and reasonably customizable. Each platform with a particular type of mission in mind. Put a Curiosity on Europa, Titan, and/or Ariel. Get an MRO around Ganymede, etc.. You don't need 7 minutes of terror if the hardware you spent more than $2B developing has already been flown and proven on other missions. You wouldn't be (as) scared to death that Congress will cut your funds because you're making good, efficient use of the R&D money. "Yes senator, that $2B from Congress has given us a platform we've reused on 10 missions now."
But my son is not going to be a scientist. The very thought of it makes me laugh.
But my son is not being exposed to chemistry, he’s spending a year of his life studying chemistry every day, which translates into a year of misery for him and our entire family, and paying for tutors who just get him through the course.
I don’t begrudge chemistry, which has brought forth many of the great inventions [...] I’m actually sipping on Scotch.
Translation: "My son is dumb. When God was handing out brains he thought he said trains and stepped out of line. I'm sick of paying for tutors. I could be using that money to buy a nice Macallan 25. When is my wife going to stop bitching about how I need to take an interest in my son's education? Dammit, I'm all out of Scotch.
Parents certainly have a tendency to "know" what their children like. Just like they "know" what careers they should pursuit, what kind of spouse is right for them, how they should dress, how their kids would never do that..., etc.. Of course it's possible to find a set of parents that are actually in the loop with their kids, but it's more likely to find parents that have their own preferences and rosy colored glasses though which they understand their kids. That is, assuming they're even engaged in their kid's life in the first place.
First off lets get the politics out of the way... I'm a centrist with a bit of a left-lean. I am most certainly not a Libertarian, nor do I believe Slashdot to be either--libertarians just tend to be rather vocal. This isn't a government "don't tread on me" issue. To me this is first and foremost about what's best for the consumer.
Now then, Google does not "block" sites from the results (unless required to do so by law) they sort sites based upon predicted relevance to the user's goals. Google's algorithms attempt to identify content that best relates to the search terms and user history. They then sort this content according to the signal-to-noise ratio. While the specific metrics used to achieve this may vary, this is the same thing that all the major search engines do. It only makes sense. It's also why Wikipedia tends to be positioned near the top of most every search. There's no B.S., just a bunch of meaty content.
Google is no more authoritarian than say Ford, Toyota, or Nissan. Each company has its own style, its products, their own user experience. While there are some customization choices you can make for a particular car, you're fundamentally stuck with what the automaker has predetermined that it will offer. However, you're not forced to drive a Prius, nor are you forced to use Google's products/services.
When you get down to it though, I really don't think this has much of anything to do with consumer choice philosophies and authoritarianism. You just have a chip on your shoulders because Google has frustrated your "click" revenue. Ironically, if you cared more about your users less about your ad revenue you'd almost certainly see more of each.
Slashdot Mirror
Not just toddlers, we also had natural selection at work in pre-teens. Now how are we going to thin the herd? Start handing out guns?
I wonder how long it will take for Bethesda to start suing over the name, particularly when the inevitable video game comes out. I mean surely the typical gamer will confuse Skyfall with Bethesda's trademarks "Daggerfall" and "Skyrim".
Unless this bill is crafted right I can easily see this causing an "interesting" behavior whereby students will initially enroll into science/engineering programs for the sake of lower tuition, get their "generals" out of the way then transfer into the program for their desired field of study. I know if I wanted to major in "paper crafts of ancient Asian cultures" that's what I'd do.
A hole in my head.
Competent software developers are a rare commodity. Companies are the ones competing to attract the talent. We are not the dime-a-dozen crowd that can be treated poorly and compensated minimally. If we're not happy with our employer there are 50 waiting in the wings to snatch us up. If we leave our employer they lose the significant investment in both time and money that they made in us to be productive with their environment.
In 2011 software developers ranked number one for having the "best" job in both 2011 and 2012. Why the hell would any of us want to slap our employers in the face for treating us well? To suggest that we should form a union is about as stupid and counter productive as trying to suggest that every pub in Ireland should replace the Guinness taps with Bud Lite.
The plan advocated by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan that is embodied in the House Budget Resolution (H.Con.Res. 112), the Path to Prosperity, also proposes to reduce income tax rates by broadening the tax base.
There is not conclusive evidence, however, to substantiate a clear relationship between the 65-year steady reduction in the top tax rates and economic growth. Analysis of such data suggests the reduction in the top tax rates have had little association with saving, investment, or productivity growth. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution. The share of income accruing to the top 0.1% of U.S. families increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007
Roughly interpreted: Ryan doesn't know what he's talking about, by extension neither does Romney. In fact, the only thing accomplished by reducing taxes on the rich is a money grab that increases the disparity between the 1% and the other 99%.
You know I really cannot understand why the Republicans would take issue with this report. I mean really, you'd think they'd like to know that their domestic policy is specious so that they can find real solutions. Unless, perhaps they already understood the reality of their talking point...
Actually if you note their campaigning methods you'll see that they spend most of their time attempting to play to emotions rather than facts and logic. It is no coincidence that their talking points focus on issues more likely to provoke a visceral reaction in the public such as religion, abortion, don't tread on me, and military/defense.
I think the point of the post was more about the clueless decisions made by an 83 year old and his equally clueless appointee. In fact there's no mention of the FBI enforcing the law against open-source software users of DeCSS or libdvdcss. To date I never heard of them ever doing so.
That's cute but... The Register of Copyrights is appointed by the Librarian of Congress. James Billington was appointed by Reagan.
I do not recall any claims as to having "figured it out". I have a very hard time with anti-intellectual bigots. I'm not sure I'll ever learn to respect those kinds of people. I do however get along reasonably well with those whom respect my knowledge and abilities just as I do their's.
How does that mesh with Art. 1 Sec. 4?
Oh, I don't know. Maybe they got the idea from that country that runs around sticking its nose into everyone's business, spreading democracy at the point of a sword only to follow up with election monitors at polling places to ensure a "fair" election.
Who better to provide applicable advice than the subset of your peers that have "figured it out". With due respect I'd never ask a plumber for medical advice, nor would I ask a doctor for plumbing advice. If you ask the 99% about how the 1% should interact with them you simply get "eat the rich" type comments. I'm sorry but it is not appropriate for me to throw may brains into the refuse and be as stupid as they are. My doctor shouldn't limit his abilities to that of my own just to make me comfortable with my inadequacies in medicine. I would however appreciate it if he understood how to create the bridge between us when we're discussing my health and that is what this fellow is asking about. To understand how to do that you first need to understand what it is you're trying to bridge.
It isn't always proper to operate from the lowest common denominator. You can say blue or you can say azure. You can say thingy-ma-bob or you can say electrolytic capacitor. The former may be correct, however, so much meaning is lost compared to the latter. It is more appropriate to speak at (or slightly above) the level of your audience in as much as you are able without feeling or worse, sounding condescending. This fellow was soliciting his peers for advice based upon their common experience trying to relate to and interact with those having a different or lesser station.
Also, the words we use represent our culture as well as personal style. It would be unfortunate if everyone spoke in the same, plain, unsophisticated manner much as it would be if there was no diversity and expression in our art. Unnecessary? Yes, but so too the styles and colors of our clothes, our cars, our homes. You may not appreciate his speech but I may not appreciate your car. Would it be proper for me to tell you to get the more practical Camery (assuming you had a Hummer) for your daily commute?
To the fellow asking the question: By the time we've moved on to college, us geeks/nerds have more than had our fill of the attitude that we must conform to the the level of the dumbest kids in class. We're tired of being picked on because we inherently understand what they cannot comprehend. We're tired of being ostracized if we don't follow the social norms. College is the time for us to unshackle ourselves from the fools, the morons, the wannabes, the clones. We finally have peers and it is our time to shine. Surely we cannot be blamed if our pendulum swings a bit in excess the opposite direction. Who could fault us for wanting to gloat at the mediocrity of those we've left behind? The trouble is, we may have the brains but neither of us the maturity. There is wisdom in not personally trying to settle the score. Life has a way of doing that for us anyway. It is far more preferable to live the overwhelming remainder of your life in peace than to act on grudges. Many of your tormentors will now be your customers and employees. The quality of these relationships and your ensuing success or failure will be directly tied to your ability to conduct yourself with humility. This isn't so much a rote set of behaviors you must learn but an attitude you must mindfully adopt. You might speak like a geek but do you harbor compassion as a friend?
Ideas may be cheap to copy but ideas are not inexpensive to originate. The resources both tangible and intangible required to create them are just as real as a tangible good. If this were not true then they would be a near valueless commodity and not of interest as a subject for business pursuits. By copying an idea you are not depriving its author of the idea, but you are depriving them of a return on the investment they made to originate it.
It really doesn't matter that the language being used to discuss this subject isn't well fit for it. It is inappropriate behavior in a society that wishes to foster the development of new ideas. As a member of society that both produces and consumes I am offended by those that choose to rationalize and pursue a parasitic, greedy, and selfish lifestyle. I am offended by the burdens and consequences that you provoke upon us and I will surely not stay the hand of misery that will inevitably visit you.
Pirating does not equate to a 1 for 1 sales loss and that is the general understanding on Slashdot. However, pirating does erode revenue streams of content creators as well as incur expenses for those facilitating the throughput. When you folks figure the world's content is yours to copy you're might not be causing a lost sale but you sure as hell are sh*tting on me and everyone else. My connection degrades because of your disproportionate use of capacity. The goods and services I purchase are encumbered and/or degraded because you've got content providers throwing in every kind of roadblock or speed bump they can dream up in an attempt to slow down if not prevent your activities. You've got politicians dreaming up all manner of intrusive, overreaching and unjust laws that create a dystopic environment for everyone.
Yes, the demographic has broadened however, of us nerds, we now have money that we didn't then. Given limited time I'd rather throw money at the problem and work on a personal project of my choosing. For business, it usually isn't considered acceptable practice to "fix" something, particularly when it's cheaper to just replace it.
If you wish to be pedantic then no the example isn't a good fit. However, if you allow for a slightly less precise brush stroke then you can see illustrated the same kind of political damage control that I was originally describing. He was a very prominent face in the Confederacy and arm of its administration. The people of which came from and returned to the US.
Well, I know that Lincoln pardoned Robert E. Lee...
If not the already purchased machines, then newly purchased alternatives... Operating costs are not relevant unless one is substantially more expensive to operate.
This sounds to me to be a case of risk mitigation. Take the more dangerous (medically and/or politically) devices out of heavily traveled airports and place them in less traveled ones. In so doing they are not throwing away the capital investment and at the same time reducing exposure to the general population.
To the best of my recollection there has been no US president in history, regardless of affiliation, that has prosecuted past administrations for their actions. It's been traditionally viewed as a political landmine both with the citizenry and fellow politicians alike.
So since most of the cost in any given NASA science project is in the hardware research and engineering not the construction, neither launch nor operation side why they hell aren't they making use of economies of scale? Stop building only one of something (well technically two, the "on earth version" and the "mission" version). Spread the risk out by flying in multiples. It would be unfortunate if one of them hits a "pebble" but the science returned would be magnitudes better because they're able to take advantage of opportunities that wouldn't be possible due to risk aversion. Take it a step further and make use of the same hardware R&D for multiple missions. Engineer a few platforms that are robust, and reasonably customizable. Each platform with a particular type of mission in mind. Put a Curiosity on Europa, Titan, and/or Ariel. Get an MRO around Ganymede, etc.. You don't need 7 minutes of terror if the hardware you spent more than $2B developing has already been flown and proven on other missions. You wouldn't be (as) scared to death that Congress will cut your funds because you're making good, efficient use of the R&D money. "Yes senator, that $2B from Congress has given us a platform we've reused on 10 missions now."
But my son is not going to be a scientist. The very thought of it makes me laugh.
But my son is not being exposed to chemistry, he’s spending a year of his life studying chemistry every day, which translates into a year of misery for him and our entire family, and paying for tutors who just get him through the course.
I don’t begrudge chemistry, which has brought forth many of the great inventions [...] I’m actually sipping on Scotch.
Translation: "My son is dumb. When God was handing out brains he thought he said trains and stepped out of line. I'm sick of paying for tutors. I could be using that money to buy a nice Macallan 25. When is my wife going to stop bitching about how I need to take an interest in my son's education? Dammit, I'm all out of Scotch.
Parents certainly have a tendency to "know" what their children like. Just like they "know" what careers they should pursuit, what kind of spouse is right for them, how they should dress, how their kids would never do that..., etc.. Of course it's possible to find a set of parents that are actually in the loop with their kids, but it's more likely to find parents that have their own preferences and rosy colored glasses though which they understand their kids. That is, assuming they're even engaged in their kid's life in the first place.
First off lets get the politics out of the way... I'm a centrist with a bit of a left-lean. I am most certainly not a Libertarian, nor do I believe Slashdot to be either--libertarians just tend to be rather vocal. This isn't a government "don't tread on me" issue. To me this is first and foremost about what's best for the consumer.
Now then, Google does not "block" sites from the results (unless required to do so by law) they sort sites based upon predicted relevance to the user's goals. Google's algorithms attempt to identify content that best relates to the search terms and user history. They then sort this content according to the signal-to-noise ratio. While the specific metrics used to achieve this may vary, this is the same thing that all the major search engines do. It only makes sense. It's also why Wikipedia tends to be positioned near the top of most every search. There's no B.S., just a bunch of meaty content.
Google is no more authoritarian than say Ford, Toyota, or Nissan. Each company has its own style, its products, their own user experience. While there are some customization choices you can make for a particular car, you're fundamentally stuck with what the automaker has predetermined that it will offer. However, you're not forced to drive a Prius, nor are you forced to use Google's products/services.
When you get down to it though, I really don't think this has much of anything to do with consumer choice philosophies and authoritarianism. You just have a chip on your shoulders because Google has frustrated your "click" revenue. Ironically, if you cared more about your users less about your ad revenue you'd almost certainly see more of each.