So, if we were not to have any laws governing ideas and printed material and it's just every man for himself, who wins?
Let's say some kid from a poor or under privelaged family has a great idea or writes a great story. He wants to sell that and share it with the world while making a living for him and his family. Then he realizes that he needs money and help to do that. He goes to someone who has the money and means to get this done. That person or company takes it and kicks the kid to the curb.
Governments and companies have made a living on the backs of the poor since the beginning of time. Now that we have some laws and some protections, you want to go ahead and give them a blank check to do with ideas and property as they please? Not to mention the human nature of screwing your buddy if you get the chance (aka survival of the fittest). Sure these laws have been used by the rich to get richer in some ways, but I think it would be a mistake to think that this warrants removing laws on IP completely.
laying claim to domain names in hopes that you can sell it later. I think, like we do with this kind of abuse of domain name registration, if you are just sitting on the patent in hopes of cashing in at the expense of somebody else, then you should lose all rights to that patent (or provide some kind of small, like a $100 or so, compensation for your "intellectual" property).
[Patent Pending for this post, all replies are subject to lawsuits]
I think you have hit on a, if not THE, reason MS has problems providing timely patches. It's bureaucracy. Take a look at any large company/institution (i.e. automotive companies, government, etc.). I know from personal experience working for both government and a very large global company that it takes forever to get anything done. This is due to the simple fact that the decision process takes forever because of the number of people that have to sign off. You do not have this problem with smaller companies because you have more decision making powers invested at lower leveles (i.e. the power to do the right thing is much closer to the developer level as opposed to somebody in an office in another state or country making all the decisions).
I'm not sure that the problem is that people claim to be experts. In fact, I haven't read many articles that start off with I am an expert and know everything about what I'm talking about...prior to discussing the topic. I think the real problem is close to what you are getting at.
People are lazy and assume that if it's in print, on TV, on the radio, or on a webpage, it must be true and it must be backed up by facts from experts. That is exactly why I think blogs and forums like/. are so important. Because people are beginning to realize that most of these people posting and reporting may not (and arguably definitely not) as smart and knowledgable as the person receiving the information. Therefore, I think this will prompt people to get off our lazy @#$ and research those things we care about or are skeptical about. You can blame people for crappy and outright false reporting/blogging, but I think the person who takes this stuff on faith is the real problem. My hope is that the average Joe will start to be more skeptical of all reporting, especially what we hear from our politicians, which can only be a good thing IMO.
I think maybe there is another reason "outsourcing" to rural America is a good option. As more and more jobs continue to be outsourced to countries like India (which I'm trying to say is good or bad), the cost of living and wages in those countries will eventually rise and become more comparable to wages in the US. What do we do then? Do we find another country with low wages and desperate people to hire for pennies on the dollar? What do we do with all of our outsourced employees and infrastructure? I think businesses are starting to look down the road and ask some of these questions. I think it may be possible that outsourcing jobs to other countries will be more costly in the near future and we are currently just using a outsourcing as a short term solution that may come back to bite us. I just think this is something that IT professionals and business will have to think about more seriously very soon, and I haven't seen it discussed much yet here on/.
Agree or not, I found your post to be both insightful and informative. I think you make some excellent points and I appreciate your perspective. I think we will all be disappointed if we were to look for complete objectivity in anything in life. However, I take the side that this study is nothing but propoganda, but only due to the lack of research and data, not who funded it.
As for Novell's objections, it would be nice if they would do more than say of course they claimed X because it's in their interest. I would've liked to see them come out with more research and data to put MS in their place. All they would have to do is take take some notes from posts here on/.
I would love to be the country who can claim fire as its Intellectual Property! Put that in your pipe and smoke it, but it'll cost you should you use fire to light it.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
I can use bold too. It's convenient to pull out bits and pieces of a document to make your point. Just like politicians take each other's statements and parse them to their liking, or how people pull partial sentences and phrases out of the Bible to justify whatever it is they think or want. However, this does not change the facts or the context of the original message. The fact is that the Founders wrote this after winning a war against their own government using THEIR own arms. True, they formed militia, but back then the militia was any able bodied man who could carry a weapon; it was not the National Guard. So, please stick to the facts and keep it in context. It is clear that our Founders wanted us to have the right to bear arms. Sure you can argue that if we rebel we would be breaking the law any way, but this is untrue. Our constitution was written so that patriots could over throw a corrupt government LEGALLY. It's about principles and morals that our Founders held dear.
In these other countries, mostly with socialist governments, how high are their taxes? Are their broadband services provided as public or private services? If public, how much of their monthly fees are offset with tax dollars? Once you can answer those and run the numbers, I think you will find they are paying much more than $15 to $30 a month for their service. I'm not saying that this setup is worse/better than ours, but let's compare apples to apples when talking about how much is paid per month.
People aren't lawyers, but nonetheless they are expected to follow the law to the letter. Try using this as an excuse in court: "But Your Honor! I'm not a lawyer! How could I be expected to follow the law when I can't even understand it? Why, I haven't even read it!"
People were never expected to completely understand and/or know the laws. That's why ignorance of a law has been explicitly excluded as a defense.
There is no one simple answer to the question of whether to have a direct or representative democracy. People, as a whole, often fall prey to demagogues. Also, we are often led by how strongly we feel about something rather than intelligently thinking it through and weighing our options. For example, obviously we all feel strongly about this or we wouldn't be posting anything. So, to leave things directly in the hands of the public could lead to laws being passed based on passion, not on what's right or good for the country.
The last thing I'll say (although there are many other arguments for and against direct democracy) is that currently I am in the majority as one who is a Christian and fairly conservative. However, would it be right for me and people like me to impose that on everyone in the country through direct democracy? What happens if and when I am not in the majority? Will I then be subject to having my children taught there is no God and to believe otherwise is criminal? Sure there are those who feel this is the case somewhat with the current majority. But I would argue that it is our representative democracy that has kept the minority from being rolled over completely by the majority. I believe one of the major goals of our founding fathers in setting up a representative republic was to prevent the people and/or the government from squashing the rights and liberties of others just because they could as a majority. I don't buy that it was solely because they thought we were too dumb to figure it out.
I think that the Sarbanes-Oxley (S-OX) bill takes the right stand on this topic. Even though this bill does not specifically target code security, it does aim to hold the executives of businesses responsible (as a result of Enron-type scandals). As an IT professional, we were deeply impacted by this as our executives scramble to make sure we had the proper security and control processes in place so we could be S-OX compliant. This should be the goal of any company or organization that develops code in which a security hole could comprise the company and the customers. Don't hold the developer responsible for a lack of proper process and controls. This is how these Enron types get away with this crap. Just let the sh@! roll down hill. Meanwhile, developers are left holding a turd sandwich.
Sure. As long as you don't make money who cares what you do. That makes a lot of sense.
As for Arnold being a hypocrite, bowing under pressure may be weak, lack of fortitude, or maybe it was a change of heart, but you need to open a dictionary to get your definition correct.
The fact is you used his previous movie experience and his "bowing under pressure" to label him hypocrite. Let's forget for a moment about your false movie premise. Perhaps his "bowing" is actually him listening to the majority of the local government who pushed the bill and realized that even if he doesn't agree those who represent the majority of the people do. So look at it anyway you want, but at any angle you are still wrong.
I think that as a society we have decided that every problem must have an excuse. Everything is a disease or an addiction. Granted, I think that this could be true in the majority of these cases. However, I recall when I was a kid that talking in class and not paying attention was just being a normal 10 year old boy. Now it's a disease. What happened to good old personal responsibility and discipline? If you are fat, put down the damn twinkie! If you spend too much time on the Internet, get off the computer! I mean seriously, when are we going to start expecting more from ourselves and quit blaming everyone else, or in this case, making up some addiction to blame for one's personal choices.
As I posted earlier, you all are using a dangerous line of reasoning. Under your example of Arnold's "hypocrisy", any one taking any kind of moral ground is wrong (or at the very least a hypocrite). All of you should start appending a list of your previous trangressions, and/or idiotic previous postings (come on, all of us were new at some point) to all of your postings so we can see if you are credible enough to speak on the topic.
We should all consider the substence of the arguments rather than whether or not the ones who support/oppose are perfect in regards to the subject. After all, I dare say no politician would ever be able to put pen to paper under your line of reasoning.
--------------
It is better to be quiet and let them think your are stupid than to open your mouth and prove it.
I think it is a dangerous thing to imply that one is not qualified to propose, support, or talk about the video game violence legislation (or any subject for that matter) unless they are pure as the wind driven snow regarding the subject. Morals and standards are upheld by countless people who have failed to keep them at one point or another. This does not make them unqualified. It just makes them human.
I am a parent. I would be a pretty piss poor parent if I did not attempt to teach my children values just because I have gone against them at various times in my life. So, to say that Arnold must repent or suggest he is not qualified to sign this legislation because of his movies, is a bit ridiculous and a dangerous line of thinking.
Slashdot Mirror
So, if we were not to have any laws governing ideas and printed material and it's just every man for himself, who wins?
Let's say some kid from a poor or under privelaged family has a great idea or writes a great story. He wants to sell that and share it with the world while making a living for him and his family. Then he realizes that he needs money and help to do that. He goes to someone who has the money and means to get this done. That person or company takes it and kicks the kid to the curb.
Governments and companies have made a living on the backs of the poor since the beginning of time. Now that we have some laws and some protections, you want to go ahead and give them a blank check to do with ideas and property as they please? Not to mention the human nature of screwing your buddy if you get the chance (aka survival of the fittest). Sure these laws have been used by the rich to get richer in some ways, but I think it would be a mistake to think that this warrants removing laws on IP completely.
laying claim to domain names in hopes that you can sell it later. I think, like we do with this kind of abuse of domain name registration, if you are just sitting on the patent in hopes of cashing in at the expense of somebody else, then you should lose all rights to that patent (or provide some kind of small, like a $100 or so, compensation for your "intellectual" property).
[Patent Pending for this post, all replies are subject to lawsuits]
I think you have hit on a, if not THE, reason MS has problems providing timely patches. It's bureaucracy. Take a look at any large company/institution (i.e. automotive companies, government, etc.). I know from personal experience working for both government and a very large global company that it takes forever to get anything done. This is due to the simple fact that the decision process takes forever because of the number of people that have to sign off. You do not have this problem with smaller companies because you have more decision making powers invested at lower leveles (i.e. the power to do the right thing is much closer to the developer level as opposed to somebody in an office in another state or country making all the decisions).
So, if I am 0.1 A, and 0.3 S then I can conclude that I am 1.0 AS^2.
I'm not sure that the problem is that people claim to be experts. In fact, I haven't read many articles that start off with I am an expert and know everything about what I'm talking about...prior to discussing the topic. I think the real problem is close to what you are getting at.
/. are so important. Because people are beginning to realize that most of these people posting and reporting may not (and arguably definitely not) as smart and knowledgable as the person receiving the information. Therefore, I think this will prompt people to get off our lazy @#$ and research those things we care about or are skeptical about. You can blame people for crappy and outright false reporting/blogging, but I think the person who takes this stuff on faith is the real problem. My hope is that the average Joe will start to be more skeptical of all reporting, especially what we hear from our politicians, which can only be a good thing IMO.
People are lazy and assume that if it's in print, on TV, on the radio, or on a webpage, it must be true and it must be backed up by facts from experts. That is exactly why I think blogs and forums like
I think maybe there is another reason "outsourcing" to rural America is a good option. As more and more jobs continue to be outsourced to countries like India (which I'm trying to say is good or bad), the cost of living and wages in those countries will eventually rise and become more comparable to wages in the US. What do we do then? Do we find another country with low wages and desperate people to hire for pennies on the dollar? What do we do with all of our outsourced employees and infrastructure? I think businesses are starting to look down the road and ask some of these questions. I think it may be possible that outsourcing jobs to other countries will be more costly in the near future and we are currently just using a outsourcing as a short term solution that may come back to bite us. I just think this is something that IT professionals and business will have to think about more seriously very soon, and I haven't seen it discussed much yet here on /.
Agree or not, I found your post to be both insightful and informative. I think you make some excellent points and I appreciate your perspective. I think we will all be disappointed if we were to look for complete objectivity in anything in life. However, I take the side that this study is nothing but propoganda, but only due to the lack of research and data, not who funded it.
/.
As for Novell's objections, it would be nice if they would do more than say of course they claimed X because it's in their interest. I would've liked to see them come out with more research and data to put MS in their place. All they would have to do is take take some notes from posts here on
Come on, we all know that without Google pop-ups would have taken over the Internet, which was created by Al Gore you know.
I would love to be the country who can claim fire as its Intellectual Property! Put that in your pipe and smoke it, but it'll cost you should you use fire to light it.
Congrats! You win. I wish I could comment on your post, but I didn't actually read it. If I want a novel, I will go to Barnes and Noble.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
I can use bold too. It's convenient to pull out bits and pieces of a document to make your point. Just like politicians take each other's statements and parse them to their liking, or how people pull partial sentences and phrases out of the Bible to justify whatever it is they think or want. However, this does not change the facts or the context of the original message. The fact is that the Founders wrote this after winning a war against their own government using THEIR own arms. True, they formed militia, but back then the militia was any able bodied man who could carry a weapon; it was not the National Guard. So, please stick to the facts and keep it in context. It is clear that our Founders wanted us to have the right to bear arms. Sure you can argue that if we rebel we would be breaking the law any way, but this is untrue. Our constitution was written so that patriots could over throw a corrupt government LEGALLY. It's about principles and morals that our Founders held dear.
Yeah, you're right. Those are much more annoying than the Foreign Lotteries I keep winning in Europe.
In these other countries, mostly with socialist governments, how high are their taxes? Are their broadband services provided as public or private services? If public, how much of their monthly fees are offset with tax dollars? Once you can answer those and run the numbers, I think you will find they are paying much more than $15 to $30 a month for their service. I'm not saying that this setup is worse/better than ours, but let's compare apples to apples when talking about how much is paid per month.
People aren't lawyers, but nonetheless they are expected to follow the law to the letter. Try using this as an excuse in court: "But Your Honor! I'm not a lawyer! How could I be expected to follow the law when I can't even understand it? Why, I haven't even read it!"
People were never expected to completely understand and/or know the laws. That's why ignorance of a law has been explicitly excluded as a defense.
There is no one simple answer to the question of whether to have a direct or representative democracy. People, as a whole, often fall prey to demagogues. Also, we are often led by how strongly we feel about something rather than intelligently thinking it through and weighing our options. For example, obviously we all feel strongly about this or we wouldn't be posting anything. So, to leave things directly in the hands of the public could lead to laws being passed based on passion, not on what's right or good for the country.
The last thing I'll say (although there are many other arguments for and against direct democracy) is that currently I am in the majority as one who is a Christian and fairly conservative. However, would it be right for me and people like me to impose that on everyone in the country through direct democracy? What happens if and when I am not in the majority? Will I then be subject to having my children taught there is no God and to believe otherwise is criminal? Sure there are those who feel this is the case somewhat with the current majority. But I would argue that it is our representative democracy that has kept the minority from being rolled over completely by the majority. I believe one of the major goals of our founding fathers in setting up a representative republic was to prevent the people and/or the government from squashing the rights and liberties of others just because they could as a majority. I don't buy that it was solely because they thought we were too dumb to figure it out.
I think that the Sarbanes-Oxley (S-OX) bill takes the right stand on this topic. Even though this bill does not specifically target code security, it does aim to hold the executives of businesses responsible (as a result of Enron-type scandals). As an IT professional, we were deeply impacted by this as our executives scramble to make sure we had the proper security and control processes in place so we could be S-OX compliant. This should be the goal of any company or organization that develops code in which a security hole could comprise the company and the customers. Don't hold the developer responsible for a lack of proper process and controls. This is how these Enron types get away with this crap. Just let the sh@! roll down hill. Meanwhile, developers are left holding a turd sandwich.
Sure. As long as you don't make money who cares what you do. That makes a lot of sense. As for Arnold being a hypocrite, bowing under pressure may be weak, lack of fortitude, or maybe it was a change of heart, but you need to open a dictionary to get your definition correct. The fact is you used his previous movie experience and his "bowing under pressure" to label him hypocrite. Let's forget for a moment about your false movie premise. Perhaps his "bowing" is actually him listening to the majority of the local government who pushed the bill and realized that even if he doesn't agree those who represent the majority of the people do. So look at it anyway you want, but at any angle you are still wrong.
I think that as a society we have decided that every problem must have an excuse. Everything is a disease or an addiction. Granted, I think that this could be true in the majority of these cases. However, I recall when I was a kid that talking in class and not paying attention was just being a normal 10 year old boy. Now it's a disease. What happened to good old personal responsibility and discipline? If you are fat, put down the damn twinkie! If you spend too much time on the Internet, get off the computer! I mean seriously, when are we going to start expecting more from ourselves and quit blaming everyone else, or in this case, making up some addiction to blame for one's personal choices.
As I posted earlier, you all are using a dangerous line of reasoning. Under your example of Arnold's "hypocrisy", any one taking any kind of moral ground is wrong (or at the very least a hypocrite). All of you should start appending a list of your previous trangressions, and/or idiotic previous postings (come on, all of us were new at some point) to all of your postings so we can see if you are credible enough to speak on the topic. We should all consider the substence of the arguments rather than whether or not the ones who support/oppose are perfect in regards to the subject. After all, I dare say no politician would ever be able to put pen to paper under your line of reasoning. -------------- It is better to be quiet and let them think your are stupid than to open your mouth and prove it.
I think it is a dangerous thing to imply that one is not qualified to propose, support, or talk about the video game violence legislation (or any subject for that matter) unless they are pure as the wind driven snow regarding the subject. Morals and standards are upheld by countless people who have failed to keep them at one point or another. This does not make them unqualified. It just makes them human. I am a parent. I would be a pretty piss poor parent if I did not attempt to teach my children values just because I have gone against them at various times in my life. So, to say that Arnold must repent or suggest he is not qualified to sign this legislation because of his movies, is a bit ridiculous and a dangerous line of thinking.