ou notice the study is based on illegal immigrants that had criminal record, not all illegal population.
Actually that fact is in the abstract before you even open the report. So all the report says is that people who get arrested, often get arrested multiple times.
This is interesting information, and might shed some light on several subjects... the ineffectiveness of our rehabilitation programs for example. Or perhaps that illegal aliens who are convicted of a crime should probably be deported because they are frequently repeat offenders.
But it doesn't really tell us anything useful about the matter at hand.
Either it is incompetent or it condones those activities.
Or it's Indifferent.
If an ant under my garage declares its the ant-incarnation of me and then proceeds to eat its queen... I am neither incompetent nor complicit in its actions.
There is NOTHING wrong with requiring non-citizens (guests) to carry ID at all times.
Ok, so what happens if they happen to ask a citizen for ID? What happens if the citizen isn't carrying ID? What happens then smart guy!?
Do they let you go without a fuss because clearly, you must be a citizen, otherwise you'd be carrying ID, right? (snicker)
Or do you now have to satisfy them that you are a citizen by providing them your papers, even though you are a citizen and presumably do not have to present your papers.
So, even though your a citizen and don't have to carry ID, you may have to present papers to prove you are a citizen if you are so much as a passenger in a car that was pulled over for a broken tail light?
If someone sees you using "portable" applications that aren't on the approved applications list the policy gets clarified... the phrase "you may not install non-approved apps on company computers" gets changed to "you may not install or run non-approved apps on company computers"
If you are not allowed to install anything not on the list, working around the rule using "portable applications" is rarely acceptable either.
What? Do you think the rule against "installing" things was because someone doesn't like the add/remove programs window getting cluttered up? Do you really think they'd be a-ok with you downloading a ton of crap and running it just because it doesn't require an "installation"?
As far as most normal IT people are concerned the fact that you didn't use an "installer" to get your non-approved crap on the PC is generally completely irrelevant.
Surely a neater solution would be to have some type of version number associated with them so that multiple copies of a library could co-exist peacefully on the same system.
Because you want the old defective buggy one with security holes lying around indefinitely?
It seems pretty obvious that a program designed to download youtube videos is infringing on copyright.
Some of the content on youtube you are explicitly permitted to use. Some videos are in the public domain, others are licensed for use with creative commons.
Though I guess you could argue said program is no different than a VCR
Treason is not a crime if you aren't a citizen...regardless of what Republicans would like to have you believe
And being a military aged man within 100 meters of an al-quaeda suspect doesn't make you an enemy combatant either.
But the argument is moot if the drone strike kills you.
Simply being innocent isn't protection. He (rightly in my opinion) beleives the US system cannot be relied upon to treat him justly, so its better to stay out of the system.
The seller sets the price of their house based on comparables in the neighborhood plus any unique features which raise or lower their specific value.
His argument is that the seller sets the price of their house based on what the market will bear. His premise is what the market will bear is a direct function of: how much money people in your area make, and what the interest rate is.
He has a valid point. Your right about comparables and features to a point. But say your house has a market value of X. Tomorrow interest rates go up sharply, the price of your house will go down. Why? basic economics: The number of people who can afford your house drops sharply, and you rapidly end up with a glut of houses at X$ on the market competing for a much smaller number of people able to pay X$. You get a glut of supply... and what does that mean? Prices go down.
So... your neighbors who are motivated to sell start to lower the price to reach a wider market. You don't have to follow suit, but if your neighbors are dropping to $X-Y and Y >>0 then you better have one hell of a view and a top of the line kitchen.
Thus interest rates have a very real impact on the price of a home. Its hardly the only factor, but it is a factor.
True. But most of the time, you would just be paying more for nothing of substance.
For a hobbyist web server with a personal blog, I wouldn't ante up to a 'business account' for a static ip and the right to run a server until the ISP challenged me on it.
For a simple experiment try to enable the 4 screen corner actions and note how it drives you mad since all you wanted is activate the leftmost submenu.
That drives people mad because if they bump into the corner actions something happens that prevents they from correcting.
Corner actions aren't simply having something else close to the menu item that you want... normally if you overshoot your mouse target a couple pixels, no big deal, you back track a bit... but corner actions no... you bump into one of those and something happens. That's a whole new level of being annoying.
To me corner actions are like those websites with popup windows if your mouse cursor so much as rubs against one on its way somewhere else.
A much better experiment would be to take someone used to a 13" laptop screen, and put them on a 30" screen but keep the window the same size, with the menu bar on the window. And put that window in the middle of the screen, and see if the ability to overshoot the top of the window really drives them mad. (They will cope just fine.)
seriously, the sense of entitlement is a little annoying
I know right. I drives me crazy that the company thinks its entitled to encroach on my personal time. My boss call me at home on my day off... who the fuck does he think he is? Or expect me to reply to an email or check voice messages?
And that policy of showing up 10 minutes early? If they want the day to start 10 minutes early then they can pay me for that 10 minutes, and at over time rates to boot.
Seriously, the sense of entitlement some companies have is a little annoying.
If I'm expected to deal with their shit on my time, they can accomodate me dealing with some of my shit on their time.
This is not a Microsoft dictated limitation of Win RT. a) x86 is not "legacy" b) WinRT on ARM can't run x86 because its on ARM c) Emulating x86 on ARM is impractical, it would be something like emulating the PS3 on a Wii.
and is missing many other full Win 8 features
This is true. Just as iOS is missing many full OSX features, and yet nobody gnashes their teeth and whines about it the same way.
Most ISPs do NOT allow this kind of stuff. While it might fly under the radar, there is always the possibility they will shut off your access./em
In my experience, most ISPs really don't care. And if your hobby site/blog goes offline for a couple days... its not the end of the world.
Also, in my experience with both the large local ISPs as well as 2 smaller ones, dynamic ip... on most broadband is essentially the same as static (*). You'll probably have the same IP address for years at a time (**) and they only change when they replace/upgrade the network and even if you are on static you will be assigned a new address occasionally as well due to network upgrades.
So in practice, dynamic ip addresses changes only slightly more often than static ones, and the only difference is that with static ones they'll usually make an effort to give you a few days notice that you'll be getting a new address before it happens. But you still have the downtime as DNS propagates.
(*) - I'm talking about static ip service on broadband. The static IP you get with a co-located server or T1 tends to be somewhat less likely to change than the static ip you get with a "Business ADSL" package, which still allocates your IP via DHCP, and the only difference real between static and dynamic is, as I said, they make some effort to give you a heads up before they change it on you.
(**) - As an aside, this fact makes tracking users/households by ip address for advertising purposes fairly reliable.
In a single menu at top of screen, each menu column can be activated by a quick careless mouse/pointer move to the menu word, without the need to use fine motor control to slow the pointer to hit a vertically narrow menu word.
Firstly, while that's all it requires. That's not how it's actually used. Most people don't generally 'carelessly throw the mouse up' and slam it into the top of the screen, even if they know they can.
Secondly, screens can get pretty big, and people use multiple montiros. I'm typing right now into a textbox that is some 50" away from the upper left corner of my main monitor. What might make some sense on a 13" laptop doesn't make the same amount of sense on a pair of 30" monitors.
Thirdly, your application of Fitts' law is only one way. What happens AFTER I select a menu item? Odds are I need to come back to where I was. In my case, that's another 50" trip onto my 2nd montor, and unlike the menu bar the target position for the cursor in this text box isn't slammed down against a screen edge artificially increasing its 'size'.
What does the ease of infringement have to do with anything?
Everything.
There are lots of things that are incredibly easy to do, yet society has decided that doing them is bad
And all of the examples you listed have a moral argument supporting them. We can all see the moral argument supporting the prohibition of poisoning the water supply or running down people with your car.
There is not, and never has been a moral argument supporting paying artists per copy. The moral argument was merely that artists should be compensated for their work, and the technology of the time made collecting compensation on a per copy basis very convenient.
If you disagree what is the moral argument for giving an artist the right to control whether I may put a song from a CD onto an ipod?
What is the moral argument that justifies a system where I should pay for each copy of a digital file I give to people, yet I may see a dress in the store window and make as many copies of it as I like and give them away or even sell them. I can use the same materials and colors or make different ones.
What is the moral argument for giving the the creator of a song control over copies while the creator of a dress or piece of furniture should not have this same control.
What is the moral argument for protecting early mickey mouse films? "Disney Corporation" did not create anything, people did, and those people are all dead.
How does an argument for copyright that supposedly gives "creators control" end up resulting in me paying into hedge fund managers dividends for works that were created by people who died 50 years ago? What did the hedge fund manager create? Then why exactly does he exert the control?
"To every cow belongs her calf, therefore to every book belongs its copy."
Written shortly after the invention of the printing press, which was way out of reach of the common man, and only produced a few hundred pages a day. (usually the -same- page and you had to reset the machine to print a different one. So it still took a couple weeks to get a few hundred copies of a book.
. Precisely that argument has been the cornerstone of copyright since the Constitution was written
Once upon a time before recorded music performers were paid for each head that was present enjoying the performance. People assembled into an audience, fees were collected from each, and the musician performed. The circus acrobat did his act. The dancer danced. The play was performed.
Collecting per head listening became infeasible when people were playing copies. But it was very practical to collect at the point of making a copy. This happened to be where technology was when copyright was enshrined in law. But its merely a coincidence. There is no moral argument supporting 'per copy' payment.
And I'm all ears for any model that allows Artist/Author to profit from their work
a) We are back to paying for performances. Anyone can make a copy of a digital file, but it is practical to collect at a performance. A popular performer will be able to charge more per head than an unpopular one.
b) Novel ways of raising money... the kickstarter model for example. Release a few tracks for free, hold performances... then he starts a 'project' the fans pledge funds, the artist sets his price for an album... if he raises enough money he takes the money and makes and releases his next album.
c) Commercial licensing - artists can still retain rights and license there works for use in commercials, movies, retail stores, whatever. While it has become impractical to stop people from making personal copies of music, it is still very practical to collect fees for commercial use. Again popular music/musicians can command a higher price.
d) Commission work / works for hire / "patronage" - the artist is a free agent... if you want a song, pay him to make one. Popular artists can command higher prices.
I suspect that we are several major technological advances away from such a solution.
You can't, with any intellectual honesty, simply hand wave that away and claim a business model is morally wrong simply because it is suddenly possible to circumvent it in your parents' basement with an $800 computer.
The moral argument was that artists should be able to get paid for their work. There was never a moral argument that they should be paid for each copy. That was merely a convenient point to collect at because technology made actually producing copies something that required a fair bit of capital. Tools, materials, etc.
Today, as you say, someone in their parents basement with a used $100 dollar computer off craigslist can produce unlimited copies. It no longer makes sense to collect artists fees at the "copy" point. It used to be practical, its not anymore. So that business model is obsolete.
font spacing will be way off in some programs because Microsoft chooses to hammer fonts to the pixel grid.
I'd thought cleartype and the font system in Vista and later had gotten a lot better. I'd thought the reason Windows can't do high DPI well was more related to things like toolbar icon assets etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless credit card processing occurs via a partner and his systems never touch the credit card data anyway, making PCI compliance a non-issue.
ou notice the study is based on illegal immigrants that had criminal record, not all illegal population.
Actually that fact is in the abstract before you even open the report. So all the report says is that people who get arrested, often get arrested multiple times.
This is interesting information, and might shed some light on several subjects... the ineffectiveness of our rehabilitation programs for example. Or perhaps that illegal aliens who are convicted of a crime should probably be deported because they are frequently repeat offenders.
But it doesn't really tell us anything useful about the matter at hand.
Either it is incompetent or it condones those activities.
Or it's Indifferent.
If an ant under my garage declares its the ant-incarnation of me and then proceeds to eat its queen ... I am neither incompetent nor complicit in its actions.
There is NOTHING wrong with requiring non-citizens (guests) to carry ID at all times.
Ok, so what happens if they happen to ask a citizen for ID? What happens if the citizen isn't carrying ID? What happens then smart guy!?
Do they let you go without a fuss because clearly, you must be a citizen, otherwise you'd be carrying ID, right? (snicker)
Or do you now have to satisfy them that you are a citizen by providing them your papers, even though you are a citizen and presumably do not have to present your papers.
So, even though your a citizen and don't have to carry ID, you may have to present papers to prove you are a citizen if you are so much as a passenger in a car that was pulled over for a broken tail light?
Google is wanting to you to be technical and MS only cares about how well you can talk.
Well, right out of the gate he was not applying for the same job. So its inherently and apples to oranges comparison.
Which only goes to show that Google cares about the tech stuff, and MS just cares to make money.
That's drawing a pretty specific conclusion from virtually no information. Your wouldn't have some sort of bias would you?
One could chalk it up to the different requirements of the job he's applying for.
Or one could spin it that Microsoft values effective communication highly even for its technical positions.
If someone sees you using "portable" applications that aren't on the approved applications list the policy gets clarified ... the phrase "you may not install non-approved apps on company computers" gets changed to "you may not install or run non-approved apps on company computers"
Your move.
If you are not allowed to install anything not on the list, working around the rule using "portable applications" is rarely acceptable either.
What? Do you think the rule against "installing" things was because someone doesn't like the add/remove programs window getting cluttered up? Do you really think they'd be a-ok with you downloading a ton of crap and running it just because it doesn't require an "installation"?
As far as most normal IT people are concerned the fact that you didn't use an "installer" to get your non-approved crap on the PC is generally completely irrelevant.
Surely a neater solution would be to have some type of version number associated with them so that multiple copies of a library could co-exist peacefully on the same system.
Because you want the old defective buggy one with security holes lying around indefinitely?
You probably gave up your rights when you uploaded the content. Doesn't matter what you want (sadly).
Au contraire...
http://www.youtube.com/t/creative_commons
It seems pretty obvious that a program designed to download youtube videos is infringing on copyright.
Some of the content on youtube you are explicitly permitted to use. Some videos are in the public domain, others are licensed for use with creative commons.
Though I guess you could argue said program is no different than a VCR
You could rightly argue that also.
If Ug's son doesn't hunt for himself that will take care of itself shortly too. ;)
Meh, the last installment showed Ug getting eaten by a tiger.
While I'm sure other cavemen may take that lesson to heart, Ug's business is already taken care of.
Treason is not a crime if you aren't a citizen...regardless of what Republicans would like to have you believe
And being a military aged man within 100 meters of an al-quaeda suspect doesn't make you an enemy combatant either.
But the argument is moot if the drone strike kills you.
Simply being innocent isn't protection. He (rightly in my opinion) beleives the US system cannot be relied upon to treat him justly, so its better to stay out of the system.
The seller sets the price of their house based on comparables in the neighborhood plus any unique features which raise or lower their specific value.
His argument is that the seller sets the price of their house based on what the market will bear. His premise is what the market will bear is a direct function of: how much money people in your area make, and what the interest rate is.
He has a valid point. Your right about comparables and features to a point. But say your house has a market value of X. Tomorrow interest rates go up sharply, the price of your house will go down. Why? basic economics: The number of people who can afford your house drops sharply, and you rapidly end up with a glut of houses at X$ on the market competing for a much smaller number of people able to pay X$. You get a glut of supply... and what does that mean? Prices go down.
So... your neighbors who are motivated to sell start to lower the price to reach a wider market. You don't have to follow suit, but if your neighbors are dropping to $X-Y and Y >>0 then you better have one hell of a view and a top of the line kitchen.
Thus interest rates have a very real impact on the price of a home. Its hardly the only factor, but it is a factor.
True. But most of the time, you would just be paying more for nothing of substance.
For a hobbyist web server with a personal blog, I wouldn't ante up to a 'business account' for a static ip and the right to run a server until the ISP challenged me on it.
For a simple experiment try to enable the 4 screen corner actions and note how it drives you mad since all you wanted is activate the leftmost submenu.
That drives people mad because if they bump into the corner actions something happens that prevents they from correcting.
Corner actions aren't simply having something else close to the menu item that you want... normally if you overshoot your mouse target a couple pixels, no big deal, you back track a bit... but corner actions no... you bump into one of those and something happens. That's a whole new level of being annoying.
To me corner actions are like those websites with popup windows if your mouse cursor so much as rubs against one on its way somewhere else.
A much better experiment would be to take someone used to a 13" laptop screen, and put them on a 30" screen but keep the window the same size, with the menu bar on the window. And put that window in the middle of the screen, and see if the ability to overshoot the top of the window really drives them mad. (They will cope just fine.)
seriously, the sense of entitlement is a little annoying
I know right. I drives me crazy that the company thinks its entitled to encroach on my personal time. My boss call me at home on my day off... who the fuck does he think he is? Or expect me to reply to an email or check voice messages?
And that policy of showing up 10 minutes early? If they want the day to start 10 minutes early then they can pay me for that 10 minutes, and at over time rates to boot.
Seriously, the sense of entitlement some companies have is a little annoying.
If I'm expected to deal with their shit on my time, they can accomodate me dealing with some of my shit on their time.
Mutual respect is where its at.
I would rather NOT take the risk.
Because spinning disk drives never fail early or spectacularly?
Anyway they priced themselves out of the storage market with low capacities and too high prices.
They're hitting 1$/GB and dropping.
Wake me up when they have 1gb SSD's at 100 -150 Euro and come with a lifetime or 10 warranty.
a) I assume you mean 1TB for that price. Give it another few years and they'll be there.
b) What hard drives are you using now with a lifetime warranty?
since you cannot run legacy Win apps
This is not a Microsoft dictated limitation of Win RT.
a) x86 is not "legacy"
b) WinRT on ARM can't run x86 because its on ARM
c) Emulating x86 on ARM is impractical, it would be something like emulating the PS3 on a Wii.
and is missing many other full Win 8 features
This is true. Just as iOS is missing many full OSX features, and yet nobody gnashes their teeth and whines about it the same way.
Most ISPs do NOT allow this kind of stuff. While it might fly under the radar, there is always the possibility they will shut off your access. /em
In my experience, most ISPs really don't care. And if your hobby site/blog goes offline for a couple days... its not the end of the world.
Also, in my experience with both the large local ISPs as well as 2 smaller ones, dynamic ip... on most broadband is essentially the same as static (*). You'll probably have the same IP address for years at a time (**) and they only change when they replace/upgrade the network and even if you are on static you will be assigned a new address occasionally as well due to network upgrades.
So in practice, dynamic ip addresses changes only slightly more often than static ones, and the only difference is that with static ones they'll usually make an effort to give you a few days notice that you'll be getting a new address before it happens. But you still have the downtime as DNS propagates.
(*) - I'm talking about static ip service on broadband. The static IP you get with a co-located server or T1 tends to be somewhat less likely to change than the static ip you get with a "Business ADSL" package, which still allocates your IP via DHCP, and the only difference real between static and dynamic is, as I said, they make some effort to give you a heads up before they change it on you.
(**) - As an aside, this fact makes tracking users/households by ip address for advertising purposes fairly reliable.
In a single menu at top of screen, each menu column can be activated by a quick careless mouse/pointer move to the menu word, without the need to use fine motor control to slow the pointer to hit a vertically narrow menu word.
Firstly, while that's all it requires. That's not how it's actually used. Most people don't generally 'carelessly throw the mouse up' and slam it into the top of the screen, even if they know they can.
Secondly, screens can get pretty big, and people use multiple montiros. I'm typing right now into a textbox that is some 50" away from the upper left corner of my main monitor. What might make some sense on a 13" laptop doesn't make the same amount of sense on a pair of 30" monitors.
Thirdly, your application of Fitts' law is only one way. What happens AFTER I select a menu item? Odds are I need to come back to where I was. In my case, that's another 50" trip onto my 2nd montor, and unlike the menu bar the target position for the cursor in this text box isn't slammed down against a screen edge artificially increasing its 'size'.
What does the ease of infringement have to do with anything?
Everything.
There are lots of things that are incredibly easy to do, yet society has decided that doing them is bad
And all of the examples you listed have a moral argument supporting them. We can all see the moral argument supporting the prohibition of poisoning the water supply or running down people with your car.
There is not, and never has been a moral argument supporting paying artists per copy. The moral argument was merely that artists should be compensated for their work, and the technology of the time made collecting compensation on a per copy basis very convenient.
If you disagree what is the moral argument for giving an artist the right to control whether I may put a song from a CD onto an ipod?
What is the moral argument that justifies a system where I should pay for each copy of a digital file I give to people, yet I may see a dress in the store window and make as many copies of it as I like and give them away or even sell them. I can use the same materials and colors or make different ones.
What is the moral argument for giving the the creator of a song control over copies while the creator of a dress or piece of furniture should not have this same control.
What is the moral argument for protecting early mickey mouse films? "Disney Corporation" did not create anything, people did, and those people are all dead.
How does an argument for copyright that supposedly gives "creators control" end up resulting in me paying into hedge fund managers dividends for works that were created by people who died 50 years ago? What did the hedge fund manager create? Then why exactly does he exert the control?
"To every cow belongs her calf, therefore to every book belongs its copy."
Written shortly after the invention of the printing press, which was way out of reach of the common man, and only produced a few hundred pages a day. (usually the -same- page and you had to reset the machine to print a different one. So it still took a couple weeks to get a few hundred copies of a book.
. Precisely that argument has been the cornerstone of copyright since the Constitution was written
Once upon a time before recorded music performers were paid for each head that was present enjoying the performance. People assembled into an audience, fees were collected from each, and the musician performed. The circus acrobat did his act. The dancer danced. The play was performed.
Collecting per head listening became infeasible when people were playing copies. But it was very practical to collect at the point of making a copy. This happened to be where technology was when copyright was enshrined in law. But its merely a coincidence. There is no moral argument supporting 'per copy' payment.
And I'm all ears for any model that allows Artist/Author to profit from their work
a) We are back to paying for performances. Anyone can make a copy of a digital file, but it is practical to collect at a performance. A popular performer will be able to charge more per head than an unpopular one.
b) Novel ways of raising money... the kickstarter model for example. Release a few tracks for free, hold performances... then he starts a 'project' the fans pledge funds, the artist sets his price for an album... if he raises enough money he takes the money and makes and releases his next album.
c) Commercial licensing - artists can still retain rights and license there works for use in commercials, movies, retail stores, whatever. While it has become impractical to stop people from making personal copies of music, it is still very practical to collect fees for commercial use. Again popular music/musicians can command a higher price.
d) Commission work / works for hire / "patronage" - the artist is a free agent... if you want a song, pay him to make one. Popular artists can command higher prices.
I suspect that we are several major technological advances away from such a solution.
Not at all.
You can't, with any intellectual honesty, simply hand wave that away and claim a business model is morally
wrong simply because it is suddenly possible to circumvent it in your parents' basement with an $800 computer.
The moral argument was that artists should be able to get paid for their work. There was never a moral argument that they should be paid for each copy. That was merely a convenient point to collect at because technology made actually producing copies something that required a fair bit of capital. Tools, materials, etc.
Today, as you say, someone in their parents basement with a used $100 dollar computer off craigslist can produce unlimited copies. It no longer makes sense to collect artists fees at the "copy" point. It used to be practical, its not anymore. So that business model is obsolete.
font spacing will be way off in some programs because Microsoft chooses to hammer fonts to the pixel grid.
I'd thought cleartype and the font system in Vista and later had gotten a lot better. I'd thought the reason Windows can't do high DPI well was more related to things like toolbar icon assets etc.