It's funny to me how non-religious people are always offended when someone pokes fun at their beliefs, but then they have no problem being judgmental and insulting and forget they are part of one of the most violent and "viscious" (sic) organizations in history (see: Stalinism, Maoism, Khmer Rouge)..
What?
What's that?
Oh, I see. We all have agendas. I wasn't quite sure why we were doing this at all...
I don't know about a brand new set, but TV ownership is not considered merely a luxury - government agencies rely on TV broadcasts to spread news at least as much as newspapers and radio (if not a lot more.) If someone in the sticks can't afford a new digital TV or receiver, having the government pitch in $200 or so for a 19" LCD might not be considered such a poor investment.
Realistically, I think we're both making prima facie statements, but to suggest that TV payments might be "handouts" might not be so far-fetched from a G-man point of view.
That's because $50,000 is a ridiculous sum of money for essentially a no-name band.
First off, I could *buy* myself a highfalutin home studio for under $10,000:
Digital Mixer: 1000 Hard Drive Recorder: 400 Good Microphones (including a drum kit): 2000 Good Preamp: 1000 Nice Headphones: 250 Nice Monitors: 1000 Soundproofing: 500 Software: 1000 Limiters, Compressors, EQ: 1000
And that leaves $1500 for miscellany (wiring, furniture, some special tube preamp or effects box or what have you.) And most of those numbers are highballed - you could save quite a bit (albeit sacrificing some quality) by just getting some $500 monitors, or buying used, etc.
Secondly, renting studio time is really cheap these days - on the order of $100 an hour, maybe. So you could spend 2 weeks in a studio, at 6 days a week, for 10 hours a day, and only spend $12,000. (Fact: most small time bands only spend one week in the studio. Fact: most independent recording studios have "one week + mastering" packages for $5,000 or less.)
CD Duplication is fairly cheap, too - less than a buck a CD, including cover art and cases. So just print them in 1,000 copy bursts.
Thirdly - and this is the most important point of all - why give away the music based on an upfront cost? By putting the barrier to entry so (artificially) high, that's a major disincentive for a fan to contribute. Say you saw a band on there you liked sitting at $18,000. Would you give them $10 in hopes they may some day reach $50,000? Are you kidding me?
Instead, they should just set the bar at $5,000 for fans, and $5,000 for the band. There's three tiers for donation: $5, $10, $20. The band gets in a studio for $8,000, pays the agent $1,000, and gets the CDs duplicated for another $1,000. Everyone who donated fan money gets a discount - if you donated $5, you get 20% off, $10, 50% off, and $20, you get it free.
And you sell the CD for $12.50, that means you get:
150 CDs sold at $6.25 = $937.50 500 CDs sold at $10 = $5,000.00 400 CDs sold at $12.50 = $5,000.00 50 CDs given away
Assuming 10% commission for the agent, that's basically $11,000 - $1,100 (agent's cut) - $5,000 (recording fee) = $4,000 for the band PLUS a recorded album they can now print and sell to all their fans.
Which for a band in that situation is pretty great, considering all they had to do was come up with $5,000 and record an album. Then the touring begins...
I'm a G-stooge, too, but we not only get to set our schedule (we have to start sometime between 7 and 10), but we can choose to work 4 10-hour days or 5 8-hour days, *and* we can telecommute up to 3 days a week.
Plus the great vacation / sick leave, general benefits (employer health insurance? matching retirement dollars? are you kidding me?) and it's a pretty sweet gig.
If you're asking what the catch is, my pay is definitely below similar positions (although not by a whole lot - maybe 90%.)
But how hard would it be for them to offer bonuses, incremental pay raises, or free loot for employees who passed some basic knowledge-assessment tests?
"Take the High-Definition Assessment Test, Earn $100"
"Learn the Difference Between Macs and PCs, Get a 25 cents / hour raise"
I could go on and on, but the point is, it's not hard to offer incentives for your employees to learn. They're just too cheap to do it.
Not allowing them to be bundled and not allowing them to be installed are two different things.
I don't see how MS's infraction is any worse than this *except* that I don't think Google has a monopoly on advertising. But they are (again) walking a very thin line.
Um, no. Monopolies are a problem inherently *because* they don't have to do what's in the best interests of customers. Just because they choose to makes them no less of a problem.
Advertising is not a natural monopoly. Natural monopolies have to have a terminal point: once everyone in the world has a water connection, the water industry is done growing. Advertising has no such point.
I don't necessarily believe Google is a monopoly, and I firmly believe that MS and Yahoo should be able to promote their products #1 on their own searches. But that doesn't mean it's not, for lack of a better word, suspect. It certainly means Google isn't necessarily interested in pulling down top dollar for its advertising spots.
I'm glad that we have a system to decide who has a monopoly on things, and not just Slashdot comments.
Google has 75% market share on advertising. Yahoo! is sputtering, and MS is slow to the door. It might bear out that Google doesn't have a monopoly, but they certainly have a very shaky antitrust position.
When Microsoft did it, it was called a "Monopoly."
In fact, in a brief moment of surreal hilarity, read all of the justifications here on/. for Google being about to do it. Now substitute MS for Google and "Internet Explorer" for "#1 advertising spot" and see where it takes you.
Uhh, none of our last few presidents, with the *possible* exception of Dubya, have been "ultra-rich." Kennedy was the last one to really fall under the "ultra-rich" status.
LBJ, Nixon, and Ford were all well-to-do (Nixon's law practice was very lucrative), but none of them were millionaires.
Carter was not rich by any means.
Reagan had, of course, done well for himself, but even his net worth was capped at "$7 million" in 1980. Not that we wouldn't all like to have it, but ultra-rich?
Bush Sr's net worth in 1988 was capped at $2.6 million. And he even came from a pretty rich family!
Clinton? $1.4 million. All of these numbers also included mortgages and the like. Their law firm wasn't exactly a real moneymaker.
And then Dubya, whose worth capped out at "$26 million." And that's the high estimate; it could be as low as $6 million. Now I'm not saying that's not a great chunk of change, but Forbes' 400th richest person is worth $550 million. There are probably 50,000 people in America richer than Bush. And none of them have won a Presidency.
A much more accurate statement would have been: only governors and Vice-Presidents run for (and win) the Presidency. We haven't had a non-governor, non-VP President win the election since Nixon in '72. Looks like that *might* change in '08, since Cheney's not running, and the only real Republican governor threat (Arnold) can't run for President.
Take a deck of cards. Time yourself as you separate them out by suit. It normally takes about 10 seconds.
There were 120 million votes for President last year.
That's 2.3 million decks of cards.
2.3 million decks = 23 million man-seconds = 383,333 man-minutes = 6388 man-hours.
So if you *started* at 8 PM Pacific Standard Time (11 EST) after all of the contiguous 48 states' polls have finished, and you had 6,400 workers sort decks of cards for *1 hour*, you could have a complete count of the ballots by 9 PM. You could recount it - twice! - by 11 PM, and by 2 AM Wednesday we would know for certain who was President.
Questions for the Class:
How could you make this more efficient? What if you started counting *during* the polls? Does having a bunch of different elections on one sheet of clearly delineated graph paper affect the count at all? If it magically took *5 TIMES AS LONG* to count the records, would this matter in the slightest?
I used to work at a radio station as a music and programming director. Promoters interested in pushing their music on the air would *CONSTANTLY* offer free posters and stickers, free concert tickets, and most importantly, free CDs. And usually not just 1, but like 5. The idea was "give them away if you want to, keep them if you don't."
I find it *VERY* hard to believe that Doug Morris would pay for any of the music he has around his house. He probably receives specially autographed master copies from Beck, Kanye West, Trent Reznor, et al. I'm sure he receives free copies of the competition to check their A&R.
Maybe he takes the high road and doesn't take any of the free copies just floating around, but somehow I doubt it. Because those companies don't actually value the music they produce intrinsically - why else would they send radio stations $50-100 worth of their merchandise for free?
I'd bet there are a lot of older executives at the Big 5 who would never pay for the new Jay-Z album, but could get a free copy of it with a phone call.
Actually, the latter probably would not be considered "obscene" by the courts. The word "obscene" is reserved for the really heinous stuff - the bordering on illegal, highly depraved things, like fake snuff films and hyperviolent tentacle porn, etc.
In fact, it wouldn't be very hard at all for the producers of that film to show the "artistic" value of their movie, assuming it has a plot. Basically as long as you had a vision beyond just the pure "prurient interest" (and saying "let's make a porn movie about pirates" counts as a "vision" in the eyes of the courts) then you aren't subject to obscenity laws.
So while you're on the right track, you've taken a perfectly crumulent word and embiggened it beyond its definition. Don't throw around words like "clearly considered" when that's not the case.
Uhh - that's because the letters "PS2" have already proven themselves in the console market. Sony doesn't really need a lot of hands on reviews or word of mouth - they've got an entrenched product already.
More like it shows how limited the concept of voice communication is.
The most powerful aspect of text communication is the sheer number of assumptions you can make.
You don't have to say "Hello", "goodbye" or go through any off-beat pleasantries. You just say the message and you're done. You can encapsulate an entire message in one uninterrupted burst - this can eliminate a lot of unnecessary questions, dissemblage, and digressions. You can abbreviate. You can send messages which do not require a response. You can use annotation, subtext, and codetalk to convey information and tone. And most importantly, you get a lot more privacy from text messages than voice. This is invaluable in situations where talking is frowned upon (meetings, movies, etc) or undesirable (sensitive topics, eavesdroppers.)
All of these provide an enormous advantage over voice. In fact, I'd go so far as to say the only things that should be left to voice communication are conversations involving more than two people, just for logistics - and with the advent of instant chat rooms on phones, that too will disappear.
Not all rights are inalienable. Some rights must be enumerated so we know where we stand.
Consider suffrage rights. When the United States began, you had to be 21, male, white, and a landowner to vote. The right to vote was also a gift, granted by we, the people, through our government, to people in order to enrich the public domain.
Voting is not a natural right, either, and yet no one begrudges those who have the right. And if someone denies that right, there are punishments accorded, because we feel that the right to vote outweighs the right to deny the right to vote.
And we as a society feel the same about copyrights. Your right to protect your work is more important than my right to make copies of your work without your permission.
You can't argue this from a purely detached "natural rights" argument. It makes no sense, because there are many other non-"natural" rights that you would still consider important (the right to nondiscrimination seems to be antithetical to the "natural" right of liberty, and yet here we are.)
Any discussions about copyright should be limited entirely to: how long should the copyright last, what is the appropriate punishment for infringing upon copyright, and what is explicitly allowed and disallowed under copyright laws (including fair use.) Everything else is a poor mix of hyperbole, intractability, and bombast.
Why are you judging only the answerer and not the questioner? That question is so loaded it's a 12 gauge right between Ballmer's eyes. And you expect him to pull the trigger?
So why are you so upset about his answer? The question wasn't fair, and it was based on a premise that is entirely antithetical to Ballmer's interests - in fact, to suggest somehow that we didn't know Microsoft was "not interested in your interests (i.e. free software)" until this question was asked is bordering on clinical.
Don't get so uppity at Ballmer: his agenda is crystal clear. Chiding him for sticking to the agenda - and especially trying to pose him as deceptive or dodgy - is ridiculous. The question's entire premise is invalid.
Actually, a recent study has shown that the simple act of testing increases long-term knowledge retention.
It's really simple: give the kids all the material you want them to learn, and then test them on all that material constantly. You don't have to 'teach to the test', either. Just focus on the material, do your normal teaching (discussions, assignments, homework, practicals, whatever), and test them on the material frequently.
In fact, cumulative sectional testing is the most effective process for actual retention (ie you actually learned something, you didn't just memorize it for the test and then forget it afterwards) out there.
Every test should include questions on the previous material learned. And ideally questions on the material that's been handed out but not yet taught in class. These questions should be for bonus points only, but they reward students who take a holistic approach to the material.
It's a great system, and the only perceptible flaw is it can sometimes be difficult to administer in classes with softer concepts (literature and art classes, for example.) But "teaching to the test" is actually a very poor strategy compared to the alternatives. And you know what? The good teachers that recognize that will end up with "More A's, More Pay" anyway.
CNN has on a guest who accuses someone or the other of being homosexual, without any evidence. They subsequently scrub the transcript and re-air the video with that question edited out. A few people witnessed it, but they didn't know who Ken Mehlman was, or why that mattered.
BUT - 10 media watchdogs actually bothered to record CNN on a continuous basis and captured the footage.
The next day a few smart media people who saw the deal (or work for CNN) go ask Mehlman about it, he of course denies it, and they don't follow the story any more, because there's no evidence about it.
Now maybe 2 of those watchdogs even notices the re-played version with the edit. So they request the official transcripts, and sure enough, it's been scrubbed from there, too.
These 2 people start showing their friends copy of the tape and the transcript. Most of their friends are apolitical and don't care; a few that do are outraged, and maybe tell their friends about it; and a couple of the really diehard junkies request copies of the tape themselves, for their Orwell file.
The tape ends up on a real small underground market for political junkies, ends up pushing maybe 100 copies, and then has to wait for the Internet to be revived on conspiracy sites 22 years after the fact.
Compare that to now, where in an instant, millions of people have access to not only the video but the transcript. The scrubbing gets reported instantly and with vigor on weblogs. An attempt to post the video to the most popular video sharing site on the Web is also rebuffed, and that becomes aprt of the news cycle, too.
And now he we are discussing it with characters typed in a form over the Internet, in front of an audience of millions.
THAT is why it is a technology story. Welcome to the 21st, friend.
Gates is a lifelong CIA officer, and has been above reproach in both Iran / Contra and other affairs. He has never been accused seriously by anybody of being corrupt, incompetent, or partisan. He is, in fact, a very calculating and considerate guy.
He's a career bureaucrat who made his name in the Cold War. Consider:
a) Bush 41 was director of the CIA, too. b) Gates was working at Texas A&M University, home of the George HW BUsh Presidential Library. Previous to being president of A&M, Gates was head of the Government School there (also named after Bush), and was a special advisor to the Library before that.
Gates is entirely a decision to go back to the old pre-neocon conservative ways. This is a slap in the face of Dick Cheney, Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, the AEI, and everyone else part of that crazy cult.
probably [judges] don't want a few victories to bring everybody out of the woodwork clutching a copy of their most recently received porn spam.
To which I can only say - let's come on out anyway! That's the point of these statutes - if everybody clogged the judicial system as much as spammers clogged our inbox, someone might do something just to get us off their backs.
And after all, filing lawsuits is a legal right - sending spam is illegal. So we have the upper hand in both regards.
Just so we're clear: it is not hard in America to become an influential lobbyist *or* the staffer for a Congressperson, if you were so inclined.
I've worked on a campaign for a state legislator - the people at the top (the consultants who end up on congressional staff, the directors, etc) are mostly just like me, but with two differences: they were a lot more involved in politics throughout college (running for Student Senate, joining groups, etc) and most of them were eager beaver, suit-wearing boring clods. (Not that I'm not boring or a clod, but they took the cake.)
The people who get on national campaigns are only slightly more respectable. Add in a law degree and you can be a lobbyist, too.
In fact, here's a simple 10 Step Process To Becoming a Congressional Staffer:
1) In high school, be "politically" active. Run for student government, be a joiner, do the club thing (be President of at least one), join FBLA. Also, learn Spanish. And actually learn it, don't just sit in the classes. 2) Become an Eagle Scout. It's ridiculously easy, and it's great for networking. For girls, do a lot of volunteer work. 3) In college, repeat: join a lot of clubs, run for student government. 4) Write for your college newspaper. Especially the political section. If the main newspaper won't take you, right for one of the student-run alternatives. Or start your own (even better!) 5) Get a degree in political science with a minor in communications. Any liberal arts degree will do, but political science is as an easy way to... 6) Network within your university. Ask all of your teachers and advisors about internships and positions on campaigns and staff. 7) Get involved in real politics around your college. Volunteer for the Democratic or Republican party headquarters in your area. Attend townhall meetings and generally get your name out there (business cards are great.) At actual elections, sign up to be a poll worker (you get paid $150 in Texas to do this.) 8) Once you've graduated, head to your party headquarters with your hat in your hand, and ask for a job on a staff. They will hook you up (I worked on 3 campaigns before switching fields.) 9) Focus on what you're really good at within the campaign. Good at math? Crunch poll numbers and offer strategies on how to be more efficient with your campaigning. Good at IT? Build websites, manage e-mail newsletters, keep track of donors, create systems to manage the campaign. Good with people? Be the PR flak, or coordinate the volunteers. Good with words? Be a speechwriter. Find your strength and hone in on it. 10) Wait 10 years. By the time you're 30, you'll be in a Congressional office, as long as you don't totally screw up. And even then, all of that networking will probably get you something cushy.
This strategy absolutely worked for me up to stage 8, when I decided I'd rather build websites for regular people and businesses than campaigns.
Slashdot Mirror
It's funny to me how non-religious people are always offended when someone pokes fun at their beliefs, but then they have no problem being judgmental and insulting and forget they are part of one of the most violent and "viscious" (sic) organizations in history (see: Stalinism, Maoism, Khmer Rouge) ..
...
What?
What's that?
Oh, I see. We all have agendas. I wasn't quite sure why we were doing this at all
I don't know about a brand new set, but TV ownership is not considered merely a luxury - government agencies rely on TV broadcasts to spread news at least as much as newspapers and radio (if not a lot more.) If someone in the sticks can't afford a new digital TV or receiver, having the government pitch in $200 or so for a 19" LCD might not be considered such a poor investment.
Realistically, I think we're both making prima facie statements, but to suggest that TV payments might be "handouts" might not be so far-fetched from a G-man point of view.
That's because $50,000 is a ridiculous sum of money for essentially a no-name band.
...
First off, I could *buy* myself a highfalutin home studio for under $10,000:
Digital Mixer: 1000
Hard Drive Recorder: 400
Good Microphones (including a drum kit): 2000
Good Preamp: 1000
Nice Headphones: 250
Nice Monitors: 1000
Soundproofing: 500
Software: 1000
Limiters, Compressors, EQ: 1000
And that leaves $1500 for miscellany (wiring, furniture, some special tube preamp or effects box or what have you.) And most of those numbers are highballed - you could save quite a bit (albeit sacrificing some quality) by just getting some $500 monitors, or buying used, etc.
Secondly, renting studio time is really cheap these days - on the order of $100 an hour, maybe. So you could spend 2 weeks in a studio, at 6 days a week, for 10 hours a day, and only spend $12,000. (Fact: most small time bands only spend one week in the studio. Fact: most independent recording studios have "one week + mastering" packages for $5,000 or less.)
CD Duplication is fairly cheap, too - less than a buck a CD, including cover art and cases. So just print them in 1,000 copy bursts.
Thirdly - and this is the most important point of all - why give away the music based on an upfront cost? By putting the barrier to entry so (artificially) high, that's a major disincentive for a fan to contribute. Say you saw a band on there you liked sitting at $18,000. Would you give them $10 in hopes they may some day reach $50,000? Are you kidding me?
Instead, they should just set the bar at $5,000 for fans, and $5,000 for the band. There's three tiers for donation: $5, $10, $20. The band gets in a studio for $8,000, pays the agent $1,000, and gets the CDs duplicated for another $1,000. Everyone who donated fan money gets a discount - if you donated $5, you get 20% off, $10, 50% off, and $20, you get it free.
So if you assume that:
50 fans donate $20
150 fans donate $10
500 fans donate $5
And you sell the CD for $12.50, that means you get:
150 CDs sold at $6.25 = $937.50
500 CDs sold at $10 = $5,000.00
400 CDs sold at $12.50 = $5,000.00
50 CDs given away
Assuming 10% commission for the agent, that's basically $11,000 - $1,100 (agent's cut) - $5,000 (recording fee) = $4,000 for the band PLUS a recorded album they can now print and sell to all their fans.
Which for a band in that situation is pretty great, considering all they had to do was come up with $5,000 and record an album. Then the touring begins
I'm a G-stooge, too, but we not only get to set our schedule (we have to start sometime between 7 and 10), but we can choose to work 4 10-hour days or 5 8-hour days, *and* we can telecommute up to 3 days a week.
Plus the great vacation / sick leave, general benefits (employer health insurance? matching retirement dollars? are you kidding me?) and it's a pretty sweet gig.
If you're asking what the catch is, my pay is definitely below similar positions (although not by a whole lot - maybe 90%.)
But how hard would it be for them to offer bonuses, incremental pay raises, or free loot for employees who passed some basic knowledge-assessment tests?
"Take the High-Definition Assessment Test, Earn $100"
"Learn the Difference Between Macs and PCs, Get a 25 cents / hour raise"
I could go on and on, but the point is, it's not hard to offer incentives for your employees to learn. They're just too cheap to do it.
Not allowing them to be bundled and not allowing them to be installed are two different things.
I don't see how MS's infraction is any worse than this *except* that I don't think Google has a monopoly on advertising. But they are (again) walking a very thin line.
Um, no. Monopolies are a problem inherently *because* they don't have to do what's in the best interests of customers. Just because they choose to makes them no less of a problem.
Advertising is not a natural monopoly. Natural monopolies have to have a terminal point: once everyone in the world has a water connection, the water industry is done growing. Advertising has no such point.
I don't necessarily believe Google is a monopoly, and I firmly believe that MS and Yahoo should be able to promote their products #1 on their own searches. But that doesn't mean it's not, for lack of a better word, suspect. It certainly means Google isn't necessarily interested in pulling down top dollar for its advertising spots.
I'm glad that we have a system to decide who has a monopoly on things, and not just Slashdot comments.
Google has 75% market share on advertising. Yahoo! is sputtering, and MS is slow to the door. It might bear out that Google doesn't have a monopoly, but they certainly have a very shaky antitrust position.
When Microsoft did it, it was called a "Monopoly."
/. for Google being about to do it. Now substitute MS for Google and "Internet Explorer" for "#1 advertising spot" and see where it takes you.
In fact, in a brief moment of surreal hilarity, read all of the justifications here on
Uhh, none of our last few presidents, with the *possible* exception of Dubya, have been "ultra-rich." Kennedy was the last one to really fall under the "ultra-rich" status.
LBJ, Nixon, and Ford were all well-to-do (Nixon's law practice was very lucrative), but none of them were millionaires.
Carter was not rich by any means.
Reagan had, of course, done well for himself, but even his net worth was capped at "$7 million" in 1980. Not that we wouldn't all like to have it, but ultra-rich?
Bush Sr's net worth in 1988 was capped at $2.6 million. And he even came from a pretty rich family!
Clinton? $1.4 million. All of these numbers also included mortgages and the like. Their law firm wasn't exactly a real moneymaker.
And then Dubya, whose worth capped out at "$26 million." And that's the high estimate; it could be as low as $6 million. Now I'm not saying that's not a great chunk of change, but Forbes' 400th richest person is worth $550 million. There are probably 50,000 people in America richer than Bush. And none of them have won a Presidency.
A much more accurate statement would have been: only governors and Vice-Presidents run for (and win) the Presidency. We haven't had a non-governor, non-VP President win the election since Nixon in '72. Looks like that *might* change in '08, since Cheney's not running, and the only real Republican governor threat (Arnold) can't run for President.
Simple math:
Take a deck of cards. Time yourself as you separate them out by suit. It normally takes about 10 seconds.
There were 120 million votes for President last year.
That's 2.3 million decks of cards.
2.3 million decks = 23 million man-seconds = 383,333 man-minutes = 6388 man-hours.
So if you *started* at 8 PM Pacific Standard Time (11 EST) after all of the contiguous 48 states' polls have finished, and you had 6,400 workers sort decks of cards for *1 hour*, you could have a complete count of the ballots by 9 PM. You could recount it - twice! - by 11 PM, and by 2 AM Wednesday we would know for certain who was President.
Questions for the Class:
How could you make this more efficient? What if you started counting *during* the polls? Does having a bunch of different elections on one sheet of clearly delineated graph paper affect the count at all? If it magically took *5 TIMES AS LONG* to count the records, would this matter in the slightest?
I used to work at a radio station as a music and programming director. Promoters interested in pushing their music on the air would *CONSTANTLY* offer free posters and stickers, free concert tickets, and most importantly, free CDs. And usually not just 1, but like 5. The idea was "give them away if you want to, keep them if you don't."
I find it *VERY* hard to believe that Doug Morris would pay for any of the music he has around his house. He probably receives specially autographed master copies from Beck, Kanye West, Trent Reznor, et al. I'm sure he receives free copies of the competition to check their A&R.
Maybe he takes the high road and doesn't take any of the free copies just floating around, but somehow I doubt it. Because those companies don't actually value the music they produce intrinsically - why else would they send radio stations $50-100 worth of their merchandise for free?
I'd bet there are a lot of older executives at the Big 5 who would never pay for the new Jay-Z album, but could get a free copy of it with a phone call.
Actually, the latter probably would not be considered "obscene" by the courts. The word "obscene" is reserved for the really heinous stuff - the bordering on illegal, highly depraved things, like fake snuff films and hyperviolent tentacle porn, etc.
In fact, it wouldn't be very hard at all for the producers of that film to show the "artistic" value of their movie, assuming it has a plot. Basically as long as you had a vision beyond just the pure "prurient interest" (and saying "let's make a porn movie about pirates" counts as a "vision" in the eyes of the courts) then you aren't subject to obscenity laws.
So while you're on the right track, you've taken a perfectly crumulent word and embiggened it beyond its definition. Don't throw around words like "clearly considered" when that's not the case.
The major difference between Nintendo and Sony in that case is that the PS3 is backwards compatible with PS2 games.
So it's not just based on reputation, it's based on an "upgrade" type mentality.
Uhh - that's because the letters "PS2" have already proven themselves in the console market. Sony doesn't really need a lot of hands on reviews or word of mouth - they've got an entrenched product already.
More like it shows how limited the concept of voice communication is.
The most powerful aspect of text communication is the sheer number of assumptions you can make.
You don't have to say "Hello", "goodbye" or go through any off-beat pleasantries.
You just say the message and you're done.
You can encapsulate an entire message in one uninterrupted burst - this can eliminate a lot of unnecessary questions, dissemblage, and digressions.
You can abbreviate.
You can send messages which do not require a response.
You can use annotation, subtext, and codetalk to convey information and tone.
And most importantly, you get a lot more privacy from text messages than voice. This is invaluable in situations where talking is frowned upon (meetings, movies, etc) or undesirable (sensitive topics, eavesdroppers.)
All of these provide an enormous advantage over voice. In fact, I'd go so far as to say the only things that should be left to voice communication are conversations involving more than two people, just for logistics - and with the advent of instant chat rooms on phones, that too will disappear.
Wow, taken a semantics class lately?
Not all rights are inalienable. Some rights must be enumerated so we know where we stand.
Consider suffrage rights. When the United States began, you had to be 21, male, white, and a landowner to vote. The right to vote was also a gift, granted by we, the people, through our government, to people in order to enrich the public domain.
Voting is not a natural right, either, and yet no one begrudges those who have the right. And if someone denies that right, there are punishments accorded, because we feel that the right to vote outweighs the right to deny the right to vote.
And we as a society feel the same about copyrights. Your right to protect your work is more important than my right to make copies of your work without your permission.
You can't argue this from a purely detached "natural rights" argument. It makes no sense, because there are many other non-"natural" rights that you would still consider important (the right to nondiscrimination seems to be antithetical to the "natural" right of liberty, and yet here we are.)
Any discussions about copyright should be limited entirely to: how long should the copyright last, what is the appropriate punishment for infringing upon copyright, and what is explicitly allowed and disallowed under copyright laws (including fair use.) Everything else is a poor mix of hyperbole, intractability, and bombast.
Why are you judging only the answerer and not the questioner? That question is so loaded it's a 12 gauge right between Ballmer's eyes. And you expect him to pull the trigger?
So why are you so upset about his answer? The question wasn't fair, and it was based on a premise that is entirely antithetical to Ballmer's interests - in fact, to suggest somehow that we didn't know Microsoft was "not interested in your interests (i.e. free software)" until this question was asked is bordering on clinical.
Don't get so uppity at Ballmer: his agenda is crystal clear. Chiding him for sticking to the agenda - and especially trying to pose him as deceptive or dodgy - is ridiculous. The question's entire premise is invalid.
Actually, a recent study has shown that the simple act of testing increases long-term knowledge retention.
It's really simple: give the kids all the material you want them to learn, and then test them on all that material constantly. You don't have to 'teach to the test', either. Just focus on the material, do your normal teaching (discussions, assignments, homework, practicals, whatever), and test them on the material frequently.
In fact, cumulative sectional testing is the most effective process for actual retention (ie you actually learned something, you didn't just memorize it for the test and then forget it afterwards) out there.
Every test should include questions on the previous material learned. And ideally questions on the material that's been handed out but not yet taught in class. These questions should be for bonus points only, but they reward students who take a holistic approach to the material.
It's a great system, and the only perceptible flaw is it can sometimes be difficult to administer in classes with softer concepts (literature and art classes, for example.) But "teaching to the test" is actually a very poor strategy compared to the alternatives. And you know what? The good teachers that recognize that will end up with "More A's, More Pay" anyway.
What if this had happened in 1984?
CNN has on a guest who accuses someone or the other of being homosexual, without any evidence. They subsequently scrub the transcript and re-air the video with that question edited out. A few people witnessed it, but they didn't know who Ken Mehlman was, or why that mattered.
BUT - 10 media watchdogs actually bothered to record CNN on a continuous basis and captured the footage.
The next day a few smart media people who saw the deal (or work for CNN) go ask Mehlman about it, he of course denies it, and they don't follow the story any more, because there's no evidence about it.
Now maybe 2 of those watchdogs even notices the re-played version with the edit. So they request the official transcripts, and sure enough, it's been scrubbed from there, too.
These 2 people start showing their friends copy of the tape and the transcript. Most of their friends are apolitical and don't care; a few that do are outraged, and maybe tell their friends about it; and a couple of the really diehard junkies request copies of the tape themselves, for their Orwell file.
The tape ends up on a real small underground market for political junkies, ends up pushing maybe 100 copies, and then has to wait for the Internet to be revived on conspiracy sites 22 years after the fact.
Compare that to now, where in an instant, millions of people have access to not only the video but the transcript. The scrubbing gets reported instantly and with vigor on weblogs. An attempt to post the video to the most popular video sharing site on the Web is also rebuffed, and that becomes aprt of the news cycle, too.
And now he we are discussing it with characters typed in a form over the Internet, in front of an audience of millions.
THAT is why it is a technology story. Welcome to the 21st, friend.
Education (and specifically college education) has always been associated with more liberal views on things.
And it's degrading for you to tell gay people, black people, Muslims, and women where their loyalties lie.
But you know, you're totally "Insightful." Right.
One thing computers are horrible at dealing with are typos. Humans can just look past them, but computers get stuck on them constantly.
So just ask something like
"Wwwqhat xixxxs th_e ffiffth wABCDEord N dis s!nt!nce (after deciphering)"
And let users do the rest of the work.
Gates is a lifelong CIA officer, and has been above reproach in both Iran / Contra and other affairs. He has never been accused seriously by anybody of being corrupt, incompetent, or partisan. He is, in fact, a very calculating and considerate guy.
He's a career bureaucrat who made his name in the Cold War. Consider:
a) Bush 41 was director of the CIA, too.
b) Gates was working at Texas A&M University, home of the George HW BUsh Presidential Library. Previous to being president of A&M, Gates was head of the Government School there (also named after Bush), and was a special advisor to the Library before that.
Gates is entirely a decision to go back to the old pre-neocon conservative ways. This is a slap in the face of Dick Cheney, Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, the AEI, and everyone else part of that crazy cult.
To which I can only say - let's come on out anyway! That's the point of these statutes - if everybody clogged the judicial system as much as spammers clogged our inbox, someone might do something just to get us off their backs.
And after all, filing lawsuits is a legal right - sending spam is illegal. So we have the upper hand in both regards.
Just so we're clear: it is not hard in America to become an influential lobbyist *or* the staffer for a Congressperson, if you were so inclined.
...
I've worked on a campaign for a state legislator - the people at the top (the consultants who end up on congressional staff, the directors, etc) are mostly just like me, but with two differences: they were a lot more involved in politics throughout college (running for Student Senate, joining groups, etc) and most of them were eager beaver, suit-wearing boring clods. (Not that I'm not boring or a clod, but they took the cake.)
The people who get on national campaigns are only slightly more respectable. Add in a law degree and you can be a lobbyist, too.
In fact, here's a simple 10 Step Process To Becoming a Congressional Staffer:
1) In high school, be "politically" active. Run for student government, be a joiner, do the club thing (be President of at least one), join FBLA. Also, learn Spanish. And actually learn it, don't just sit in the classes.
2) Become an Eagle Scout. It's ridiculously easy, and it's great for networking. For girls, do a lot of volunteer work.
3) In college, repeat: join a lot of clubs, run for student government.
4) Write for your college newspaper. Especially the political section. If the main newspaper won't take you, right for one of the student-run alternatives. Or start your own (even better!)
5) Get a degree in political science with a minor in communications. Any liberal arts degree will do, but political science is as an easy way to
6) Network within your university. Ask all of your teachers and advisors about internships and positions on campaigns and staff.
7) Get involved in real politics around your college. Volunteer for the Democratic or Republican party headquarters in your area. Attend townhall meetings and generally get your name out there (business cards are great.) At actual elections, sign up to be a poll worker (you get paid $150 in Texas to do this.)
8) Once you've graduated, head to your party headquarters with your hat in your hand, and ask for a job on a staff. They will hook you up (I worked on 3 campaigns before switching fields.)
9) Focus on what you're really good at within the campaign. Good at math? Crunch poll numbers and offer strategies on how to be more efficient with your campaigning. Good at IT? Build websites, manage e-mail newsletters, keep track of donors, create systems to manage the campaign. Good with people? Be the PR flak, or coordinate the volunteers. Good with words? Be a speechwriter. Find your strength and hone in on it.
10) Wait 10 years. By the time you're 30, you'll be in a Congressional office, as long as you don't totally screw up. And even then, all of that networking will probably get you something cushy.
This strategy absolutely worked for me up to stage 8, when I decided I'd rather build websites for regular people and businesses than campaigns.