Indeed. Which is one of the reasons to have a few alternative schools in the district. When I went to college, I wasn't really digging the traditional college system and so I ended up at one which focused more on self directed learning and developing minds so that they could continue to learn indefinitely without school
That's interesting, I'm going to have to look into that. I'm not personally surprised that I was able to find one locally. We've got a pretty good assortment of geeks and creative folks here.
Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I don't think that screwing around on the internet doing non-work things ought to be acceptable. Personally, I don't want to have my morale harmed by being asked to pick up the slack because there isn't enough productivity to cover the work needed. Doesn't matter whether it's too few employees or too much goofing off online.
Unless a job requires the internet as one of it's functions it's easier for everybody to just not have it, or agree that you're not going to use it except during lunch or break periods.
But, more than that, whenever you allow the internet in you're opening yourself up for lawsuits. Not sure how it is in Australia, but in the US you can easily find yourself in the position where you're being sued for sexual harassment and if you're really lucky you tell somebody not to view porn and they sue you for discriminating against an individual with a sex addiction.
Not suggesting that it's a good thing, but it's hardly unreasonable for employers to want to be cautious.
Printing is a relatively small risk compared with however they smuggled the information out. A paper can only hold a small amount of data. Your average thumb drive can hold far more than a ream of paper can. And it's a small fraction of the size.
Forcing them to print the materials doesn't stop leaks, but it does greatly slow the process and greatly increase the likelihood of them getting caught trying to smuggle the stuff out of the building.
Might could be, but the reality is that those measures should have been in place before now. If that's his goal, he's done a real favor to the US government that now has to actually handle the materials responsibly. And without a whole lot of real secrets being revealed.
Sure this stuff was leaked to everybody, but for god's sake we've had Israeli intelligence looking through or stuff on the sly, just imagine what the enemy is managing to get.
Indeed. What they were having trouble with was having nobody in the agencies sharing information. I'm surprised that they weren't limiting access to specific individuals that are in charge of coordinating operations. And probably only showing it outside the agency. As in looky but no touchy unless it's determined to require more than a bit of looking.
Then from there the folks that are doing that can decide sort of who gets access within the department. Providing it to everybody in the agency is neither necessary nor wise.
I'm a bit surprised that there isn't any policy barring this sort of thing. I guess it probably depends what the job is, but if you're just needing access to email and a couple of known sites, whitelisting those sites and blocking everything else isn't that hard.
I remember the last time I had a job with internet, they were pretty clear that the connection belongs to the employer and that any use of it for anything that wasn't specifically sanctioned would lead to discipline.
That's not true. My last job was paying $27k a year. Rent around here if you want some place decent to live it is at least $8400 a year, health insurance if you're paying out of pocket is easily another $3600, bus pass is another grand there. Then there's the taxes, another something like $3300 for social security and another grand or so for income tax.
And when you get to the bottom line there's very little left over for actual life. I was busting my hump for that money, and it still wasn't realistically enough to live a reasonably good life. Certainly not enough to throw away food or waste stuff I'd paid for.
You said what I was going to say much more succinctly. 80 years ago the assumption was that workers would be down to like 4 hours a day by now. Due to gains in efficiency. Instead what happened was the rich started to take bigger slices, like they had prior to the labor movement.
Of course it doesn't help that people start to buy things they didn't need and didn't particularly want and definitely couldn't afford.
In this case, I don't think that we can blame capitalism. 80 years ago it was assumed that by the turn of the next century that we'd be down to only working an average of 4 hours a day and getting to goof off the rest of the time. Which at the time seemed reasonable given that the work day had been shrinking.
But obviously that hasn't happened, the only people working short hours like that are doing it because they can't get more hours or don't have to support themselves.
Basically a few things happened. One was that people started to expect to own a lot of crap that they probably don't want and definitely don't need. Rather than being happy owning one car, people started buying two or more cars and rather than a rather basic model going for deluxe features.
That was bad, but then you had a lot of pseudo-intellectuals suggesting that we could all have more pie if we handed it to the richest to manage. Turns out that it doesn't work that way. The wealth comes from the production of things, not so much from the redistribution of things and the wealthy don't consider themselves to be responsible for the well being of the poor. There are exceptions, just not enough to make it work.
Not that big a deal, all you do is mix different fruits together. Things like peaches release ethylene which will cause produce to ripen. There's nothing wrong with that. And honestly there's a bit too much paranoia when it comes to chemicals. The only concern over synthetic versions of natural chemicals is if there's a bit of byproduct left which might be dangerous.
You can't copyright look and feel. The OP has almost certainly violated Namco Bandai's trademark, but you can't file a DMCA takedown notice over a trademark violation. And even that is a bit questionable as ghosts are fairly generic, only the name and the actual pac man looking character are likely to infringe. They don't own any of the IP here as far as I can tell, which means that they're likely to face sanctions for violating the provision.
2.2.1 Notice from Copyright Owner
And section 512 of the DMCA contains provisions for companies like Namco Bandai that misrepresent their ownership over the materials. As was the case in Online Policy Group v. Diebold, Inc.,
Those aren't equal. If you look at the screenshot, it's pretty obvious that he didn't take the graphics from Namco Bandai. And as such they don't have grounds for filing a DMCA takedown over it. Any patents related ought to have expired by now, and the only violation of their IP that I can see is the trademark. I assume that they've kept up with that otherwise it would be a very serious violation and probably big enough to take the company down.
The most that Namco Bandai can ask is for the name to be changed and possibly for the images to be made less similar to their trademark. But that's not something that the DMCA takedown notices do.
I'm sorry, but that's not a copyright violation and it's certainly not a violation of the DMCA. There is however a pretty blatant trademark violation, assuming that the owner has maintained the mark.
This is a pretty blatant abuse of the DMCA unless the OP used some of their code or images to do it. The proper thing is to file the paperwork with Google affirming that there is no copyright violation.
If the OP has the funds to do it, he could also file suit against Namco Bandai for violating the requirements under the DMCA for filing a take down notice. There is a defined situation for cases where the party filing the takedown notice does so in bad faith that allows for damages. Personally, I wouldn't bother unless I was making a living on the product as it's tough to actually get enough money for the violation to make it worthwhile.
In the US system, they give kids tests really freaking early, like at age 6 or 7 and then based on the results will segregate the kids that are expected to do well from those that get the standard treatment. The problem is that a lot of kids are still developing at that age, and it gives an advantage to early learners at the expense of those that take a couple years to get there. That wouldn't be so bad if there were actual evidence to back the premise that early learners do better later on.
The unfortunate consequence is that if you're not fortunate enough to do well on those tests you're largely left to languish and there's little chance of getting into the programs later as the basic education lacks the rigor to allow for that.
And with the increasing focus on giving more and more homework combined with the crushing load of extra curricular activities which is being encouraged so that kids can get into college, I suspect that learning on ones own is going to be going the way of the dodo in the near future.
Personally, very little of what I know came from school up till college. Then I had to bust my ass to catch up on all the things that the primary system was supposed to teach, but didn't.
At a sufficiently advanced level, I would say that statement covers just about everyone, with the only exceptions being prodigies like Ramanujan (who are outliers even among very intelligent people).
Well, I disagree. It's certainly more than an elite few, but I understand they're a minority. We're talking about them and only them. I believe they should at least have access to the information so that they can learn in ways that suit them best.
It's not a small minority, it's practically unheard of. It's not just reading up on the material, it's making connections to other materials and properly predicting what the rest of the material that you haven't yet seen is likely to say. And knowing how to adjust what you've already learned as new information comes into it. Even amongst individuals that are brilliant or have advanced degrees it's pretty rare for a person to legitimately be able to do that without help.
I take it you've never heard the expression: "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing." Because otherwise you'd understand why certain materials are hard to come by. Other than that it's also not particularly worth putting the information online as by the time you're dealing with PhD level research there's maybe a dozen people in the world that really understand the topic of the study.
Well, to be fair, he had to choose between becoming a skilled debater and a master debater, I leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure out which one he chose.
There's literally tens of millions of geniuses out there, but we generally agree that there's very few geniuses out there. Other wise it wouldn't be considered special when one comes into contact with one.
Apart from the bigotry of your implication that this should be less common in the slums of India, you haven't got a particularly strong point.
Anybody can teach oneself checkers, or chess for that matter, they aren't likely to be able to become a chess grandmaster by self education, but it could happen.
As you get higher up in terms of the sophistication that's required, the number of people that are capable of teaching themselves a task goes down, by the time you hit college, I'd venture only a very small portion of the population is really able to do that as well as a decent college can. And by the time you hit masters or PhD level work, you can pretty much forget about being able to do it without being a genius.
The implication from the article is that it's something special, as in more so than what people normally can do.
Anybody that's capable of teaching oneself already does that. Having a vast amount of information available means that it's less likely that you'll actually learn anything as a result of information overload and an inability to filter out the crap from the stuff that's actually correct.
There is indeed an assurance involved, that's why employers take applicants with a degree from an accredited institution of higher learning over those that don't have a degree or have one from an institution which isn't accredited. Accreditation is supposed to allow for an assurance that there was at least some standards rather than a 2 week correspondence doctorate.
It doesn't matter how much quality information is out there when mixed in with bunk and unfortunately the bunk often times looks as real as the stuff which is real. Just look at all the crap which passes for medical research if you want to know what I mean.
As for your last point, that's true for all subjects I've ever looked into, there's just way too much crap out there. Economics and psychology as fields are particularly hard hit by that problem. Double checking doesn't work you have the problem of the chicken and the egg, you have to know what's right before you can double check it.
Teaching yourself is fine, but very few people are capable of doing it properly without a lot of help. Sure when it comes to something like programming you can learn on your own. What you're generally paying for with tuition is guidance and an assurance to future employers that you know what you're doing or more accurately that you've at least seen the materials.
But in general, most people lack the framework to make sense of what they're learning. Even with a degree I run into a fair number of people who don't understand more than just the basics of what was taught, they've gone to no effort to understand the whys and hows that go along with the whats involved.
If this is becoming big that's a very serious problem. The internet isn't really a place to gain an informed opinion over things. There's a lot of noise and very little quality signal to use and without having a degree to start with it's pretty much futile in terms of knowing what is and is not reliable information.
This time I don't think they will. Both iOS and Android are way too entrenched in the market for MS to muscle them out enough to form a monopoly in this space. And that doesn't even include Blackberry which is in and of itself a powerhouse in the smartphone market.
MS rarely if ever successfully competes with companies they can't buy out.
It's not FUD, it works fine on Windows and OSX. It's not IE only on Windows because they use the same plug in. But for the intents and purposes of the GP it doesn't work well cross platform. I can't use it on FreeBSD and it also doesn't work on Linux very well. It's been a while since I tried with FreeBSD, but the only reason why MS cares about this is appearing to be innovative in the eyes of morons and fragmenting the market.
Indeed, ignorance is a privilege of those gutless enough to leave facts unproven and truths unexplored. There's a reason why the word there is so closely related to "ignore." Ignorance isn't just a matter of not knowing something it tends to imply that somebody is being actively obtuse about a subject or fact.
It's the main reason why people choose that word rather than the other ones that mean mostly the same thing.
Slashdot Mirror
So, basically what you're saying is that we need the DoJ to come in and break up the monopoly which is harming competition.
Indeed. Which is one of the reasons to have a few alternative schools in the district. When I went to college, I wasn't really digging the traditional college system and so I ended up at one which focused more on self directed learning and developing minds so that they could continue to learn indefinitely without school
That's interesting, I'm going to have to look into that. I'm not personally surprised that I was able to find one locally. We've got a pretty good assortment of geeks and creative folks here.
Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I don't think that screwing around on the internet doing non-work things ought to be acceptable. Personally, I don't want to have my morale harmed by being asked to pick up the slack because there isn't enough productivity to cover the work needed. Doesn't matter whether it's too few employees or too much goofing off online.
Unless a job requires the internet as one of it's functions it's easier for everybody to just not have it, or agree that you're not going to use it except during lunch or break periods.
But, more than that, whenever you allow the internet in you're opening yourself up for lawsuits. Not sure how it is in Australia, but in the US you can easily find yourself in the position where you're being sued for sexual harassment and if you're really lucky you tell somebody not to view porn and they sue you for discriminating against an individual with a sex addiction.
Not suggesting that it's a good thing, but it's hardly unreasonable for employers to want to be cautious.
Printing is a relatively small risk compared with however they smuggled the information out. A paper can only hold a small amount of data. Your average thumb drive can hold far more than a ream of paper can. And it's a small fraction of the size.
Forcing them to print the materials doesn't stop leaks, but it does greatly slow the process and greatly increase the likelihood of them getting caught trying to smuggle the stuff out of the building.
Might could be, but the reality is that those measures should have been in place before now. If that's his goal, he's done a real favor to the US government that now has to actually handle the materials responsibly. And without a whole lot of real secrets being revealed.
Sure this stuff was leaked to everybody, but for god's sake we've had Israeli intelligence looking through or stuff on the sly, just imagine what the enemy is managing to get.
Indeed. What they were having trouble with was having nobody in the agencies sharing information. I'm surprised that they weren't limiting access to specific individuals that are in charge of coordinating operations. And probably only showing it outside the agency. As in looky but no touchy unless it's determined to require more than a bit of looking.
Then from there the folks that are doing that can decide sort of who gets access within the department. Providing it to everybody in the agency is neither necessary nor wise.
As they say loose lips sink ships.
I'm a bit surprised that there isn't any policy barring this sort of thing. I guess it probably depends what the job is, but if you're just needing access to email and a couple of known sites, whitelisting those sites and blocking everything else isn't that hard.
I remember the last time I had a job with internet, they were pretty clear that the connection belongs to the employer and that any use of it for anything that wasn't specifically sanctioned would lead to discipline.
That's not true. My last job was paying $27k a year. Rent around here if you want some place decent to live it is at least $8400 a year, health insurance if you're paying out of pocket is easily another $3600, bus pass is another grand there. Then there's the taxes, another something like $3300 for social security and another grand or so for income tax.
And when you get to the bottom line there's very little left over for actual life. I was busting my hump for that money, and it still wasn't realistically enough to live a reasonably good life. Certainly not enough to throw away food or waste stuff I'd paid for.
You said what I was going to say much more succinctly. 80 years ago the assumption was that workers would be down to like 4 hours a day by now. Due to gains in efficiency. Instead what happened was the rich started to take bigger slices, like they had prior to the labor movement.
Of course it doesn't help that people start to buy things they didn't need and didn't particularly want and definitely couldn't afford.
In this case, I don't think that we can blame capitalism. 80 years ago it was assumed that by the turn of the next century that we'd be down to only working an average of 4 hours a day and getting to goof off the rest of the time. Which at the time seemed reasonable given that the work day had been shrinking.
But obviously that hasn't happened, the only people working short hours like that are doing it because they can't get more hours or don't have to support themselves.
Basically a few things happened. One was that people started to expect to own a lot of crap that they probably don't want and definitely don't need. Rather than being happy owning one car, people started buying two or more cars and rather than a rather basic model going for deluxe features.
That was bad, but then you had a lot of pseudo-intellectuals suggesting that we could all have more pie if we handed it to the richest to manage. Turns out that it doesn't work that way. The wealth comes from the production of things, not so much from the redistribution of things and the wealthy don't consider themselves to be responsible for the well being of the poor. There are exceptions, just not enough to make it work.
Not that big a deal, all you do is mix different fruits together. Things like peaches release ethylene which will cause produce to ripen. There's nothing wrong with that. And honestly there's a bit too much paranoia when it comes to chemicals. The only concern over synthetic versions of natural chemicals is if there's a bit of byproduct left which might be dangerous.
You can't copyright look and feel. The OP has almost certainly violated Namco Bandai's trademark, but you can't file a DMCA takedown notice over a trademark violation. And even that is a bit questionable as ghosts are fairly generic, only the name and the actual pac man looking character are likely to infringe. They don't own any of the IP here as far as I can tell, which means that they're likely to face sanctions for violating the provision. 2.2.1 Notice from Copyright Owner And section 512 of the DMCA contains provisions for companies like Namco Bandai that misrepresent their ownership over the materials. As was the case in Online Policy Group v. Diebold, Inc.,
Those aren't equal. If you look at the screenshot, it's pretty obvious that he didn't take the graphics from Namco Bandai. And as such they don't have grounds for filing a DMCA takedown over it. Any patents related ought to have expired by now, and the only violation of their IP that I can see is the trademark. I assume that they've kept up with that otherwise it would be a very serious violation and probably big enough to take the company down.
The most that Namco Bandai can ask is for the name to be changed and possibly for the images to be made less similar to their trademark. But that's not something that the DMCA takedown notices do.
I'm sorry, but that's not a copyright violation and it's certainly not a violation of the DMCA. There is however a pretty blatant trademark violation, assuming that the owner has maintained the mark.
This is a pretty blatant abuse of the DMCA unless the OP used some of their code or images to do it. The proper thing is to file the paperwork with Google affirming that there is no copyright violation.
If the OP has the funds to do it, he could also file suit against Namco Bandai for violating the requirements under the DMCA for filing a take down notice. There is a defined situation for cases where the party filing the takedown notice does so in bad faith that allows for damages. Personally, I wouldn't bother unless I was making a living on the product as it's tough to actually get enough money for the violation to make it worthwhile.
In the US system, they give kids tests really freaking early, like at age 6 or 7 and then based on the results will segregate the kids that are expected to do well from those that get the standard treatment. The problem is that a lot of kids are still developing at that age, and it gives an advantage to early learners at the expense of those that take a couple years to get there. That wouldn't be so bad if there were actual evidence to back the premise that early learners do better later on.
The unfortunate consequence is that if you're not fortunate enough to do well on those tests you're largely left to languish and there's little chance of getting into the programs later as the basic education lacks the rigor to allow for that.
And with the increasing focus on giving more and more homework combined with the crushing load of extra curricular activities which is being encouraged so that kids can get into college, I suspect that learning on ones own is going to be going the way of the dodo in the near future.
Personally, very little of what I know came from school up till college. Then I had to bust my ass to catch up on all the things that the primary system was supposed to teach, but didn't.
Don't worry, just as long as they're not thespians. You really don't want your kids getting involved in that sort of un-Christian lifestyle.
At a sufficiently advanced level, I would say that statement covers just about everyone, with the only exceptions being prodigies like Ramanujan (who are outliers even among very intelligent people).
Well, I disagree. It's certainly more than an elite few, but I understand they're a minority. We're talking about them and only them. I believe they should at least have access to the information so that they can learn in ways that suit them best.
It's not a small minority, it's practically unheard of. It's not just reading up on the material, it's making connections to other materials and properly predicting what the rest of the material that you haven't yet seen is likely to say. And knowing how to adjust what you've already learned as new information comes into it. Even amongst individuals that are brilliant or have advanced degrees it's pretty rare for a person to legitimately be able to do that without help.
I take it you've never heard the expression: "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing." Because otherwise you'd understand why certain materials are hard to come by. Other than that it's also not particularly worth putting the information online as by the time you're dealing with PhD level research there's maybe a dozen people in the world that really understand the topic of the study.
Well, to be fair, he had to choose between becoming a skilled debater and a master debater, I leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure out which one he chose.
There's literally tens of millions of geniuses out there, but we generally agree that there's very few geniuses out there. Other wise it wouldn't be considered special when one comes into contact with one.
Apart from the bigotry of your implication that this should be less common in the slums of India, you haven't got a particularly strong point.
Anybody can teach oneself checkers, or chess for that matter, they aren't likely to be able to become a chess grandmaster by self education, but it could happen.
As you get higher up in terms of the sophistication that's required, the number of people that are capable of teaching themselves a task goes down, by the time you hit college, I'd venture only a very small portion of the population is really able to do that as well as a decent college can. And by the time you hit masters or PhD level work, you can pretty much forget about being able to do it without being a genius.
The implication from the article is that it's something special, as in more so than what people normally can do.
I call bullshit on everything you said.
Anybody that's capable of teaching oneself already does that. Having a vast amount of information available means that it's less likely that you'll actually learn anything as a result of information overload and an inability to filter out the crap from the stuff that's actually correct.
There is indeed an assurance involved, that's why employers take applicants with a degree from an accredited institution of higher learning over those that don't have a degree or have one from an institution which isn't accredited. Accreditation is supposed to allow for an assurance that there was at least some standards rather than a 2 week correspondence doctorate.
It doesn't matter how much quality information is out there when mixed in with bunk and unfortunately the bunk often times looks as real as the stuff which is real. Just look at all the crap which passes for medical research if you want to know what I mean.
As for your last point, that's true for all subjects I've ever looked into, there's just way too much crap out there. Economics and psychology as fields are particularly hard hit by that problem. Double checking doesn't work you have the problem of the chicken and the egg, you have to know what's right before you can double check it.
Teaching yourself is fine, but very few people are capable of doing it properly without a lot of help. Sure when it comes to something like programming you can learn on your own. What you're generally paying for with tuition is guidance and an assurance to future employers that you know what you're doing or more accurately that you've at least seen the materials.
But in general, most people lack the framework to make sense of what they're learning. Even with a degree I run into a fair number of people who don't understand more than just the basics of what was taught, they've gone to no effort to understand the whys and hows that go along with the whats involved.
If this is becoming big that's a very serious problem. The internet isn't really a place to gain an informed opinion over things. There's a lot of noise and very little quality signal to use and without having a degree to start with it's pretty much futile in terms of knowing what is and is not reliable information.
This time I don't think they will. Both iOS and Android are way too entrenched in the market for MS to muscle them out enough to form a monopoly in this space. And that doesn't even include Blackberry which is in and of itself a powerhouse in the smartphone market.
MS rarely if ever successfully competes with companies they can't buy out.
It's not FUD, it works fine on Windows and OSX. It's not IE only on Windows because they use the same plug in. But for the intents and purposes of the GP it doesn't work well cross platform. I can't use it on FreeBSD and it also doesn't work on Linux very well. It's been a while since I tried with FreeBSD, but the only reason why MS cares about this is appearing to be innovative in the eyes of morons and fragmenting the market.
Indeed, ignorance is a privilege of those gutless enough to leave facts unproven and truths unexplored. There's a reason why the word there is so closely related to "ignore." Ignorance isn't just a matter of not knowing something it tends to imply that somebody is being actively obtuse about a subject or fact.
It's the main reason why people choose that word rather than the other ones that mean mostly the same thing.