I have however noticed something which might get Linus and Stallman (not difficult really) seething.
Chade-Meng has a number of different albums, one being "Tech industry Titans" and another being "Other Famous people".
Try to guess which folder they are in...
Makes sense. Linus and Stallman are "Tech Titans," certainly, but they aren't in industry per se.
When I went to the site, I didn't see any watermarks in the images, which indicated to me that the Prism Coalition had fixed the problem, either by acquiring the images through the proper channels or by painstakingly editing the photos.
Then I went to the Google cache of http://www.prismcoalition.org/. The bar at the top says that the cache was made on August 23, four days before the blog post from the summary. There are not any watermarks in the Google cache. If the cache is accurate and accurately dated, then the watermarks were added and then removed sometime in the last four days. That is, if they ever were there at all.
Something fishy is going on here. In addition to the fishiness that was the original topic of discussion, I mean.
My first problem with this proposal is that it would be extremely expensive to pay the college tuition for all of the millions of people that would jump on this.
From TFA:
It would cover tuition and other expenses like books, student fees and school supplies - giving a boost to middle class families that often find themselves shut out of other financial aid.
If the program covered room and board at the school, then all kinds of people would sign up for this who just wanted to mooch off of the government for four years. If you were a bad enough student, you could live free for five or six years. In fact, you could stay there until the school, which would be getting paid for your presence, kicked you out.
My second problem is that the education offered by this program would become worthless in four years when all of the teachers were fresh out of college with no teacher training. It would be even worse when the graduates who were compelled to be teachers started teaching in high schools and elementary schools. If most of the teachers in primary and secondary schools were unequipped to teach, a lot of kids would graduate totally unprepared for college, which would keep them from taking advantage of the free education offered by this program, not to mention prevent them from becoming the kind of scientists, mathematicians, and engineers that would keep America competitive in the global economy.
Would you be willing to spend the extra bucks for network neutrality?
Where I live, Comcast charges in the neighborhood of $60 per month for 6 Mbps (you actually get like 1 Mbps). And that's with the TV+Internet+phone deal. Verizon charges around $50 for 5 Mbps fiber. I think their DSL (I'm not sure what the bandwidth is, but I don't think it's more than 1 Mbps) is around $40.
For me, at least, this would be a pretty sweet deal even if they didn't promise neutrality.
No I haven't read TFA but I'm willing to bet some of the majors are the equivalent of metal shop.
From TFA:
Michael A. Polizzi, an assistant superintendent, said the district carefully researched future demand for jobs, examined college programs and surveyed students about their interests before settling on its first six majors: sports management, fine and performing arts, health sciences, international studies and global commerce, communications and new media and liberal arts. In 2008, the school plans to add environmental studies and a "preteaching institute."
Actually metal shop sounds a lot more useful than a lot of these majors. All of them are either super niche fields with not much demand or fields that would probably require further education after college before you were ready to get a job. I'm in high school right now, and if I had to choose out of that list, I can't say that I would even be interested in any of them. I'd pick a metal shop major over any of these any day of the week.
I run a news site that is indexed by Google News. As much as I'm anti-copyright and for open access to information, this move by Google really bothers me. This commenting feature really crosses the line. If Google is going to allow people to comment on stories from our service outside of our service, I want a cut of the money that Google makes off of using our content for free. This is only fair if Google is allowing people to comment on stories in a way that is outside the control of our website.
Do you mean like how Slashdot gives a cut of its ad money to the sites that it links to?... Oh, wait.
The content of website A being discussed on website B without the financial involvement of A is ubiquitous at this point. Surely some of your news stories have been commented on outside of your site, apparently without arousing your ire. How is this different?
The Wall Street Journalarticle linked to from the ComputerWorld article has a bit more meat on its bones in terms of actual information about the possible phones and plans. No pictures, unfortunately.
Comcast, EarthLink, Verizon and Time Warner didn't respond.
Regardless of what their actual policy is, it disturbs me that these companies wouldn't even care enough about user privacy to respond to the questions. Especially Verizon, because Verizon provides my Internet service. Surely they could at least must enough decency to say "No comment." Unfortunately, that quote appeared 3 times in the article.
Certainly, this is possible. God could very well be messing with all of our heads. But second guessing God seems kind of futile. If he wants to mess with you, he's not just going to pack up and go home because you didn't believe his lie. The guy can alter reality. He can still get you, if that's what he's doing. So it seems more fruitful just to assume that the physical evidence with which we are provided is authentic. What's potentially more useful? Learning about the possibly fictional past that has a significant effect on the present? Or nihilistically rejecting all of the (possibly planted) evidence to no great practical benefit?
As a non-young-earth creationist who believes in evolution for the most part, it bothers me somewhat that the young-earth creationists have been so loud in calling themselves Creationists. In their search for a short, catchy title they have made it difficult for me to use a word that I feel should rightly, if broadly, describe me. Now, when people ask me what I believe, I have to ponderously explain that I believe in a creator deity, but I mostly don't believe in the Biblical account of creation. I inevitably have to go through several rounds of "Wait, you believe in science?" or some such questioning because of my audience's preconceived notions, which are based primarily on publicity-garnering displays like this weird museum.
I don't think that aggression is what people are upset about video games causing. Aggressive behavior, the determination to achieve a goal in the face of opposition, is not necessarily unhealthy. Many people realize this.
Violence is what upsets video game critics. violence is aggression directed toward a certain type of socially unacceptable goal. Video games causing violence is more disturbing to people than video games causing aggression, and rightly so. Aggression has many beneficial applications. Violence has but a few, and these problems are often better solved by less violent (but possibly still aggressive) means.
I don't know if it's good protocol to ask a question about a response to another question, but I guess it can't hurt.
I am currently in the college search process and will probably be deciding at some point between computer science or computer engineering. I have, with some difficulty, figured out what the main differences between them are in course material. I have had less success finding out what kind of career options they provide. Are there substantial differences between the careers that lend themselves to a CS degree and those that lend themselves to a CE degree? If so, what are those differences?
Sony BMG should have to pay each infected person the amount of money that it would take to replace their infected system plus the money they lost from not being able to pull all of their data out of the fire. For the average user, this malware probably made their computer totally unsalvagable, so this seems reasonable.
I tell my ISP to go fuck themselves and switch to a provider that honours net neutrality.
I wish it was this easy. I've been getting shafted by Comcast for years now. DSL has never been available at my location, and FiOS has only recently become available. I'm not sure whether I can get it at my exact location. So I don't really have that many options for a high-speed Internet connection. I'm sure that a significant portion of the population is in a similar or worse situation.
By the way, I plan to switch to FiOS as quickly as I am able. Unfortunately, I'm not the primary decision maker in that arena.
Limiting access to these things will be difficult as a practical matter, our best option is probably to blow all these things up.
The infi^H^H^H^H terrorists must be stopped. We would be happy to assist in all of your infrastructure-elimination needs. Our prices are unbelievable, and we'll bring our own bulldozer.
-- Al Q^H^H^H^H Smith Demolition Services, Inc.
I doubt that Muslims are the non-Christian "star" of the books.
I've only read a few of the Left Behind books, and I read them a while ago, but IIRC, the "bad guys" encourage people to believe that all religions were fully valid and true and that you could believe all of them or any of them and still be completely right. The Christians in the book declared that this was wrong, so the government/religious authority said that Christianity alone was wrong, while all other religions were correct.
The blurb reads "muslim-sounding" names
Unfortunately, that phrase was from the actual article. Journalism at its finest...
I always thought muslims DID believe in jesus christ
Christ isn't Jesus' last name. It's a title. He's Jesus the Christ. People act like it's the same way as "Winnie the Pooh" but it isn't. Literally, Christ means "anointed one," and it is used in the same way as "Messiah," which means "deliverer" or "savior." Muslims believe that Jesus existed, but they don't believe that he was the Christ. So they don't believe in Jesus Christ; they just believe in Jesus.
[Cyberbullying is] happening a lot. In these situations people could lose their job, or it could affect their social life, even causing mental illness. That's all happening because of the development of the internet, of course.
Am I missing something? How could you lose your job because of something somebody said about you on the Internet? How could you lose your job because of something somebody said about you off the Internet?
Boss: Hey, I heard on the Internet that you eat babies.
Employee: I never did that. Some people who hate me for no reason accused me falsely. Look, here's their website just for defaming me. Behold their lies.
Boss: Wow, they are pretty crazy. Now that I think about it, it doesn't make much sense that you would eat babies anyway. And to think that I was going to fire you...
Exactly what kind of mental illnesses is he talking about? I don't really understand how that would work. I mean, I guess being made fun of by people hurts your feelings, but that's not really an illness in my book. I seriously doubt that people are being so injured by the words brought against them that they become hysterical any time they get near a computer or anything like that.
I don't know where he gets off saying that all of these things, even if they do happen, are happening because of the Internet. People have been slandering each other since they learned how to talk. The Internet is just one of the many things that makes it easier to talk. It doesn't even make it that much easier for a would-be offender to reach the target, in that the target can just press the "Block"/"Warn"/"Report inappropriate content" button.
As for his claim that cyberbullying "could affect their social life," I wasn't aware that it was anybody else's job to look out for my social life.
Personally, I see Debian's position as more proper within the realm of the F/OSS community. If you toute your program as open source, yet say that if anyone makes any changes to the program that you do not approve of, that they cannot use your trademark, then that certainly doesn't sound "open" and "free" to me. Especially, if your source contains all of the trademark data in the code, and altering the content requires a great deal of work.
I'm pretty sure that "Linux" is a trademarked. See the Linux Trademark Institute. IANAL, so I wasn't exactly sure what was going on there, but it looks like you have to get a license to use "the mark" (man, that's creepy). It would appear that there are also some legal considerations when using images of Tux, the Linux penguin. Once again, I didn't really have the knowledge required to understand the details.
The role of government is not to preemptively pass legislation against anything that might conceivably hurt someone. We have fair trade and "anti-trust" statutes on the books, with the ostensible purpose of preventing businesses from abusing monopoly powers to hurt their customers.
What someone suddenly found a gaping hole in some existing law? I know this one's ridiculous, but what if it was suddenly discovered that, due to unfortunate wording, a missing clause, a situation that no one thought of when they made the law, or something like that, it was technically legal to commit murder? You would certainly want legislators to fix this before anyone tried to exploit it.
What if someone found a hole in antitrust laws that allowed some companies to be the only provider of their (important) services to a large group of consumers (a monopoly)? Would you want legislation to fix this, or would you want to wait until it was a serious problem, if it ever became one?
At what level of potential danger would you want legislation "expanding the scope of the government's responsibility"?
I would be suspicious of P2P from a media company. Especially one that gives the user more... identity.
From TFA:
"Over time," suggests the application, "if a particular user consistently recommends interesting content before other users, then they will emerge as a kind of expert recommender."
Then the RIAA could descend wrathfully on this supposed uber-pirate. Even if the guy used a psuedomym, like the article suggests, the system would probably have some sort of personally identifiable information on him that the RIAA could get the court to subpoena the information, or Sony could just give it to them.
I think the only way that I would consider this feature a good thing is if it had no "identity," which would only as useful as the comment metadata that you can already put on files you share in some systems. Either that, or if it was part of a system where you already had an identity, like that subscription thing Sony did with Playlouder that the article talkied about. This might be all that Sony was planning to do with this anyway.
Anyway, I would be hesitant to jump into this. I'm suspicious.
Also, I wouldn't want to have to deal with the implications of
And the user history information could be sold to marketers.
Slashdot Mirror
Makes sense. Linus and Stallman are "Tech Titans," certainly, but they aren't in industry per se.
When I went to the site, I didn't see any watermarks in the images, which indicated to me that the Prism Coalition had fixed the problem, either by acquiring the images through the proper channels or by painstakingly editing the photos.
Then I went to the Google cache of http://www.prismcoalition.org/. The bar at the top says that the cache was made on August 23, four days before the blog post from the summary. There are not any watermarks in the Google cache. If the cache is accurate and accurately dated, then the watermarks were added and then removed sometime in the last four days. That is, if they ever were there at all.
Something fishy is going on here. In addition to the fishiness that was the original topic of discussion, I mean.
My first problem with this proposal is that it would be extremely expensive to pay the college tuition for all of the millions of people that would jump on this.
If the program covered room and board at the school, then all kinds of people would sign up for this who just wanted to mooch off of the government for four years. If you were a bad enough student, you could live free for five or six years. In fact, you could stay there until the school, which would be getting paid for your presence, kicked you out.From TFA:
My second problem is that the education offered by this program would become worthless in four years when all of the teachers were fresh out of college with no teacher training. It would be even worse when the graduates who were compelled to be teachers started teaching in high schools and elementary schools. If most of the teachers in primary and secondary schools were unequipped to teach, a lot of kids would graduate totally unprepared for college, which would keep them from taking advantage of the free education offered by this program, not to mention prevent them from becoming the kind of scientists, mathematicians, and engineers that would keep America competitive in the global economy.
From the summary:
Where I live, Comcast charges in the neighborhood of $60 per month for 6 Mbps (you actually get like 1 Mbps). And that's with the TV+Internet+phone deal. Verizon charges around $50 for 5 Mbps fiber. I think their DSL (I'm not sure what the bandwidth is, but I don't think it's more than 1 Mbps) is around $40.
For me, at least, this would be a pretty sweet deal even if they didn't promise neutrality.
From TFA:
Actually metal shop sounds a lot more useful than a lot of these majors. All of them are either super niche fields with not much demand or fields that would probably require further education after college before you were ready to get a job. I'm in high school right now, and if I had to choose out of that list, I can't say that I would even be interested in any of them. I'd pick a metal shop major over any of these any day of the week.
Do you mean like how Slashdot gives a cut of its ad money to the sites that it links to?... Oh, wait.
The content of website A being discussed on website B without the financial involvement of A is ubiquitous at this point. Surely some of your news stories have been commented on outside of your site, apparently without arousing your ire. How is this different?
The Wall Street Journal article linked to from the ComputerWorld article has a bit more meat on its bones in terms of actual information about the possible phones and plans. No pictures, unfortunately.
Especially after 130 years of scientific progress.
Regardless of what their actual policy is, it disturbs me that these companies wouldn't even care enough about user privacy to respond to the questions. Especially Verizon, because Verizon provides my Internet service. Surely they could at least must enough decency to say "No comment." Unfortunately, that quote appeared 3 times in the article.
Certainly, this is possible. God could very well be messing with all of our heads. But second guessing God seems kind of futile. If he wants to mess with you, he's not just going to pack up and go home because you didn't believe his lie. The guy can alter reality. He can still get you, if that's what he's doing. So it seems more fruitful just to assume that the physical evidence with which we are provided is authentic. What's potentially more useful? Learning about the possibly fictional past that has a significant effect on the present? Or nihilistically rejecting all of the (possibly planted) evidence to no great practical benefit?
As a non-young-earth creationist who believes in evolution for the most part, it bothers me somewhat that the young-earth creationists have been so loud in calling themselves Creationists. In their search for a short, catchy title they have made it difficult for me to use a word that I feel should rightly, if broadly, describe me. Now, when people ask me what I believe, I have to ponderously explain that I believe in a creator deity, but I mostly don't believe in the Biblical account of creation. I inevitably have to go through several rounds of "Wait, you believe in science?" or some such questioning because of my audience's preconceived notions, which are based primarily on publicity-garnering displays like this weird museum.
I don't think that aggression is what people are upset about video games causing. Aggressive behavior, the determination to achieve a goal in the face of opposition, is not necessarily unhealthy. Many people realize this.
Violence is what upsets video game critics. violence is aggression directed toward a certain type of socially unacceptable goal. Video games causing violence is more disturbing to people than video games causing aggression, and rightly so. Aggression has many beneficial applications. Violence has but a few, and these problems are often better solved by less violent (but possibly still aggressive) means.
I don't know if it's good protocol to ask a question about a response to another question, but I guess it can't hurt.
I am currently in the college search process and will probably be deciding at some point between computer science or computer engineering. I have, with some difficulty, figured out what the main differences between them are in course material. I have had less success finding out what kind of career options they provide. Are there substantial differences between the careers that lend themselves to a CS degree and those that lend themselves to a CE degree? If so, what are those differences?
That's a hard line to draw.
Sony BMG should have to pay each infected person the amount of money that it would take to replace their infected system plus the money they lost from not being able to pull all of their data out of the fire. For the average user, this malware probably made their computer totally unsalvagable, so this seems reasonable.
I wish it was this easy. I've been getting shafted by Comcast for years now. DSL has never been available at my location, and FiOS has only recently become available. I'm not sure whether I can get it at my exact location. So I don't really have that many options for a high-speed Internet connection. I'm sure that a significant portion of the population is in a similar or worse situation.
By the way, I plan to switch to FiOS as quickly as I am able. Unfortunately, I'm not the primary decision maker in that arena.
The infi^H^H^H^H terrorists must be stopped. We would be happy to assist in all of your infrastructure-elimination needs. Our prices are unbelievable, and we'll bring our own bulldozer.
-- Al Q^H^H^H^H Smith Demolition Services, Inc.
I've only read a few of the Left Behind books, and I read them a while ago, but IIRC, the "bad guys" encourage people to believe that all religions were fully valid and true and that you could believe all of them or any of them and still be completely right. The Christians in the book declared that this was wrong, so the government/religious authority said that Christianity alone was wrong, while all other religions were correct.
Unfortunately, that phrase was from the actual article. Journalism at its finest...
Christ isn't Jesus' last name. It's a title. He's Jesus the Christ. People act like it's the same way as "Winnie the Pooh" but it isn't. Literally, Christ means "anointed one," and it is used in the same way as "Messiah," which means "deliverer" or "savior." Muslims believe that Jesus existed, but they don't believe that he was the Christ. So they don't believe in Jesus Christ; they just believe in Jesus.
The article says,
Am I missing something? How could you lose your job because of something somebody said about you on the Internet? How could you lose your job because of something somebody said about you off the Internet?
Boss: Hey, I heard on the Internet that you eat babies.
Employee: I never did that. Some people who hate me for no reason accused me falsely. Look, here's their website just for defaming me. Behold their lies.
Boss: Wow, they are pretty crazy. Now that I think about it, it doesn't make much sense that you would eat babies anyway. And to think that I was going to fire you...
Exactly what kind of mental illnesses is he talking about? I don't really understand how that would work. I mean, I guess being made fun of by people hurts your feelings, but that's not really an illness in my book. I seriously doubt that people are being so injured by the words brought against them that they become hysterical any time they get near a computer or anything like that.
I don't know where he gets off saying that all of these things, even if they do happen, are happening because of the Internet. People have been slandering each other since they learned how to talk. The Internet is just one of the many things that makes it easier to talk. It doesn't even make it that much easier for a would-be offender to reach the target, in that the target can just press the "Block"/"Warn"/"Report inappropriate content" button.
As for his claim that cyberbullying "could affect their social life," I wasn't aware that it was anybody else's job to look out for my social life.
He'll probably get some very forceful reseed requests.
This document is totally meaningless without the approval of the Galactic Senate. Nothing to see here.
I'm pretty sure that "Linux" is a trademarked. See the Linux Trademark Institute. IANAL, so I wasn't exactly sure what was going on there, but it looks like you have to get a license to use "the mark" (man, that's creepy). It would appear that there are also some legal considerations when using images of Tux, the Linux penguin. Once again, I didn't really have the knowledge required to understand the details.
Just FYI...
What someone suddenly found a gaping hole in some existing law? I know this one's ridiculous, but what if it was suddenly discovered that, due to unfortunate wording, a missing clause, a situation that no one thought of when they made the law, or something like that, it was technically legal to commit murder? You would certainly want legislators to fix this before anyone tried to exploit it.
What if someone found a hole in antitrust laws that allowed some companies to be the only provider of their (important) services to a large group of consumers (a monopoly)? Would you want legislation to fix this, or would you want to wait until it was a serious problem, if it ever became one?
At what level of potential danger would you want legislation "expanding the scope of the government's responsibility"?
I would be suspicious of P2P from a media company. Especially one that gives the user more ... identity.
From TFA:
Then the RIAA could descend wrathfully on this supposed uber-pirate. Even if the guy used a psuedomym, like the article suggests, the system would probably have some sort of personally identifiable information on him that the RIAA could get the court to subpoena the information, or Sony could just give it to them.
I think the only way that I would consider this feature a good thing is if it had no "identity," which would only as useful as the comment metadata that you can already put on files you share in some systems. Either that, or if it was part of a system where you already had an identity, like that subscription thing Sony did with Playlouder that the article talkied about. This might be all that Sony was planning to do with this anyway.
Anyway, I would be hesitant to jump into this. I'm suspicious.
Also, I wouldn't want to have to deal with the implications of