Even though the Foxconn suicide rate was about the same as the rest of the country, the media and various agitators saw fit to demonize Foxconn as though it were in the same vein of blood-for-profit as the African diamond trade. Now lo and behold, Foxconn has said "fuck this, robots are cheaper" and a million Chinese are going to lose their jobs because of your histrionics over a few deaths by mentally unstable people.
And yeah, Foxconn's jobs may suck by American standards. However they were pure gold if you came from rural China where you probably had the same hours, even more back-breaking work and probably a worse place to sleep at night than a Foxconn dormitory.
Maybe there's a boat load of trade secrets in the closed source drivers, but I'd imagine that this is a perfect area for patents to be used against competitors. It would seem to me that most hardware vendors would benefit from open sourcing their main drivers and documenting them lightly so that they could offload maintenance costs for smaller OSes to "the community" while relying on patent law to protect novel inventions.
Is for someone to write a new standard API that can sit in parallel to their old one that gives us sanity like string manipulation functions with real names and consistent parameters. You know stuff like:
An individual cannot "wage war." An organization that can only field a few attackers here and there cannot "wage war." Waging war implicitly means the ability to attack an enemy, occupy their land and drive out their political authority. Most terrorist organizations cannot field an army capable of occupying a one camel town for more than week, and their affiliates that can are not making war on us.
If the President can use his war powers on them, then he sure as heck can use them on MS13 or any other large scale criminal gang in the US as most of them have more power to inflict severe loss of life and property than 90% of the Islamic terrorist groups.
But if given the choice of watching 15 minutes of the other movies and watching the main trailers on repeat for 15 minutes, I'd choose the new trailers...
1. Most states don't even let you stand your ground when faced with an assailant on the street you can clearly identify. Hacking back is stand your ground without even the requirement of knowing who is attacking you before drawing and using a weapon in many cases (most)? 2. Many corporations have punitive policies that prohibit or limit employees' self-defense rights on their campuses or even during the work hours. For example, I think one of the major pizza chains won't let drivers who regularly drive into very bad parts of town keep even a blunt weapon, let alone a legal firearm on them.
So why should corporations get a right which is dangerous, hard to limit collateral damage and which is a corollary to a right that is badly limited in most parts of the US for the flesh and blood citizens?
It's rare that I quote a famous figure, as so often it's cliche to the point of deserving a cluebat-induced coma. However, I think this quote from Sam Adams accurately describes the state of America (better than the famous Franklin quote so often cited here) and how so many would sacrifice their rights to ensure their happy consumerist lifestyles:
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
There are several security loopholes here that China could theoretically exploit. Lenovo moving some manufacturing here is an attempt by them to deliberately close one of the big ones, which is what happens to goods in transit between them and their customers. The Chinese intelligence services are extremely unlikely to send people to US soil to pull some stunt because the last thing they'd want is for people connected to a program to sabotage American computer products to be practically in the federal government's lap.
A computer built in the US and shipped via American carriers is significantly less likely to be tampered with in transit. In China, you're trusting that there are no "stops" between the factory and the dock.
It's just a step in the right direction. In that sense and that sense alone you are more correct than wrong.
Apple's products are now just very expensive toys built for an economy that has gone away. The days of a $500-$800 media consumption device aka the iPad are numbered. At the rate the global economy is deterioriating products like the MacBook Pro with Retina Display which is a $3000 boondoggle of barely fixable badness will be considered a sign of mental degradation or material excess.
My next upgrade cycle, after having been with OS X since 10.0 and iOS since the iPhone 3G is looking increasingly like a $500-$1000 PC laptop with Haswell, Linux, a BlackBerry Z10 (or its successor) which has a replaceable battery and a XBox One and Wii U for gaming. All of that together, cheaper and just as good as a midrange MacBook Pro.
You revive gun rights instead. Let's dispense with the boilerplate bullshit about how having a gun might not have saved him and just face a simple fact here. This would be substantially less likely to work in the US because terrorists know that such acts of violence would very likely end with them being met with a hail of bullets from bystanders or the police. In the US, random acts of savagery typically only happen in those areas where criminals know the citizenry cannot be lawfully armed. That those areas also tend to be minimally secured by the government to counter this fact is probably also a feature to them as well...
Sign a patent deal with them that if they will fully fund his defense, he'll agree to not sue anyone and when the case is over he'll turn the patent over to the public domain.
All they had to do was make the installation process work just like it does on the 360 where you have to put the DVD in on start up to prove you own a copy or have physical possession of one. They could have improved on that for convenience simply by making a feature to tie it to your profile and require the Internet for that. That way, the worst that could happen is two gamers share the same disk.
We need millions of taxpayers, especially small businesses to not only refuse to pay their taxes but dare the government to arrest them for tax evasion until we have a fair and easy to enforce tax code. When I say dare, I mean in the sense of forcing the government to literally go to war or back down and fix the system.
Because for most people, college is trade school for people "too good" to go to trade school. That's putting it charitably since for the majority, it's probably just a 4 year extended vacation with some academics.
The reality is that most people would be substantially better off if they had parents that actually stayed together by that age in their lives and would let them work full time while living at home to build a really large amount of savings. In terms of material prosperity they'd have little to no debt, 4 years work experience toward their future and a massive pile of cash even if they were making minimum wage for the whole time.
And after 9/11, you could probably have gotten the same results for warrantless wiretapping, indefinite detention, etc. This is why we have a republic, not a democracy. The rightness of a public policy is not measured by popular support. The only real reason to go by what is popular is that if you constantly ignore the popular will on things that are neutral or right, you risk delegitimizing the government.
The BB gun incident seems to have happened off of school property. If she did this at home the charges applied (explosives, dangerous toys, blah blah blah at school) would not have been applicable. The government's standard response with stuff involving schools and "danger" is "kill it with fire" to appease the parents who might freak out if something HAD happened and the few squeaky wheels who are such bed-wetters that they'll call into question the integrity, intelligence, etc. of people who "let this happen."
I suppose it's easier to overcome mental health problems if one believes that they bear no responsibility for their troubles and that an infinitely powerful being will make everything okay if they just believe. A metaphysical placebo.
You stumbled into a very obvious false dichotomy trying to make a dig at believers here. It's perfectly possible, even necessary from an Abrahamic (as in all 3 religions) perspective to say that you bear responsibility and that God will deliver you. Far from being an avoidance of responsibility it becomes a rallying point to take responsibility and move forward.
Menlo Park-based Facebook and Mountain View-based Google are both in the district represented by Assemblyman Rich Gordon, D-Menlo Park, who said he hasn't made up his mind on the bill, but is looking for the "sweet spot" where privacy is protected "but you don't completely shut off Internet commerce. I'm trying to sort it out."
People don't want to pay for Google, Facebook, etc. Therefore, they use advertising to make a profit. What the privacy advocates don't want to admit here is that anyone using a free, ad-supported service has no moral right to not have their use evaluated for better advertising. This is true even on sites that use AdSense and such as their primary way of delivering content. If you are getting spied on at the WSJ's paid for site, you have a right to shout about that from the roof tops and bay for blood. If you do it on Google News, you're kidding yourself.
We do need more commerce. A lot more of it and a lot less advertising in our business models.
Whenever a company uses illegal tactics (I would assume this could be considered defamatory in Taiwan) to advance a product against competitors, just fine them based on a simple fee schedule that is the total number of products sold against the harmed competitor(s) times a sliding scale of severity based on how anti-competitive it was. If that means billions in fines, so be it. Just make it so black and white and inflexible that it becomes a matter of "did you do it?" "Yes?" "Then pay "$x * y" in fines and restitution.
People like Feinstein don't want to face the judgmental reality that some people are just incorrigibly violent and dangerous. Many others are such that they won't have an epiphany about not hurting their fellow man until the system rains down fire and brimstone on their heads (ex. many small time violent criminals) often in a way that ruins their life.
You are trying to understand low to non-existent empathy people from the perspective of normal empathy. You can't. Their brains are probably almost as alien in many ways as a jungle cat or a wolf's brain.
Liberals don't like to face the fact that evil people are very often not insane. In fact they are probably some of the most brutally realistic people you'll ever meet and can function on a level equal to or higher than the average joe in the social order.
In the name of fighting money laundering--an activity primarily associated with the War on Drugs--Congress passed a law requiring all transactions around $5k or more to be logged and sent to federal law enforcement. Paying in cash for everything is now being called a sign you might be a terrorist. Paying in cash is also *gasp* resistant to DDoS attacks. The coralling of most of our commerce into the hands of banks has effectively made banks a target that can cripple unrelated businesses. If we were mostly a cash society, it'd be no big deal. The worst a DDoS could do is delay the processing of your paycheck or an ATM withdrawal.
Just because the US has done this stuff doesn't mean we have any obligation to take the risk that it would be done to us. Or do you also believe that a rapist should be raped in order to punish them for their crime?
My school had a few real meth heads when I was in high school. The harm that regular meth did was demonstrable in a way that made DARE completely unnecessary. A lot of students actually avoided meth because they saw the harm it did (damaged intelligence, rotting teeth, misc health issues, etc.)
Just calling the kid(s) on stage at a pep rally for 5 minutes and saying "kids, this is what regular meth use does. This is why we don't want you to use meth. Now Johnny, Susy, etc. please be seated." would stop 95% of kids from ever doing meth. It's not like a STD or something like that it's so in-your-face and repeatable that only morons (even by teen standards) would think it doesn't apply to them.
Slashdot Mirror
Even though the Foxconn suicide rate was about the same as the rest of the country, the media and various agitators saw fit to demonize Foxconn as though it were in the same vein of blood-for-profit as the African diamond trade. Now lo and behold, Foxconn has said "fuck this, robots are cheaper" and a million Chinese are going to lose their jobs because of your histrionics over a few deaths by mentally unstable people.
And yeah, Foxconn's jobs may suck by American standards. However they were pure gold if you came from rural China where you probably had the same hours, even more back-breaking work and probably a worse place to sleep at night than a Foxconn dormitory.
Maybe there's a boat load of trade secrets in the closed source drivers, but I'd imagine that this is a perfect area for patents to be used against competitors. It would seem to me that most hardware vendors would benefit from open sourcing their main drivers and documenting them lightly so that they could offload maintenance costs for smaller OSes to "the community" while relying on patent law to protect novel inventions.
Attach an email sig line that is the ciphertext of some small paragraph from Google News.
Is for someone to write a new standard API that can sit in parallel to their old one that gives us sanity like string manipulation functions with real names and consistent parameters. You know stuff like:
$x = string::indexOf($source, $needle);
and
$x = string::replaceAll($source, $needle, $regularExpression);
An individual cannot "wage war." An organization that can only field a few attackers here and there cannot "wage war." Waging war implicitly means the ability to attack an enemy, occupy their land and drive out their political authority. Most terrorist organizations cannot field an army capable of occupying a one camel town for more than week, and their affiliates that can are not making war on us.
If the President can use his war powers on them, then he sure as heck can use them on MS13 or any other large scale criminal gang in the US as most of them have more power to inflict severe loss of life and property than 90% of the Islamic terrorist groups.
But if given the choice of watching 15 minutes of the other movies and watching the main trailers on repeat for 15 minutes, I'd choose the new trailers...
1. Most states don't even let you stand your ground when faced with an assailant on the street you can clearly identify. Hacking back is stand your ground without even the requirement of knowing who is attacking you before drawing and using a weapon in many cases (most)?
2. Many corporations have punitive policies that prohibit or limit employees' self-defense rights on their campuses or even during the work hours. For example, I think one of the major pizza chains won't let drivers who regularly drive into very bad parts of town keep even a blunt weapon, let alone a legal firearm on them.
So why should corporations get a right which is dangerous, hard to limit collateral damage and which is a corollary to a right that is badly limited in most parts of the US for the flesh and blood citizens?
It's rare that I quote a famous figure, as so often it's cliche to the point of deserving a cluebat-induced coma. However, I think this quote from Sam Adams accurately describes the state of America (better than the famous Franklin quote so often cited here) and how so many would sacrifice their rights to ensure their happy consumerist lifestyles:
There are several security loopholes here that China could theoretically exploit. Lenovo moving some manufacturing here is an attempt by them to deliberately close one of the big ones, which is what happens to goods in transit between them and their customers. The Chinese intelligence services are extremely unlikely to send people to US soil to pull some stunt because the last thing they'd want is for people connected to a program to sabotage American computer products to be practically in the federal government's lap.
A computer built in the US and shipped via American carriers is significantly less likely to be tampered with in transit. In China, you're trusting that there are no "stops" between the factory and the dock.
It's just a step in the right direction. In that sense and that sense alone you are more correct than wrong.
Apple's products are now just very expensive toys built for an economy that has gone away. The days of a $500-$800 media consumption device aka the iPad are numbered. At the rate the global economy is deterioriating products like the MacBook Pro with Retina Display which is a $3000 boondoggle of barely fixable badness will be considered a sign of mental degradation or material excess.
My next upgrade cycle, after having been with OS X since 10.0 and iOS since the iPhone 3G is looking increasingly like a $500-$1000 PC laptop with Haswell, Linux, a BlackBerry Z10 (or its successor) which has a replaceable battery and a XBox One and Wii U for gaming. All of that together, cheaper and just as good as a midrange MacBook Pro.
You revive gun rights instead. Let's dispense with the boilerplate bullshit about how having a gun might not have saved him and just face a simple fact here. This would be substantially less likely to work in the US because terrorists know that such acts of violence would very likely end with them being met with a hail of bullets from bystanders or the police. In the US, random acts of savagery typically only happen in those areas where criminals know the citizenry cannot be lawfully armed. That those areas also tend to be minimally secured by the government to counter this fact is probably also a feature to them as well...
Sign a patent deal with them that if they will fully fund his defense, he'll agree to not sue anyone and when the case is over he'll turn the patent over to the public domain.
All they had to do was make the installation process work just like it does on the 360 where you have to put the DVD in on start up to prove you own a copy or have physical possession of one. They could have improved on that for convenience simply by making a feature to tie it to your profile and require the Internet for that. That way, the worst that could happen is two gamers share the same disk.
We need millions of taxpayers, especially small businesses to not only refuse to pay their taxes but dare the government to arrest them for tax evasion until we have a fair and easy to enforce tax code. When I say dare, I mean in the sense of forcing the government to literally go to war or back down and fix the system.
Because for most people, college is trade school for people "too good" to go to trade school. That's putting it charitably since for the majority, it's probably just a 4 year extended vacation with some academics.
The reality is that most people would be substantially better off if they had parents that actually stayed together by that age in their lives and would let them work full time while living at home to build a really large amount of savings. In terms of material prosperity they'd have little to no debt, 4 years work experience toward their future and a massive pile of cash even if they were making minimum wage for the whole time.
And after 9/11, you could probably have gotten the same results for warrantless wiretapping, indefinite detention, etc. This is why we have a republic, not a democracy. The rightness of a public policy is not measured by popular support. The only real reason to go by what is popular is that if you constantly ignore the popular will on things that are neutral or right, you risk delegitimizing the government.
The BB gun incident seems to have happened off of school property. If she did this at home the charges applied (explosives, dangerous toys, blah blah blah at school) would not have been applicable. The government's standard response with stuff involving schools and "danger" is "kill it with fire" to appease the parents who might freak out if something HAD happened and the few squeaky wheels who are such bed-wetters that they'll call into question the integrity, intelligence, etc. of people who "let this happen."
You stumbled into a very obvious false dichotomy trying to make a dig at believers here. It's perfectly possible, even necessary from an Abrahamic (as in all 3 religions) perspective to say that you bear responsibility and that God will deliver you. Far from being an avoidance of responsibility it becomes a rallying point to take responsibility and move forward.
People don't want to pay for Google, Facebook, etc. Therefore, they use advertising to make a profit. What the privacy advocates don't want to admit here is that anyone using a free, ad-supported service has no moral right to not have their use evaluated for better advertising. This is true even on sites that use AdSense and such as their primary way of delivering content. If you are getting spied on at the WSJ's paid for site, you have a right to shout about that from the roof tops and bay for blood. If you do it on Google News, you're kidding yourself.
We do need more commerce. A lot more of it and a lot less advertising in our business models.
Whenever a company uses illegal tactics (I would assume this could be considered defamatory in Taiwan) to advance a product against competitors, just fine them based on a simple fee schedule that is the total number of products sold against the harmed competitor(s) times a sliding scale of severity based on how anti-competitive it was. If that means billions in fines, so be it. Just make it so black and white and inflexible that it becomes a matter of "did you do it?" "Yes?" "Then pay "$x * y" in fines and restitution.
People like Feinstein don't want to face the judgmental reality that some people are just incorrigibly violent and dangerous. Many others are such that they won't have an epiphany about not hurting their fellow man until the system rains down fire and brimstone on their heads (ex. many small time violent criminals) often in a way that ruins their life.
You are trying to understand low to non-existent empathy people from the perspective of normal empathy. You can't. Their brains are probably almost as alien in many ways as a jungle cat or a wolf's brain.
Liberals don't like to face the fact that evil people are very often not insane. In fact they are probably some of the most brutally realistic people you'll ever meet and can function on a level equal to or higher than the average joe in the social order.
In the name of fighting money laundering--an activity primarily associated with the War on Drugs--Congress passed a law requiring all transactions around $5k or more to be logged and sent to federal law enforcement. Paying in cash for everything is now being called a sign you might be a terrorist. Paying in cash is also *gasp* resistant to DDoS attacks. The coralling of most of our commerce into the hands of banks has effectively made banks a target that can cripple unrelated businesses. If we were mostly a cash society, it'd be no big deal. The worst a DDoS could do is delay the processing of your paycheck or an ATM withdrawal.
Just because the US has done this stuff doesn't mean we have any obligation to take the risk that it would be done to us. Or do you also believe that a rapist should be raped in order to punish them for their crime?
My school had a few real meth heads when I was in high school. The harm that regular meth did was demonstrable in a way that made DARE completely unnecessary. A lot of students actually avoided meth because they saw the harm it did (damaged intelligence, rotting teeth, misc health issues, etc.)
Just calling the kid(s) on stage at a pep rally for 5 minutes and saying "kids, this is what regular meth use does. This is why we don't want you to use meth. Now Johnny, Susy, etc. please be seated." would stop 95% of kids from ever doing meth. It's not like a STD or something like that it's so in-your-face and repeatable that only morons (even by teen standards) would think it doesn't apply to them.