Yes and no. All users have a mental model of how a system should work. When a design deviates from this model drastically, it creates usability issues. Designs should be intuitive, and should require little explanation (no one ever reads manuals or help files).
As a UI professional the general rule of thumb I use is if the user doesn't figure it out by his or her second "guess", your design is bad and needs to be redone. Good designs are the ones where the user doesn't really notice the UI (or its relative complexity) at all. Basically in most cases if a user can't "grok" what to do by just looking at it, you have a problem.
There's also no substitute for conducting usability tests. The results from these tests can't really be argued with, if there's a problem or stumbling block, it needs to be addressed. You'd be surprised how dumb little things like a misplaced button will cause a 2 minute task to average well over 15 minutes.
(2) "Designers" who can't code have absolutely no business "working" in software.
Nope. Like everyone else on this thread, I'm calling bullshit on this. In my particular case, I actually am a developer and can code the layouts I design, but that hasn't been my focus (or job) for quite a while now.
While it definitely helps to have a background in development (or at least a good understanding of what can and can't be done easily on the backend), I wouldn't say it's critical. My assumption with regards to open source projects is that most design suggestions are often summarily shot down or ridiculed, partly because developers rarely understand the reasons why things should be done a certain way (most common response is "that's stupid"), and because the nature of post-UI design often slights the developer who created it by having to change what they implemented.
The easy usability gains are having a consistent UI (having well defined design and behavior), and sticking to existing standards (unless there is a really good case or gain to be had by ignoring it). Products immediately become inherently more usable if they are consistent in how they present information.
No, "they" don't care about the mundane details of your life... until the way you live your life in some way threatens "them."
The thing that most people don't realize is that "them" is subjective. Traditionally as the individuals who speak for / control the groupthink gain more power, more and more people start to fall outside this preferred class.
Just because you have nothing to worry about today (because they're looking for people of middle eastern descent) doesn't mean you have nothing to worry when they expand that scope due to convenient societal events. If we don't sufficiently protect the innocent, we're really just at the mercy of those doing the labeling. If we don't demand rights that were taken away to be restored at a specific point in time, the government will soon feel entitled to those rights. Rights that the government feels entitled to have historically not been relinquished without severe turmoil and unrest.
A friend of my mother worked for directly for the mayor of a moderately sized city in Wisconsin (50k people). After accepting the position, the local police did an in-depth background check on her and attempted to blackmail her with the trivial bits they found to gain leverage over the mayor (as did other local agencies and politically interested parties).
Within 2-3 months, anonymous postings criticizing the mayor appeared all over the local forums and message boards. In response, the mayor sent out all information that he managed to gain access to (emails, IP logs, etc) to any contacts of direct reports that had IT knowledge to attempt to locate the source of the postings (myself included). Although the reason for this was not written down, the friend said it was strongly hinted that the mayor wanted to silence the criticism. My mother's friend resigned shortly afterwards.
Politicians are not as dumb as they appear to be. Some are very smart and have little in the way of morals. They only need a publicly believable reason to ask for something, but do not assume that that politician does not understand the consequences. A lot of times certain phrases are used (think of the children, etc) because politicians know it has a high success rate.
If Americans should be reprimanded about anything in recent times, it should likely be that politicians are not as dumb as they appear. Politicians often feign ignorance because it gives them plausible deniability on the issue, and American society seems to be very forgiving of people who don't know any better.
Whether the politician is smart or dumb, the American public would do well not to give poorly implemented ideas a free pass.
Q: Is it true that there is freedom of speech in the Soviet Union the same as there is in the USA?
A: In principle, yes. In the USA, you can stand in front of the White House in Washington, DC, and yell, "Down with Reagan!", and you will not be punished. Just the same, you can stand in the Red Square in Moscow and yell, "Down with Reagan!", and you will not be punished.
In honor of the 30th anniversary of Star Wars, NASA will launch Luke Skywalker's original Jedi lightsaber into space along with the crew of the space shuttle Discovery....
Did anyone else interpret that as meaning that both the lightsaber and the crew would be fired into deep space?
I'm very concerned about my civil liberties, but I'm even more concerned that the the next time I take the 'plane, the bus, the subway - or I'm just sitting at my desk, or on holiday with my family - I might get wiped out by some terrorist.
According to a nifty study done in 2003, your odds of dying (per year) due to a terrorist act (assuming you're not blowing yourself up) are 1 in 77,292. And that number was calculated by lumping roughly 30 other causes of death in along with it (that's a fair bit of data skewing). The actual odds are likely 3 times as remote as that (if not more) if the real data would be taken into account. (What's it been pre and post 2001, like under 500 each year before and after if you include school shootings and such?)
Your chances of dying en route to your destination as a passenger (1 in 6,050), and as a driver (1 in 6,498) should scare you and your family far more than any act of terrorism. Lifetime odds for heart disease (1 in 5), cancer (1 in 7) and stroke (1 in 24) should be scaring the crap out of you far more than any planned act of violence. If we'd have shoved a third of the money spent on the war on terrorism on reducing the risk of cancer, heart disease and stroke, we'd likely all have a much longer life.
By fearing an act of terrorism, you are enabling them to win. By focusing our attention on them, we are proving that it is a viable method of controlling the population of the United States. By panicking at the mere mention of a possible act of terrorism, we are begging our government to take away some of our liberties. And what right do we have to our liberties when we so readily ask our government to use any means necessary to fix the problem for us?
America should not respond to these threats with cowardice. Countering violence with more violence is not the solution, but the act of a country fearful of the terrorists committing these acts. The terrorists need to know that what they do will not change us, and will not change who we are. America should really just turn to them and say, "Go ahead and do your worst. We shall still be here at the end. We will NOT be intimidated by you. We shall prevail." A leader with any kind of backbone and dignity would not have reduced this country to the same level as our enemy. It has only emboldened the terrorists and confirmed that what they are doing (acts of violence) will achieve the results they seek.
So do not fear them. Any person who resorts to resolving an argument via violence is not one who should merit our respect as an equal.
Experts are dubbing the shift to Yahoo's cluttered home page the "MySpace" effect. In response, Yahoo! has announced it will introduce a new selectable theme for the younger generation, called OMG Ponies.
Who says you need to solve any of these problems to be a space-faring race? They're as likely to be Klingons as Vulcans (both of whom seemed perfectly capable of developing warp drives!)
Yeah, fiction is good at avoiding loopholes like that. There are few major hurdles to interstellar traffic. Having a renewable energy source for traveling, discovering a method to travel at near-light or faster than light speed, and then being able to keep the passengers from dying in transit (due to prolonged exposure and other gotchas, length of the journey, and possibly reproduction issues).
The ET's don't need to be god-like, but if they mastered the basics, they'll still pretty much appear that way to us when they show up.
In the immortal words of Douglas Adams, "Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-boggingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space."
Now for a tangible reference. Imagine the internet without search engines or any search capabilities other than blind stumbling. Now try to locate the only blog entry John Jones III made 2 years ago. Sure there's a ton of stuff out there, but most of its crap and doesn't give you any hints of where to look next. That's kinda what space is like, except bigger.
If extra-terrestrials do exist out there (which they probably do), the question is more likely "Why would they even bother with us?" Honestly, if they have solved mortality, interstellar travel, and a slew of other issues that it takes to become a space-faring race, why would they be interested in us? Even mild scientific curiosity can be satisfied by scooping up a few of us and dissecting us.
Reasons to Visit Earth:
- Humans make fun pets. ("Look, dear! Talking monkeys!")
- Curious as to what humans taste like.
- Anal probes are the equivalent of interstellar cow tipping.
- Human horn is an aphodesiac.
Reasons Not to Visit Earth:
- Same reason a level 70 in World of Warcraft avoids starter areas. There's no point.
- Stupid humans keep wanting the ET's to just solve their problems for them.
- The last guy that got stranded in Roswell was carved up like a turkey.
- Same reason why humans don't bother to explain how microwaves work to dolphins. Sure they can talk, but they don't understand a damn word we say.
Elton John a few years ago said he [quit] recording. What Elton John is saying is that he is tired of the lack of creativity that the Internet is spawning. In fact on that level he is 100% right.
Wrong. The internet is a low-cost medium for creating shared content, period. The fact that at least 90% of this content is rubbish is irrelevant. I'd wager about 90% of all musicians out there are rubbish as well. Elton is just used to having all his music pre-filtered for crap by the record labels.
In the past, our access was limited to what the a record label deemed profitable. As such almost all music essentially had to be picked out of the 10% of musicians who were 'good' and had mass appeal. Picking a niche musician who would appeal to a million sparsely distributed people was not feasible previously, since distribution is impractical.
All the internet has done has removed the 'record label / distributor' role out of the mix. The cost of distribution is so low now that record labels will likely die out in the next few years. A 'producer' role is still needed to create high quality content in studios, but artists that were previously denied a spot in the marketplace can now occupy their own small niche. It will be much more difficult to become a multi-million dollar rock star in the internet world, but it should be much easier to become a profitable musician.
All we are witnessing are the death throes of the record labels. But die they will. And for people like Elton, there are websites (and will be websites) that will help with sorting through the available music for gems.
or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the... effect of... undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq
What's interesting is that technically this executive order could be used to freeze the assets of democratic rivals, since the majority of them are in favor of ceasing US involvement in Iraq (hence undermining reconstruction efforts). The fallout for President Bush might be disastrous, but it's likely that the court system wouldn't be able to undo the damage in time for an election if the seizure was timed correctly.
The bottom line is we've never punished a president, ever. The most that has ever happened is that person's actions are eventually overturned or defeated (sometimes years) after the fact. The Constitution relies on Congress to keep the President in check if an act is viewed as gross abuse of power.
While orders like these are questionable, I think that they're good for democracy. Let's face it, if we can't defend our freedoms, we're going to lose them. Whether it's a democrat, republican or other in office, we need to fight for the freedoms we want. It's a lot harder to get them back once they're taken from you.
i've always had trouble with this idea. my primary reason, is that the future hasn't happened so how can it exist before the present?
You're still hung up on the concept of time. Time is something we made up to predict what will happen next. The fact that we might be able to force the effect before the cause doesn't violate any law of the universe, except the "time" one that we made up. What's important is that without the cause, there is no effect.
The universe is quite logical. I doubt it will ever put itself in a position where information from the future can be used to change that future. More likely we've found a method to transmit information instantaneously across any amount of space. Even though the information arrives before I send it, the universe likely has some rules in place that I can't interpret that information until the signal send point in time.
I wouldn't worry much. The universe seems pretty robust. If an event can happen in reverse order, there's likely to be a logical set of rules that apply to it.
Oh, and who cares what the politicians do on their own time. I really think the news media's constant need to entertain us and invent news stories has killed the political process in this country.
I tend to think that politicians should be allowed to have a private life, but after the whole grilling-the-president-over-Monica thing, Congress kinda set a new standard of allowed conduct. I personally think they should be able to do with their semi-private (they are public employees after all) life whatever they want to, but the Clinton scandal changed that.
Either the public grilling and humiliation given to Clinton was appropriate, which means this is also is appropriate. Or it wasn't, in which case Clinton probably should get an apology. But since the media thinks it sells, it probably means that politicians need to behave themselves more (or just be more open about their personal life). In either case, I think it's likely to be a good thing for the general public over the long run. Hopefully this means we'll get more honest people into office, or at least people that are smarter than the current crowd and lie better.
One you publish and distribute the works, you are no longer the sole "owner" of them. You were the originator of the idea or work, so you should be allowed a period of time to profit from your labors. But there's no justifiable reason I can see that other "owners" of the work should not be allowed to try their hand at profiting from it if you have sat on your ass and failed to do so (after a period of time).
I'd wager that the original copyright act with the 14 year limit was based on observations and reasoning by the founders, along with examining existing precedent. Todays' copyright law has less auspicious foundations.
Bottom line is, you created something, so what? It's up to you to make money off it. If you can't, tough shit, let someone else try. If you can, milk it while you can, but other people get to try their hand eventually too.
If the court finds that Google is required to police the content in advertisements, it would open up the door for a whole slew of liability lawsuits against Google. It's quite likely they would strongly consider pulling out of that market altogether, as the cost to combat the lawyers that would come running would likely be quite large.
Oh, he can be removed from office sooner than that. The trick is finding anyone in Congress with enough gahones to do it.
Personally I'd rather have impeaching presidents happen more often. Nothing else I've seen seems to work for the political asshats that seem to occupy the government nowadays. (Regardless of party affiliation.)
Question:
"If you have nothing to hide, why should you worry?"
Answer:
"Because I don't trust you not to abuse the information you collect on me."
There is a huge risk of corruption when the people in power are allowed to know everything about a person and his or her activities, and the person being watched is not afforded the same liberty for the ones doing the watching. We essentially become surfs, or worse, slaves to these people in power.
When a government can, at a whim, imply that a person has done something "questionable" (not going into detail due to "security reasons") potentially ruining a person's life forever, what check exists to prevent those in power from abusing this for personal gain? Losing your right to privacy means that your right to make a living how you see fit is now subject to the whim of the government. No government should have that much power.
In simpler terms:
1. When the people in power fear the disapproval of the commons, you have a democracy.
2. When the commons fear the disapproval of the people in power, you have a dictatorship.
I read those two statements above and feel more and more each day that the United States is falling towards definition number two. Essentially a repeat of McCarthyism.
As a citizen, the only way I would willingly give up my privacy is if the government was not allowed to keep anything secret from a citizen. (Think the freedom of Information Act on mega-steroids.) This will never happen due to "national security" issues, so I must therefore push that personal privacy must be only allowed to be violated when clear, judicially overseen evidence is available and a reason to do so exists. Failing that we are handing the government a tool far more dangerous to its citizens than any terrorist could inflict on us.
People should still be allowed to make any aspect of their life public knowledge. But no person should be compelled to do so without clear evidence that what they are doing violates a law. The potential risk of abuse is too great to entrust this right to our current system of government.
I have seen carbon fiber get a good scratch in it and the next thing you know it is in a million part small parts.
I'd be most interested to see how well a carbon fiber wing holds up with a bullet hole or deliberate small defect in it. I'd hate to think that a terrorist-type person could take a good rifle and put a hole in a wing that would cause the wing to shatter mid-flight. I'd imagine aluminum can take a little beating like this and be fine, but I'd be interested to see if this new material could as well.
There are numerous places on the earth where great wrongs (like state-sponsored murder and such) are committed. I'm glad that the US occasionally sends troops to try and punish these people. However, I wish the US would act more of a supporter and enabler than a freedom installer. We can not hope to facilitate a false rebellion. Either the people are ready to rise up against the evil forces lauding over them, or they are not. If they are ready our support is merely just to speed up the process. If they are not ready the process will drag out because they are unwilling to support it.
In the end it must be the people that rise up to fight, not the US. Because eventually the US will leave, as we are not often viewed as the legitimate government of the territories we control. And without this sense of legitimacy we cannot maintain control. So in the end if the people do not rise up and fight for the government they wish to have, they will not be able to keep it and the US will not be able to maintain it for them. Because if a person does not wish to again live under a dictatorship, when given the chance they will oppose it's reinstallment tooth and nail.
Our current occupation is fueling the Iraqi people to rise up, but they are rising against us. As such we must respect their wishes and leave (or crush them utterly). Our vision of Iraq is not what their vision of Iraq is. They may be wrong, we may know they to be wrong in this decision, but it should be their decision to make. They will probably be burned by their decision, but there is nothing that I currently see the US can do to change their minds.
Bad things may happen from their decision, but they will learn from it. We can not help those who are now unwilling to receive our help. (And I refer to the people of Iraq, not the leaders of it.)
What could be more ontopic here than the fact that the Bush administration is lawless and refuses to comply with the most basic provisions of international law? The use of torture means that every new power grab must be resisted.
The US seems to have contracted countries not adherent to the torture provisions to extract information from the individuals they hand over into their custody. Since the CIA person who is present at these interrogations is only "observing", they are likely not in violation of the provision. And I'd also wager that any money flowing to these countries has been washed through a third party to absolve the US of any wrongdoing do to a law technicality.
This administration does two things really well: outsourcing tasks and legal ass-hattery. They seem to be adept at doing things that are outright morally questionable while staying clear of legal boundaries. If you want to stop them and their ass-hattery, write better laws and restrict how they can route funds.
And don't fear this administration as much as the administration that takes what they've done and improves upon it.
Slashdot Mirror
(1) "Usability" is in the mind of the user.
Yes and no. All users have a mental model of how a system should work. When a design deviates from this model drastically, it creates usability issues. Designs should be intuitive, and should require little explanation (no one ever reads manuals or help files).
As a UI professional the general rule of thumb I use is if the user doesn't figure it out by his or her second "guess", your design is bad and needs to be redone. Good designs are the ones where the user doesn't really notice the UI (or its relative complexity) at all. Basically in most cases if a user can't "grok" what to do by just looking at it, you have a problem.
There's also no substitute for conducting usability tests. The results from these tests can't really be argued with, if there's a problem or stumbling block, it needs to be addressed. You'd be surprised how dumb little things like a misplaced button will cause a 2 minute task to average well over 15 minutes.
(2) "Designers" who can't code have absolutely no business "working" in software.
Nope. Like everyone else on this thread, I'm calling bullshit on this. In my particular case, I actually am a developer and can code the layouts I design, but that hasn't been my focus (or job) for quite a while now.
While it definitely helps to have a background in development (or at least a good understanding of what can and can't be done easily on the backend), I wouldn't say it's critical. My assumption with regards to open source projects is that most design suggestions are often summarily shot down or ridiculed, partly because developers rarely understand the reasons why things should be done a certain way (most common response is "that's stupid"), and because the nature of post-UI design often slights the developer who created it by having to change what they implemented.
The easy usability gains are having a consistent UI (having well defined design and behavior), and sticking to existing standards (unless there is a really good case or gain to be had by ignoring it). Products immediately become inherently more usable if they are consistent in how they present information.
No, "they" don't care about the mundane details of your life... until the way you live your life in some way threatens "them."
The thing that most people don't realize is that "them" is subjective. Traditionally as the individuals who speak for / control the groupthink gain more power, more and more people start to fall outside this preferred class.
Just because you have nothing to worry about today (because they're looking for people of middle eastern descent) doesn't mean you have nothing to worry when they expand that scope due to convenient societal events. If we don't sufficiently protect the innocent, we're really just at the mercy of those doing the labeling. If we don't demand rights that were taken away to be restored at a specific point in time, the government will soon feel entitled to those rights. Rights that the government feels entitled to have historically not been relinquished without severe turmoil and unrest.
A friend of my mother worked for directly for the mayor of a moderately sized city in Wisconsin (50k people). After accepting the position, the local police did an in-depth background check on her and attempted to blackmail her with the trivial bits they found to gain leverage over the mayor (as did other local agencies and politically interested parties).
Within 2-3 months, anonymous postings criticizing the mayor appeared all over the local forums and message boards. In response, the mayor sent out all information that he managed to gain access to (emails, IP logs, etc) to any contacts of direct reports that had IT knowledge to attempt to locate the source of the postings (myself included). Although the reason for this was not written down, the friend said it was strongly hinted that the mayor wanted to silence the criticism. My mother's friend resigned shortly afterwards.
Politicians are not as dumb as they appear to be. Some are very smart and have little in the way of morals. They only need a publicly believable reason to ask for something, but do not assume that that politician does not understand the consequences. A lot of times certain phrases are used (think of the children, etc) because politicians know it has a high success rate.
If Americans should be reprimanded about anything in recent times, it should likely be that politicians are not as dumb as they appear. Politicians often feign ignorance because it gives them plausible deniability on the issue, and American society seems to be very forgiving of people who don't know any better.
Whether the politician is smart or dumb, the American public would do well not to give poorly implemented ideas a free pass.
Q: Is it true that there is freedom of speech in the Soviet Union the same as there is in the USA?
A: In principle, yes. In the USA, you can stand in front of the White House in Washington, DC, and yell, "Down with Reagan!", and you will not be punished. Just the same, you can stand in the Red Square in Moscow and yell, "Down with Reagan!", and you will not be punished.
Because if intelligent people ignored news like this our country would be deteriorating much faster than it already is.
Your chances of dying en route to your destination as a passenger (1 in 6,050), and as a driver (1 in 6,498) should scare you and your family far more than any act of terrorism. Lifetime odds for heart disease (1 in 5), cancer (1 in 7) and stroke (1 in 24) should be scaring the crap out of you far more than any planned act of violence. If we'd have shoved a third of the money spent on the war on terrorism on reducing the risk of cancer, heart disease and stroke, we'd likely all have a much longer life.
By fearing an act of terrorism, you are enabling them to win. By focusing our attention on them, we are proving that it is a viable method of controlling the population of the United States. By panicking at the mere mention of a possible act of terrorism, we are begging our government to take away some of our liberties. And what right do we have to our liberties when we so readily ask our government to use any means necessary to fix the problem for us?
America should not respond to these threats with cowardice. Countering violence with more violence is not the solution, but the act of a country fearful of the terrorists committing these acts. The terrorists need to know that what they do will not change us, and will not change who we are. America should really just turn to them and say, "Go ahead and do your worst. We shall still be here at the end. We will NOT be intimidated by you. We shall prevail." A leader with any kind of backbone and dignity would not have reduced this country to the same level as our enemy. It has only emboldened the terrorists and confirmed that what they are doing (acts of violence) will achieve the results they seek.
So do not fear them. Any person who resorts to resolving an argument via violence is not one who should merit our respect as an equal.
Experts are dubbing the shift to Yahoo's cluttered home page the "MySpace" effect. In response, Yahoo! has announced it will introduce a new selectable theme for the younger generation, called OMG Ponies.
The ET's don't need to be god-like, but if they mastered the basics, they'll still pretty much appear that way to us when they show up.
If extra-terrestrials do exist out there (which they probably do), the question is more likely "Why would they even bother with us?" Honestly, if they have solved mortality, interstellar travel, and a slew of other issues that it takes to become a space-faring race, why would they be interested in us? Even mild scientific curiosity can be satisfied by scooping up a few of us and dissecting us.
Reasons to Visit Earth:
- Humans make fun pets. ("Look, dear! Talking monkeys!")
- Curious as to what humans taste like.
- Anal probes are the equivalent of interstellar cow tipping.
- Human horn is an aphodesiac.
Reasons Not to Visit Earth:
- Same reason a level 70 in World of Warcraft avoids starter areas. There's no point.
- Stupid humans keep wanting the ET's to just solve their problems for them.
- The last guy that got stranded in Roswell was carved up like a turkey.
- Same reason why humans don't bother to explain how microwaves work to dolphins. Sure they can talk, but they don't understand a damn word we say.
In the past, our access was limited to what the a record label deemed profitable. As such almost all music essentially had to be picked out of the 10% of musicians who were 'good' and had mass appeal. Picking a niche musician who would appeal to a million sparsely distributed people was not feasible previously, since distribution is impractical.
All the internet has done has removed the 'record label / distributor' role out of the mix. The cost of distribution is so low now that record labels will likely die out in the next few years. A 'producer' role is still needed to create high quality content in studios, but artists that were previously denied a spot in the marketplace can now occupy their own small niche. It will be much more difficult to become a multi-million dollar rock star in the internet world, but it should be much easier to become a profitable musician.
All we are witnessing are the death throes of the record labels. But die they will. And for people like Elton, there are websites (and will be websites) that will help with sorting through the available music for gems.
The bottom line is we've never punished a president, ever. The most that has ever happened is that person's actions are eventually overturned or defeated (sometimes years) after the fact. The Constitution relies on Congress to keep the President in check if an act is viewed as gross abuse of power.
While orders like these are questionable, I think that they're good for democracy. Let's face it, if we can't defend our freedoms, we're going to lose them. Whether it's a democrat, republican or other in office, we need to fight for the freedoms we want. It's a lot harder to get them back once they're taken from you.
The universe is quite logical. I doubt it will ever put itself in a position where information from the future can be used to change that future. More likely we've found a method to transmit information instantaneously across any amount of space. Even though the information arrives before I send it, the universe likely has some rules in place that I can't interpret that information until the signal send point in time.
I wouldn't worry much. The universe seems pretty robust. If an event can happen in reverse order, there's likely to be a logical set of rules that apply to it.
Either the public grilling and humiliation given to Clinton was appropriate, which means this is also is appropriate. Or it wasn't, in which case Clinton probably should get an apology. But since the media thinks it sells, it probably means that politicians need to behave themselves more (or just be more open about their personal life). In either case, I think it's likely to be a good thing for the general public over the long run. Hopefully this means we'll get more honest people into office, or at least people that are smarter than the current crowd and lie better.
One you publish and distribute the works, you are no longer the sole "owner" of them. You were the originator of the idea or work, so you should be allowed a period of time to profit from your labors. But there's no justifiable reason I can see that other "owners" of the work should not be allowed to try their hand at profiting from it if you have sat on your ass and failed to do so (after a period of time).
I'd wager that the original copyright act with the 14 year limit was based on observations and reasoning by the founders, along with examining existing precedent. Todays' copyright law has less auspicious foundations.
Bottom line is, you created something, so what? It's up to you to make money off it. If you can't, tough shit, let someone else try. If you can, milk it while you can, but other people get to try their hand eventually too.
If the court finds that Google is required to police the content in advertisements, it would open up the door for a whole slew of liability lawsuits against Google. It's quite likely they would strongly consider pulling out of that market altogether, as the cost to combat the lawyers that would come running would likely be quite large.
Personally I'd rather have impeaching presidents happen more often. Nothing else I've seen seems to work for the political asshats that seem to occupy the government nowadays. (Regardless of party affiliation.)
Question:
"If you have nothing to hide, why should you worry?"
Answer:
"Because I don't trust you not to abuse the information you collect on me."
There is a huge risk of corruption when the people in power are allowed to know everything about a person and his or her activities, and the person being watched is not afforded the same liberty for the ones doing the watching. We essentially become surfs, or worse, slaves to these people in power.
When a government can, at a whim, imply that a person has done something "questionable" (not going into detail due to "security reasons") potentially ruining a person's life forever, what check exists to prevent those in power from abusing this for personal gain? Losing your right to privacy means that your right to make a living how you see fit is now subject to the whim of the government. No government should have that much power.
In simpler terms:
1. When the people in power fear the disapproval of the commons, you have a democracy.
2. When the commons fear the disapproval of the people in power, you have a dictatorship.
I read those two statements above and feel more and more each day that the United States is falling towards definition number two. Essentially a repeat of McCarthyism.
As a citizen, the only way I would willingly give up my privacy is if the government was not allowed to keep anything secret from a citizen. (Think the freedom of Information Act on mega-steroids.) This will never happen due to "national security" issues, so I must therefore push that personal privacy must be only allowed to be violated when clear, judicially overseen evidence is available and a reason to do so exists. Failing that we are handing the government a tool far more dangerous to its citizens than any terrorist could inflict on us.
People should still be allowed to make any aspect of their life public knowledge. But no person should be compelled to do so without clear evidence that what they are doing violates a law. The potential risk of abuse is too great to entrust this right to our current system of government.
Does this mean the RIAA may actually have to face the music? *snickers*
There are numerous places on the earth where great wrongs (like state-sponsored murder and such) are committed. I'm glad that the US occasionally sends troops to try and punish these people. However, I wish the US would act more of a supporter and enabler than a freedom installer. We can not hope to facilitate a false rebellion. Either the people are ready to rise up against the evil forces lauding over them, or they are not. If they are ready our support is merely just to speed up the process. If they are not ready the process will drag out because they are unwilling to support it.
In the end it must be the people that rise up to fight, not the US. Because eventually the US will leave, as we are not often viewed as the legitimate government of the territories we control. And without this sense of legitimacy we cannot maintain control. So in the end if the people do not rise up and fight for the government they wish to have, they will not be able to keep it and the US will not be able to maintain it for them. Because if a person does not wish to again live under a dictatorship, when given the chance they will oppose it's reinstallment tooth and nail.
Our current occupation is fueling the Iraqi people to rise up, but they are rising against us. As such we must respect their wishes and leave (or crush them utterly). Our vision of Iraq is not what their vision of Iraq is. They may be wrong, we may know they to be wrong in this decision, but it should be their decision to make. They will probably be burned by their decision, but there is nothing that I currently see the US can do to change their minds.
Bad things may happen from their decision, but they will learn from it. We can not help those who are now unwilling to receive our help. (And I refer to the people of Iraq, not the leaders of it.)
This administration does two things really well: outsourcing tasks and legal ass-hattery. They seem to be adept at doing things that are outright morally questionable while staying clear of legal boundaries. If you want to stop them and their ass-hattery, write better laws and restrict how they can route funds.
And don't fear this administration as much as the administration that takes what they've done and improves upon it.