The truth is that "intellectual" property is imaginary. It was only until I read that phrase in this very article that the issue had been nailed home so clearly in my head.
I would define property as an item that can be demonstrated to have a concrete value. Intellectual property would then be a creative construct that has a provable value. Most creative endeavors result in failure, and have no value. However, when an artist creates a successful song, he has proven that there is a market demand for the song, and therefore it obviously has value. The artist has invested time and resources into the song to create value in it, so that artist should be able to recoup profits if he or she so chooses.
However, I would argue that market demand for creative works wanes quickly, and the artist in question should only have the right to profit off a creative work for a comparable (and fair) amount of time before it becomes public domain.
My solution would be to limit this "copyright" for the creative work to a period of around 10 years from the date of the first "sale" of the work in question. At the moment that you sell a creative work, you have proven that it has value, and the clock should begin ticking for it to become public domain.
While there will be a few creative products that will show exceptional merit and market presence, the majority of items will not. Using the song example, an artist is free to create a new recording of the song in question to profit from, as it would be a new work. However, that artist should not have the right to control the original work that the new recording is based off of beyond the "copyright" period.
In short, creative works should exist to benefit society as a whole. The person who succeeded in generating value around a creative work should be rewarded, but should not be the sole decider on how that work best benefits the public.
It is a problem, because in a lot of these people's minds there is no moral difference between the two systems. In other words, they live by the patterns they learned in the dictatorship, while enjoying the benefits of a democracy.
The success of a democracy depends upon the vigor of the people who must live under it. A democracy will naturally decay into an autocracy borne on the momentum of a politician's natural greed, a wealthy merchant's money, and the indifference of its people. In a lax democracy, the people will say about their leaders, "There's nothing I can do." In an earnest democracy, the people will say about their leaders, "I will do even better."
if youre expecting immediately practical programming experience from entry level cs grads youre barking up the wrong tree, it would be like expecting 2 years floor trading experience from a corporate finance grad.
I really don't care whether the job candidate has a CS degree or not, we currently just use it as a useful "weed out" point to separate out those who can be taught skills, and those who can't. We interview CS grads and programmers with previous experience, and my claim that most programmers write bad code applies to both categories. (So do the examples I cite.)
The bar is set differently for entry-level and those with experience, but there's still a bar. The job candidate has to show us programming potential or skill, which is why we have multiple parts to the interview. Hiring bad programmers is just too costly.
I wouldn't expect people to get to any real intense level of detail in an on-site interview. It takes your company weeks to do a build, why expect someone coming in to be able to build a robust application in a few hours.
Hiring a person is expensive. The time it takes a developer to be minimally trained on a system can be anywhere from 2 to 6 months. Each developer requires a high-powered computer with all the required software tools. The average developer also gets paid quite a bit above the average office worker. For a small company, choosing a bad programmer can severely tank the company's prospects.
This is why so many permanent programming jobs start out as temp gigs. This allows the company to terminate the employment after seeing the person's work habits and skills first-hand. Most larger companies have enough small tasks that need to be done that new hires can do during this "evaluation phase".
So while I doubt most programmers would expect to be tested on their chops on the spot, it's a very useful tool. We've used it to great success to hire very talented programmers.
I've interviewed job candidates for the past 2 years for a small company and the honest truth of the matter is that most people with CS degrees are horrible programmers. About 50% don't make it past the phone interview, and of those who do, we've probably hired about 20%. We're mainly a C# shop, but we look for anyone with OOP background and if they know a C language or Java we'll phone them up for a pre-screen.
We require the candidate to do a couple critical thinking and programming tasks during the on-site interview, and you'd be surprised how bad other people's code can be. Three or more loops to collect data that could be done in one. No persistent data storage for objects. No comments in the code. Inability to fix code to the desired standard after being handed a spec. Not testing the code to see if it works (not even a paper run through).
The critical thinking exercises help us see how an individual tackles and solves a problem. We can discern whether they have more of an academic or pragmatic approach to coding. It also helps us see whether people can catch obvious answers if they're available. We use it to gauge how much direction they'll need if we hire them, and where they'd be immediately useful.
I doubt most companies are as rigorous as we are in the hiring process, but from my interviews it's blatantly apparent that the individuals who rely solely on academic credentials are at least 1-2 years from being useful to a company. Whereas candidates that do any kind of side project or personal coding on their own are more likely to be useful within a shorter amount of time.
In summary, learn the latest technologies, bring your OOP skills up to snuff, and do some fun side projects of your own choosing. There are enough free development platforms out there that it shouldn't be difficult to keep your skills in practice. And remember that just because you have a degree doesn't mean you're any good at coding.
Tip: Go to Worse Than Failure (formerly "The Daily WTF") and learn what NOT to do. So many people we've interviewed couldn't tell us what's wrong with some of the examples listed there.
Gee, you've gotta wonder why they're not such big fans of the US of A.
Actually, the Iranian populace (read: not the people in power) were actually quite favorable to the US until recently (read: George W essentially threatening them with war). Of all the middle eastern nations, Iran's populace were the most favorable to trade with the US. The Iranians were importing US music and quite a bit of other stuff until Ahmadinejad came to power and banned a whole bunch of it.
The people in power despise the US in Iran, but the general populace was slightly fond of us until recently. And, just so we're also clear on this, a war with Iran would be a very "Bad Thing". Iraq, for all intents and purposes, was a pushover (ignoring the currently failing occupation efforts). Iran is a mountainous region with a much larger population who would not give up ground without serious casualties. No, if George W starts a war with Iran it'll be bloody, and it'll make this little dance in Iraq look like a picnic.
When the British fought the Zulus they were quite impressed as the Zulus wore no shoes. The British were astounded at the terrain the Zulus could walk over without injury. The soles of their feet were supposedly tougher than most of the infantry men's boots and shoes.
IANAL. However I believe it's only considered libel if what they state is false or misleading. Opinions or fact based recountings of actual events or actions is not libel. I also seem to remember that the actual intent of the action is what makes or breaks a slander case. If the intent was to make the public aware of certain actions or behaviors, I don't think it's illegal. If the intent was solely to humiliate the person in public, it is illegal.
I seem to remember hearing the phrase "The truth absolutely protects a person against libel and slander," a while back when my wife had Judge Judy on in the background. (Yes, she watches that from time to time.)
This is why my company now has a "Software as a Service" model. The app was moved from a desktop product to a web-based hosted solution. Now we only need to worry about piracy if one of our worldwide sites leaks the source. And your location in the world no longer matters to us, if you want access, you need to sign up and pay us.
Microsoft is getting shafted because they're stuck in their current business model, and refuse to change it. The world no longer wants to install software if they don't have to, especially for a 10+ year old word processor. (And if they do install anything, they don't want to drop $300 on it.) Google understands this, Microsoft doesn't. Google's solution will still make money in China, Microsoft's won't.
The winds of business changed, and Microsoft missed it. Now we get to sit back and watch the impending car wreck that is Microsoft. So sit back and enjoy the show.
From the article: "I think what they're worrying about is what if it's 2 o'clock in the morning, you're headed to a call but it's not an emergency call," Cpl. Bristo said. "If I roll right through that light, I might save myself a minute or two. With some calls, that minute or two can make a lot of difference."
Change "in the morning" to read "in the afternoon", and that would sum up the counterclaim. It's not acceptable to break the law just because it's two in the morning, not two in the afternoon. If it was not deemed an emergency, there is no reason that suits the public interest for allowing the people enforcing the law to disobey it.
In some cases a few minutes may make the difference, but this will always be the case. The system we put in place must be followed, and if it does not work to our satisfaction, it must be amended. When individuals are allowed to compromise the law at whim, the very foundation of our society is forfeit.
It would appear our President and his advisers have committed felonies.
But without any evidence to back up that claim, it won't go too far. Prosecutors aren't foolish, and won't take someone to court unless they can pin them down with evidence (especially the president or his cohort). The last attempt to pin down Carl Rove and his band of miscreants only netted enough evidence for Libby.
This administration seems to have learned from the Nixon administration's failings. Namely they don't keep records. Hell, Cheney and Rumsfield were in the Nixon administration, so this shouldn't be surprising. If they really want to impeach the president and prosecute the guys in power, they need someone inside the administration to start talking. However that seems unlikely to happen as they have been diligent to hire only pro-Bush people.
As much as I despise the practices of this administration, we need evidence.
The main reason why university research like this should be allowed to be licensed by the university itself, is that the public gains a direct benefit (more research money for the system). If the invention was simply free to the public, it would most likely just be exploited by industries as free research to make profit off of. The public gains nothing of real value, and businesses get free inventions to fleece the public with.
I think the only realistic way to ensure that only "acceptable" material makes it into "print" is to have edits submitted to an editor to be proofed before they go live.
An editor is an individual person, who is more likely to be biased. While a group of people with mixed perspectives is less likely to be singularly biased (still happens).
I think a better solution would be to implement a trust or karma system for users based on community input (similar to slashdot and other sites). People with higher karma would tend to provide more community pleasing answers, while people with lower karma would tend to produce content that is either contentious or incorrect. How it gets implemented is less important than the fact that the community has a better guideline to judge edits by.
Even a simple color coding of sentence stability would be something. For example, sentences modified in the last week are shaded dark yellow, less than two weeks yellow, and a month or less light yellow.
Oh, and distrust anything you see on the internet regardless of who wrote it.
"Distrust" is a little harsh and unwarranted in a lot of cases. I get the majority of my news via the internet, and I have little reason to distrust the majority of articles I read. However, I think taking anything relayed over a blog or wiki "with a grain of salt" is a common theme. The bottom line is that some sites are more reliable than others, and when in doubt - doubt.
I'd have to side with the cybersquatters on this one. While it's annoying to occasionally run across a site you weren't expecting, I think it is just wrong to say that a person or company should be "entitled" to a domain name. Most people and companies did not jump to acquire the domain name when the web was first born, and most likely have not actively pursued the name for the past 15 years. As such, I say that the person who did scoop up the name (and PAID for it) has a better right to it. Why should a person or company who wants the domain 5 years after it first existed be given special treatment. You snooze, you lose. (Hell, there are a billion acres of land out west that ranchers are "squatting" on. If you follow M$ reasoning, I should be able to sue them to get the land at a discounted price.)
And I doubt M$ intentions are that noble. I've seen many companies sue other legitimate sites as "cybersquatters". The rival company has a similar product or name, and they bullied into selling the domain to the bigger fish.
If you want cybersquatting to go away, you need to address the root issue. Raise the price of registering a domain name. Cybersquatters will dissappear. The only reason they exist right now is that the investment is trivial compared to the expected profit.
I believe that if someone is criticized (or praised for that matter) in a public forum, the name of the person doing the criticizing/praising should also be public.
Khrushchev was giving a speech about Stalin once, and someone in the crowd yelled out why he didn't do anything to stop him. Khrushchev quickly barked out, "Who said that?!" The crowd remained silent as he glared over them. "Now you understand why I didn't speak up," was his reply.
Anonymity on the internet is a good thing. It protects free speech in a consistent manner. Yes, the downside is you get trolling, but it seems a small price to pay when the alternative is a knock on your door when you speak your mind.
From a business perspective, legal immigrants are a good thing. If a person is willing to do the same quality work for lower pay, the business becomes not only more profitable, but more competitive in the market.
From a US Citizen perspective, it stinks because it's that much harder to break out of the poverty class range. If the job market gets flooded (short term) with low-income workers, not only will the poverty class have tooth and nail competition for jobs, but more and more middle class families will slip into the poverty bracket as a result.
From a government perspective, as long as there is a net job increase and a relatively static unemployment rate, it's happy. The government gets more tax money as a result, U.S. businesses become more competitive, and the economy overall gets a boost due to the increased amount of consumers.
My immigration solution would be to hand out a set amount of "citizen visas" each year. Each country would have a different amount alloted to it. (For example: 500,000 to Mexico, 50,000 to Russia, etc.) The U.S. government can reject anyone for any reason (stealing, etc.) during this visa period. Each person must hold a job from an accredited business (babysitting type stuff doesn't count) for a set period of time. (Let's say during a three year period you are allowed to be unemployed for a total of four months.) If you meet these requirements, you've proved you will be beneficial to the country and are put on the fast track to citizenship. (If not, well, at least you were given a shot at becoming one.)
Illegal immigrants are a problem because they only contribute to the U.S. in trivial amounts. Give them a viable way to contribute to the U.S. and the problem will become less of an issue. Right now our current solution is either too limited or too inadequate, so we see all these issues.
This hacker is lucky. Any reasonable defense would have tried to argue that the pictures were placed there by the hacker in question. If a trojan can take complete control of a computer, there's nothing to prevent it from placing illegal files on it. In this case there were probably witnesses who could be called to testify to the judge's downloading habits. I hope the hacker doesn't plan on making this his hobby, because it's something that can be easily turned against him the next time he does it.
>> If you've nothing to hide then what's the problem? Lets face it,
>> anyone who is against this is clearly on the side of the terrorismists,
>> and actually WANTS us to get bombed.
To quote Pastor Martin Niemöller:
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
You'd think history would have taught you better than to say something that naive and cowardly. For comparison, there are probably as many serial killers in the wild as there are terrorists in the United States. Would you so easily give up your rights to catch these serial killers as well? Do you honestly think the government will give you back these rights once the serial killers or terrorists are caught?
Sacrificing the rights of millions of people to catch a small handful of "potential" criminals is a ridiculous price to pay. You scare far too easily.
Likewise, why should life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness be rights?
If you do not believe these ideals to be "rights", I ask you to whom would you entrust these things on your behalf? What guarantee is there that the entrusted entity would not abuse these things you have given unto them? I find it difficult to believe that the best protector of one's own life, liberty and happiness is another party or entity.
Why should you have a right to physical property?
If I do not own property, who does? Who has the right to say what can and can not happen to a piece of property? If the governing body reserves the right to seize anything at anytime, what motive is there for me to accomplish anything in life? "Someone" or "something" _always_ has the right to physical property (except in cases of great abundance), and I find it difficult to believe that if it were centralized in a governing body of a few individuals it would not become abused.
Why should you have a right to move as you please, go where you want, under your own free will?
Your body belongs to you and you alone. Who is restricting you from movement? Is everyone being restricted equally? If it is a governing body, why was it granted this power over you by your peers?
Society craves security, which is different from protection. "Security" is a concept where if something "bad" befalls a person in society, society will punish the offending individual. "Prevention" usually refers to steps to deter a repeat of the "bad", with the most effective steps being the least involved ones. While "protection" is the misguided belief that all "bad" can be prevented from happening in the first place.
In many times and places, people didn't have these rights.
In many times and places, the governing body of a society was not actually put in place by that society. Enacting change on the existing government is difficult, and overthrowing a governing body is very very daunting. So these hardships are suffered because they seem tolerable compared to the alternative. If everyone were to rise up at once, it would change. But no one wants to be the first to rise up, and to remain alone.
If its cheaper than the shuttle, and works just as well, why not?
Without a reusable orbital vehicle, some of the military's more expensive spy satellites will be at risk. While I know the typical solution is just to spend more money and send up more equipment via rockets, without a vehicle our continued dominance in space would be questionable. As soon as someone brings up that tidbit of info, I'm sure NASA will get a check.
In the meantime, expect China to be counting down the days until it can start shooting down all our satellites that pass over it without fear of a shuttle going up there to figure out what happened. If I were China, I know I would.
Slashdot Mirror
I would define property as an item that can be demonstrated to have a concrete value. Intellectual property would then be a creative construct that has a provable value. Most creative endeavors result in failure, and have no value. However, when an artist creates a successful song, he has proven that there is a market demand for the song, and therefore it obviously has value. The artist has invested time and resources into the song to create value in it, so that artist should be able to recoup profits if he or she so chooses.
However, I would argue that market demand for creative works wanes quickly, and the artist in question should only have the right to profit off a creative work for a comparable (and fair) amount of time before it becomes public domain.
My solution would be to limit this "copyright" for the creative work to a period of around 10 years from the date of the first "sale" of the work in question. At the moment that you sell a creative work, you have proven that it has value, and the clock should begin ticking for it to become public domain.
While there will be a few creative products that will show exceptional merit and market presence, the majority of items will not. Using the song example, an artist is free to create a new recording of the song in question to profit from, as it would be a new work. However, that artist should not have the right to control the original work that the new recording is based off of beyond the "copyright" period.
In short, creative works should exist to benefit society as a whole. The person who succeeded in generating value around a creative work should be rewarded, but should not be the sole decider on how that work best benefits the public.
For reference:
"UW-M" = University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
"UW" = University of Wisconsin - Madison
Whoever submitted the article mistakenly used the wrong abbreviation.
The bar is set differently for entry-level and those with experience, but there's still a bar. The job candidate has to show us programming potential or skill, which is why we have multiple parts to the interview. Hiring bad programmers is just too costly.
This is why so many permanent programming jobs start out as temp gigs. This allows the company to terminate the employment after seeing the person's work habits and skills first-hand. Most larger companies have enough small tasks that need to be done that new hires can do during this "evaluation phase".
So while I doubt most programmers would expect to be tested on their chops on the spot, it's a very useful tool. We've used it to great success to hire very talented programmers.
I've interviewed job candidates for the past 2 years for a small company and the honest truth of the matter is that most people with CS degrees are horrible programmers. About 50% don't make it past the phone interview, and of those who do, we've probably hired about 20%. We're mainly a C# shop, but we look for anyone with OOP background and if they know a C language or Java we'll phone them up for a pre-screen.
We require the candidate to do a couple critical thinking and programming tasks during the on-site interview, and you'd be surprised how bad other people's code can be. Three or more loops to collect data that could be done in one. No persistent data storage for objects. No comments in the code. Inability to fix code to the desired standard after being handed a spec. Not testing the code to see if it works (not even a paper run through).
The critical thinking exercises help us see how an individual tackles and solves a problem. We can discern whether they have more of an academic or pragmatic approach to coding. It also helps us see whether people can catch obvious answers if they're available. We use it to gauge how much direction they'll need if we hire them, and where they'd be immediately useful.
I doubt most companies are as rigorous as we are in the hiring process, but from my interviews it's blatantly apparent that the individuals who rely solely on academic credentials are at least 1-2 years from being useful to a company. Whereas candidates that do any kind of side project or personal coding on their own are more likely to be useful within a shorter amount of time.
In summary, learn the latest technologies, bring your OOP skills up to snuff, and do some fun side projects of your own choosing. There are enough free development platforms out there that it shouldn't be difficult to keep your skills in practice. And remember that just because you have a degree doesn't mean you're any good at coding.
Tip: Go to Worse Than Failure (formerly "The Daily WTF") and learn what NOT to do. So many people we've interviewed couldn't tell us what's wrong with some of the examples listed there.
The people in power despise the US in Iran, but the general populace was slightly fond of us until recently. And, just so we're also clear on this, a war with Iran would be a very "Bad Thing". Iraq, for all intents and purposes, was a pushover (ignoring the currently failing occupation efforts). Iran is a mountainous region with a much larger population who would not give up ground without serious casualties. No, if George W starts a war with Iran it'll be bloody, and it'll make this little dance in Iraq look like a picnic.
When the British fought the Zulus they were quite impressed as the Zulus wore no shoes. The British were astounded at the terrain the Zulus could walk over without injury. The soles of their feet were supposedly tougher than most of the infantry men's boots and shoes.
IANAL. However I believe it's only considered libel if what they state is false or misleading. Opinions or fact based recountings of actual events or actions is not libel. I also seem to remember that the actual intent of the action is what makes or breaks a slander case. If the intent was to make the public aware of certain actions or behaviors, I don't think it's illegal. If the intent was solely to humiliate the person in public, it is illegal.
I seem to remember hearing the phrase "The truth absolutely protects a person against libel and slander," a while back when my wife had Judge Judy on in the background. (Yes, she watches that from time to time.)
This is why my company now has a "Software as a Service" model. The app was moved from a desktop product to a web-based hosted solution. Now we only need to worry about piracy if one of our worldwide sites leaks the source. And your location in the world no longer matters to us, if you want access, you need to sign up and pay us.
Microsoft is getting shafted because they're stuck in their current business model, and refuse to change it. The world no longer wants to install software if they don't have to, especially for a 10+ year old word processor. (And if they do install anything, they don't want to drop $300 on it.) Google understands this, Microsoft doesn't. Google's solution will still make money in China, Microsoft's won't.
The winds of business changed, and Microsoft missed it. Now we get to sit back and watch the impending car wreck that is Microsoft. So sit back and enjoy the show.
From the article: "I think what they're worrying about is what if it's 2 o'clock in the morning, you're headed to a call but it's not an emergency call," Cpl. Bristo said. "If I roll right through that light, I might save myself a minute or two. With some calls, that minute or two can make a lot of difference."
Change "in the morning" to read "in the afternoon", and that would sum up the counterclaim. It's not acceptable to break the law just because it's two in the morning, not two in the afternoon. If it was not deemed an emergency, there is no reason that suits the public interest for allowing the people enforcing the law to disobey it.
In some cases a few minutes may make the difference, but this will always be the case. The system we put in place must be followed, and if it does not work to our satisfaction, it must be amended. When individuals are allowed to compromise the law at whim, the very foundation of our society is forfeit.
This administration seems to have learned from the Nixon administration's failings. Namely they don't keep records. Hell, Cheney and Rumsfield were in the Nixon administration, so this shouldn't be surprising. If they really want to impeach the president and prosecute the guys in power, they need someone inside the administration to start talking. However that seems unlikely to happen as they have been diligent to hire only pro-Bush people.
As much as I despise the practices of this administration, we need evidence.
The main reason why university research like this should be allowed to be licensed by the university itself, is that the public gains a direct benefit (more research money for the system). If the invention was simply free to the public, it would most likely just be exploited by industries as free research to make profit off of. The public gains nothing of real value, and businesses get free inventions to fleece the public with.
I wouldn't be so hard on UW: It's doing what it can to maximize nonfederal funding.
Cue the political slot machine jokes...
I think a better solution would be to implement a trust or karma system for users based on community input (similar to slashdot and other sites). People with higher karma would tend to provide more community pleasing answers, while people with lower karma would tend to produce content that is either contentious or incorrect. How it gets implemented is less important than the fact that the community has a better guideline to judge edits by.
Even a simple color coding of sentence stability would be something. For example, sentences modified in the last week are shaded dark yellow, less than two weeks yellow, and a month or less light yellow.
"Distrust" is a little harsh and unwarranted in a lot of cases. I get the majority of my news via the internet, and I have little reason to distrust the majority of articles I read. However, I think taking anything relayed over a blog or wiki "with a grain of salt" is a common theme. The bottom line is that some sites are more reliable than others, and when in doubt - doubt.
the alumni donations also skyrocketed.
Go Badgers!
I'd have to side with the cybersquatters on this one. While it's annoying to occasionally run across a site you weren't expecting, I think it is just wrong to say that a person or company should be "entitled" to a domain name. Most people and companies did not jump to acquire the domain name when the web was first born, and most likely have not actively pursued the name for the past 15 years. As such, I say that the person who did scoop up the name (and PAID for it) has a better right to it. Why should a person or company who wants the domain 5 years after it first existed be given special treatment. You snooze, you lose. (Hell, there are a billion acres of land out west that ranchers are "squatting" on. If you follow M$ reasoning, I should be able to sue them to get the land at a discounted price.)
And I doubt M$ intentions are that noble. I've seen many companies sue other legitimate sites as "cybersquatters". The rival company has a similar product or name, and they bullied into selling the domain to the bigger fish.
If you want cybersquatting to go away, you need to address the root issue. Raise the price of registering a domain name. Cybersquatters will dissappear. The only reason they exist right now is that the investment is trivial compared to the expected profit.
Anonymity on the internet is a good thing. It protects free speech in a consistent manner. Yes, the downside is you get trolling, but it seems a small price to pay when the alternative is a knock on your door when you speak your mind.
From a business perspective, legal immigrants are a good thing. If a person is willing to do the same quality work for lower pay, the business becomes not only more profitable, but more competitive in the market.
From a US Citizen perspective, it stinks because it's that much harder to break out of the poverty class range. If the job market gets flooded (short term) with low-income workers, not only will the poverty class have tooth and nail competition for jobs, but more and more middle class families will slip into the poverty bracket as a result.
From a government perspective, as long as there is a net job increase and a relatively static unemployment rate, it's happy. The government gets more tax money as a result, U.S. businesses become more competitive, and the economy overall gets a boost due to the increased amount of consumers.
My immigration solution would be to hand out a set amount of "citizen visas" each year. Each country would have a different amount alloted to it. (For example: 500,000 to Mexico, 50,000 to Russia, etc.) The U.S. government can reject anyone for any reason (stealing, etc.) during this visa period. Each person must hold a job from an accredited business (babysitting type stuff doesn't count) for a set period of time. (Let's say during a three year period you are allowed to be unemployed for a total of four months.) If you meet these requirements, you've proved you will be beneficial to the country and are put on the fast track to citizenship. (If not, well, at least you were given a shot at becoming one.)
Illegal immigrants are a problem because they only contribute to the U.S. in trivial amounts. Give them a viable way to contribute to the U.S. and the problem will become less of an issue. Right now our current solution is either too limited or too inadequate, so we see all these issues.
This hacker is lucky. Any reasonable defense would have tried to argue that the pictures were placed there by the hacker in question. If a trojan can take complete control of a computer, there's nothing to prevent it from placing illegal files on it. In this case there were probably witnesses who could be called to testify to the judge's downloading habits. I hope the hacker doesn't plan on making this his hobby, because it's something that can be easily turned against him the next time he does it.
>> anyone who is against this is clearly on the side of the terrorismists,
>> and actually WANTS us to get bombed.
To quote Pastor Martin Niemöller:
You'd think history would have taught you better than to say something that naive and cowardly. For comparison, there are probably as many serial killers in the wild as there are terrorists in the United States. Would you so easily give up your rights to catch these serial killers as well? Do you honestly think the government will give you back these rights once the serial killers or terrorists are caught?
Sacrificing the rights of millions of people to catch a small handful of "potential" criminals is a ridiculous price to pay. You scare far too easily.
So do I get extra civil disobedience points if I ride in the front of the bus, dressed up as an Indian, and downloading illegal tunes?
If I do not own property, who does? Who has the right to say what can and can not happen to a piece of property? If the governing body reserves the right to seize anything at anytime, what motive is there for me to accomplish anything in life? "Someone" or "something" _always_ has the right to physical property (except in cases of great abundance), and I find it difficult to believe that if it were centralized in a governing body of a few individuals it would not become abused.
Your body belongs to you and you alone. Who is restricting you from movement? Is everyone being restricted equally? If it is a governing body, why was it granted this power over you by your peers?
Society craves security, which is different from protection. "Security" is a concept where if something "bad" befalls a person in society, society will punish the offending individual. "Prevention" usually refers to steps to deter a repeat of the "bad", with the most effective steps being the least involved ones. While "protection" is the misguided belief that all "bad" can be prevented from happening in the first place.
In many times and places, the governing body of a society was not actually put in place by that society. Enacting change on the existing government is difficult, and overthrowing a governing body is very very daunting. So these hardships are suffered because they seem tolerable compared to the alternative. If everyone were to rise up at once, it would change. But no one wants to be the first to rise up, and to remain alone.
>> *sigh*, Is there not a company we can trust anymore?
...And for the low low price of $19.95 I will tell you about it!
> Has there ever been?
Of course there is!
In the meantime, expect China to be counting down the days until it can start shooting down all our satellites that pass over it without fear of a shuttle going up there to figure out what happened. If I were China, I know I would.