IANAMD. If the knowledge and experience gained from using samples (and even going for a weekend involving *some* education) leads to better treatment outcomes, why is this a bad thing?
This is an honest question. Are you just worried about the lines getting too blurry? What's the risk?
You are right, it could possibly bring the right of free speech into question. What's the other option though? A school thought it could suspend this kid. The kid disagreed. I'm not sure what the other courts along the way have said, but clearly not everyone is in agreement yet. We have to let it play out, that's how our system works, and, by and large, free speech has been maintained for the past 200 years.
Now sure, I'm not saying that we should get complacent, but we've got to have a bit of faith in the system (I know, big leap for some these days). Fact of the matter is, if enough people are angry with the resulting decision, there are ways to go about changing it. It may not be immediate, but I don't believe that people will stand (for too long) a severe encroachment of that right. I don't see an alternative that works nearly as well as the courts. Feel free to enlighten me.
You know, I have no problem with this case going to the supreme court. As the summary states, this case does seem rather "nuanced." I don't think that many people would argue that a sign that says "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" should be allowed at school, or at a school function. So, as I see it, the court is to decide whether or not the situation constitued a school function.
Personally, I would agree that that seems to be a bit fuzzy in this case. On the one hand, the kid was "on a public sidewalk" and away from the school. On the other hand, the students were released from class (presumably for the specific purpose of attending the torch relay, as the article says), and were accompanied by a teacher. IANAL, and this just doesn't seem particularly clear cut to me.
This seems to be exactly what the supreme court is supposed to do. If they rule in favour of the school, and people don't like that, then they can talk to their representative and have legislation created to clarify the situation in the future. The same goes for the reverse. But when a case like this comes up, it is useful to have it go to the courts, and perhaps later brought to the attention of the legislature, so that we can have some clearly defined boundaries for the future.
You left out a very important part of the Nash Equilibrium concept. Yes, it says that it's possible (in some games) for everyone to be better off if they cooperate, as opposed to competing, but it also says that the reason that cooperating is not a stable equilibrium is because any one firm can 'defect' and obtain a better outcome for itself, given the actions of the other firms. So the Nash Equilibirum is where, given the actions of the other firms, no firm can do better than their equilibrium strategy, i.e. defecting makes them worse off.
So to be clear, in any given market, Nash Equilibrium says that a firm will choose his action as a best response to the action of the other firms. Full cooperation is not a NE.
the fact is that if everyone was compliant with the specifications then Microsoft could take it's massive resources and focus on making IE produce web-pages that are more attractive, useable, secure and readable and dominate the market through having a better product rather than having the most web-pages compliant with its version of the HTML specification.
You forget the fact that by having it's own HTML specification, and a huge market share, Microsoft makes sure that developers design webpages their way if they most users to be able to see them, so many designers choose ONLY to support Mircrosoft's standards, then other browsers get effectively locked out and a cycle of 'IE only' ensues. This seems like a great strategy from Microsoft's persepective.
Microsoft cares about the consumer only insofar as the consumer is using it's product (that's not meant to bash MS, that is how most firms work).
It says the Zune marketplace content is not Plays For Sure content. It does NOT say that the Zune is not Plays For Sure compatible.
Seriously, I'm quite confused, the article seems to make the leap that Zune marketplace songs won't play on Plays For Sure devices, therefore Zune won't play Plays For Sure songs. That is a pretty important distinction.
I can't find any press release from microsoft on this. All the articles I found just repeat what's in the BBC article. Can someone clear this up?
Humans innately seek patterns in things that are random. That's why so many people wear smelly socks because they think they're lucky. Once you identify a supposed "pattern" i.e. non-randomness, you're going to keep noticing instances that fit that pattern, and ignore instances that do not. This is deeply ingrained.
Think about it, if you're at the roulette table and black has come up four times in a row, how likely are you to bet black? Most people would bet red, because, I mean hey, there's got to be a pattern. But (as I'm sure you all can understand) black has the same probability of occurring again as red does.
People have had this complaint about all sorts of playlist randomizers (not just iPod), it's just people seeing what isn't there.
Anyone who finds acronyms confusing, soon learns what they stand for if they have the need to. I'm sure there are acronyms, and other jargon, that would totally confuse me. But the great thing is, I don't care. I have no need to know them.
At the same time, if I want to rant about RIAA DRM it's a hell of a lot easier than writing the Recording Industry Assosciation of America's Digital Rights Management.
I agree completely. To say that productivity is suffering by people surfing the internet makes the assumption that they would be doing something productive otherwise. My guess is that they'd be talking to coworkers, getting a coffee, twiddling their thumbs, etc.
Now surfing for porn is a different story. Without the internet I doubt people would be sitting at their desk thumbing through Busty Barnyard Girls magazine.
I see. So if AT&T had an office in Saudi Arabia, they should comply with Saudi requests for phone records concerning Americans who had made remarks disparaging to Saudi Arabia, if those records were requested in accordance with Saudi law? Opening an office in a country shouldn't subject your entire opetation to that countries' laws.
That is not at all what Google has said
Google maintains that it is open to requests for information from foreign governments as long as the requests comply with U.S. laws and that they are issued within the country where the information is stored.
So, to follow your example, if AT&T stored their data and records in Saudi Arabia, then yes. This is perfectly fine with me. If you don't want a foreign government's law to decide if your records can be gotten at, there is a simple solution, don't do business with a company that stores your data there.
After you activate your phone, you can send money one of two ways:
* Text to 729725 (PAYPAL) with the amount and recipient's phone number.
Example: send 5 to 4150001234
Or
* Call 1-800-4PAYPAL (1-800-472-9725) and follow the instructions.
Sounds easy, I could see merchants (or vending machines) having barcodes that you take a picture of and do this all automatically.
I do wonder though, what happens if someone else is using your phone, I don't see where you'd endter a pin or password, sounds sketchy.
Slashdot Mirror
IANAMD. If the knowledge and experience gained from using samples (and even going for a weekend involving *some* education) leads to better treatment outcomes, why is this a bad thing?
This is an honest question. Are you just worried about the lines getting too blurry? What's the risk?
yeah, and let's put posters all over the school for a crack party this weekend, give me a break, there's a limit to what we allow in schools.
You are right, it could possibly bring the right of free speech into question. What's the other option though? A school thought it could suspend this kid. The kid disagreed. I'm not sure what the other courts along the way have said, but clearly not everyone is in agreement yet. We have to let it play out, that's how our system works, and, by and large, free speech has been maintained for the past 200 years.
Now sure, I'm not saying that we should get complacent, but we've got to have a bit of faith in the system (I know, big leap for some these days). Fact of the matter is, if enough people are angry with the resulting decision, there are ways to go about changing it. It may not be immediate, but I don't believe that people will stand (for too long) a severe encroachment of that right. I don't see an alternative that works nearly as well as the courts. Feel free to enlighten me.
You know, I have no problem with this case going to the supreme court. As the summary states, this case does seem rather "nuanced." I don't think that many people would argue that a sign that says "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" should be allowed at school, or at a school function. So, as I see it, the court is to decide whether or not the situation constitued a school function.
Personally, I would agree that that seems to be a bit fuzzy in this case. On the one hand, the kid was "on a public sidewalk" and away from the school. On the other hand, the students were released from class (presumably for the specific purpose of attending the torch relay, as the article says), and were accompanied by a teacher. IANAL, and this just doesn't seem particularly clear cut to me.
This seems to be exactly what the supreme court is supposed to do. If they rule in favour of the school, and people don't like that, then they can talk to their representative and have legislation created to clarify the situation in the future. The same goes for the reverse. But when a case like this comes up, it is useful to have it go to the courts, and perhaps later brought to the attention of the legislature, so that we can have some clearly defined boundaries for the future.
So to be clear, in any given market, Nash Equilibrium says that a firm will choose his action as a best response to the action of the other firms. Full cooperation is not a NE.
You forget the fact that by having it's own HTML specification, and a huge market share, Microsoft makes sure that developers design webpages their way if they most users to be able to see them, so many designers choose ONLY to support Mircrosoft's standards, then other browsers get effectively locked out and a cycle of 'IE only' ensues. This seems like a great strategy from Microsoft's persepective.
Microsoft cares about the consumer only insofar as the consumer is using it's product (that's not meant to bash MS, that is how most firms work).
Humans innately seek patterns in things that are random. That's why so many people wear smelly socks because they think they're lucky. Once you identify a supposed "pattern" i.e. non-randomness, you're going to keep noticing instances that fit that pattern, and ignore instances that do not. This is deeply ingrained.
Think about it, if you're at the roulette table and black has come up four times in a row, how likely are you to bet black? Most people would bet red, because, I mean hey, there's got to be a pattern. But (as I'm sure you all can understand) black has the same probability of occurring again as red does.
People have had this complaint about all sorts of playlist randomizers (not just iPod), it's just people seeing what isn't there.
Anyone who finds acronyms confusing, soon learns what they stand for if they have the need to. I'm sure there are acronyms, and other jargon, that would totally confuse me. But the great thing is, I don't care. I have no need to know them. At the same time, if I want to rant about RIAA DRM it's a hell of a lot easier than writing the Recording Industry Assosciation of America's Digital Rights Management.
I agree completely. To say that productivity is suffering by people surfing the internet makes the assumption that they would be doing something productive otherwise. My guess is that they'd be talking to coworkers, getting a coffee, twiddling their thumbs, etc. Now surfing for porn is a different story. Without the internet I doubt people would be sitting at their desk thumbing through Busty Barnyard Girls magazine.