Pretty sure this is a dupe, or so closely related to an earlier story as to not matter. Anyway, to recast points made earlier, how hard will it really be to "smudge" these digital fingerprints? Its not really different than any other DRM, and has the same issues involved. Also, who thinks that someone is going to pay for this service, and then allow their works to remain for promotional reasons? They are going to sue the heck out of the person violating copyright.
An excellent question, and I think that any responsible answer would require more research into HCI than I have time to do. MS obviously thinks there is a better way to do things, as they are completely changing their interface. Also, I think powerpoint on a Mac is much easier to use than in Windows. There are definitely improvements that can be made, I'm just not sure I can enumerate all of them. But I would rather see the Office competitors researching improvements instead of trying to match the menu layout in Office so that users can't tell the difference. Competition is great when it lowers prices, but its even better when it creates new ways of doing things.
I'm glad to see more competition in the office space. Open Office has its issues, and Microsoft Office is still the gold standard for the general public. There are plenty of players in the space, but more can't really hurt. What I really would like is to see a suite that doesn't ape MS Office, but comes up with unique ways to do things that are more effective. Of course this is almost impossible as the cost of retraining from MS Office is prohibitive in most environments, but if MS Office is making major changes that necessitate retraining anyway, then maybe there is an opportunity for the myriad "me too" office suites to move in an unique direction as well. Probably not, as most sheep will upgrade to MS Office, but the more players in the market, the more chance that people will switch come upgrade time.
So my understanding is that they paid a flat fee to developers, and are making money based on the fact that there are high sales. In essence, they assumed the risk that there would be little or no sales. If this had happened, they would be praised, or more probably, ignored. The developers understood this risk, they decided that the flat fee was worth more to them than a percentage of the profits, and so they signed. Based on their marketing, MacHeist overcame the risk, sold a bunch of software, and profited. This is justified by the fact that they assumed all of the risk, so they have a bigger share of the reward, and the increase in sales is a result of their marketing. If sales this large were normal, the developers would not have agreed to the flat fee, or to such a low flat fee. In either case, they came out ahead. You have to judge their actions at the time they signed the contract, when the risk was real, not in hindsight. Now, we can judge the use of their profits. If they re-invest them in marketing and promoting independent developers, then what's the problem? If they close down, and the owners split and run, then yeah, there are some issues.
According to the article, tracking fish groups and monitoring water tempature changes. It also mentions chemical spills, but that seems like it would hurt the sharks, so probably not as easy to justify.
It seems like most of the kinks are worked out, and the project has been classified. The really interesting part, though, is the potential civilian applications. If this doesn't harm the sharks, it seems a lot cheaper and more efficient means than either human divers or remote subs.
Sometimes people think that things the feel should be wrong are illegal. It doesn't make much sense, but even in debates with future lawyers, I hear that argument, "Well, if it isn't that way, it should be!" The law is supposed to be definite and defined for that reason: so that people know what is legal and illegal, and we don't pay for a bunch of lawsuits that just waste everyone's time and money. The problem is that most people don't have a good sense of the law, and they either don't care what lawyers advise them to do, or they find lawyers who are willing to waste time and money for their personal profit.
Having been a grunt, the M4 is an outstanding rifle, with excellent reliability in combat. Supplemented in squads with the M14, there is sufficient lethality. All of those things you mention are incremental changes, and we definitely need to continue those. However, there has to be research further afield. We must look farther than incremental changes. If we expect Soldiers to do more, then we need to provide them with better equipment. Unmanned fighters and new self propelled artillery are fine, but the Soldier on the ground deserves more advances in lethality and survivability than mere incremental changes will grant.
Yeah, some problems in the military should be cut, but not this one. The infantry soldier hasn't changed that much since WWII, at least compated to the aircraft carrier or the jet plane. It was nice that the gov't was willing to spend some money on the infantry soldier. Also, civilian technology is much more likely to flow from this project than from more remote controlled airplanes. So, yes, the money might provide more medical benefits if directly invested in medicine, but investing it in this project is likely to bring more than in another UAV. Besides, a strong military helps prevent conflict. We no longer are interested in outmanning enemies, so we must have sufficiently advanced technology to make up for the shortage in man power. And, remember, this Internet thingy with all of the tubes came out of a military research project.
I wonder if the general public will be outraged enough by this to do something about it. Its obvious to everyone here that the labels are evil, but I wonder if the public at large understands it as well, and if not, if obvious lies and manipulation are sufficient to show it to them. Of course, you would think the Sony root kit would have done the same thing, and it doesn't seem to have made a real difference.
So, we need more power, or we need to spread data centers out, or both? In this age of networking, I really don't see why most data centers cluster in Silicon Valley. There seems to be a great benefit to spreading data centers out, especially when other factors, such as natural disasters, are factored in. And lets face it, we will need more electricity, regardless of how efficient we become. We are integrating more technology into our lives, and population growth isn't slowing down. Its time to start building more nuclear power plants. It can be done safely, and more fossil fuel power plants are not the answer. If anything, we need fewer.
We need more competition at the grade and high school level. Our upper level institutions are still the best in the world, because of how they are allowed to compete, but our lower level educational system is a typical government monopoly in a field where none is needed. Allow competition, increase the level of our high schools, allow colleges to focus on college level education instead of completing things that people should learn in high school, and it will go a long way towards improving our status in education.
One of the reasons tuition is so high is because of the amount of low interest federal loans available to students. This increases the money in the market for a limited resource, and allows the colleges to charge more money. Harvard has a Billion dollar endowment. Giving more money to colleges through taxes is not the solution. Instead, there needs to be an increase in supply, either through additional colleges or trade schools for people interested in entering fields that do not require a college education. Also, if we are so behind in science, we need to examine how colleges are spending their money. History and liberal arts are essential, and people should be able to study whatever they want, but at some point we need to do an assessment on how many history teachers we really need compared to how many we are educating. Throwing more money at a problem is not always the way to solve it. People's ability to waste money is amazing.
The problem is that its not the Supreme Court's role to create standards like that. They are an unelected body appointed for life. While its true they are less open to lobbying, the more they legislate, the less like a republic the government works. There are plenty of problems with the way congress works right now. However, I would rather see Congress fixed (which is an entire other article) and be forced to do their job than the entire governmental system changed.
Hopefully, the court won't go so far as to create a new standard, just rule that the current one is not Constitutional. That would force Congress to write a new patent standard, which is who should be deciding the issue. Patents haven't become high viz enough to be a campaign issue, but I'd love to see an advisory panel of both industry and academic representatives formed to create a better system, and then have Congress vote on that.
Since Justice Cardoza sat on the Court of Appeals of New York, there has been an effort by judges to remove morality from the common law, as evidenced by contract law, and to a lesser extent, torts. Legislatures will, from time to time, legislate from a moral basis. However, if they mention a moral basis too bluntly, the Supreme Court has been pretty consistent with striking them down. No system as complex as the legal system is ever subject to any absolutes, but the US has done a pretty good job of legislating for other reasons than morality, despite the prevelance of strongly religious figures throughout the history of all legislatures in this country. There are definitely no laws that have been challenged that specifically make illegal immoral behavior. Contrast that with specific laws in other countries which do exactly that, but don't define the crime. Vague criminal statutes are unconstitutional in this country, and anything based on community standards that gets reviewed gets struck down for that reason, because standards change and are based on who applies them. The famous Supreme Court rules about pornography seem to run contrary to this, but no one has had sufficient standing to challenge them on that basis, as the general type of person prosecuted under them are child pornography. Does that answer your question more throroughly?
Really? There is an entire set of laws that are expressly not moral. For instance, what is the moral justification for allowing breach of contract? Morality has been removed from the equation, and the law is based on economic efficiency. Very few laws in the US are actually based on a moral code, and instead rely on socio-economic theory. True, some laws are very congruant with morality, such as murder and theft, but there are non-moral justifications for those as well.
A great reason why morality shouldn't be the sole basis for laws. Luckily, the US Supreme Court has overturned most laws that specifically say activites against the community morality are a crime. In countries as large as China, and the US, morals will vary greatly from place to place and person to person, and legislating it is a mistake. Those differences give us strength.
One of the main problems is the quality of the schools. If schools became more competitive, then I think a lot of these problems would be reduced. Kids could choose what school they wanted, and be more likely to stay. Other schools would have to move to niche positions, such as preparing kids for jobs immediately upon graduation. Most high schools now prepare kids for college, but not for real life. Kids who realize they aren't going to college get bored and drop out so that they can get on with their lives. If they had educational options, they might be more inclined to stay in school. And, of course, at some level you are always going to have some drop-outs. That's not always bad. Some go onto great careers, and some try and fail, but get their GED and continue on with life at their own pace.
They say hard cases make bad law, and maybe the court was trying to establish a precedent to limit similar law suits in the future. It is interesting, coming from California, which has very liberal long arm statutes and has in the past applied those to libel suits. However, even if this case was incorrectly decided, I think it is the right thing for the long term. I would rather the court err on the side of too much editorial excess than limit speech.
Legally, under the doctrine of claim preclusion, it is the truth, and there cannot be other opinions of it. If it comes up in court again, it is assumed that for the time period covered by the trial, MS was an abusive monopoly, and that can never be challenged.
Not if the censors already know the truth and don't care because their job provides them with either power or money or both. Its not hard to find people who are easily corrupted, and is much safer than employing people who are dedicated to your cause because they don't know the real truth.
Slashdot Mirror
Pretty sure this is a dupe, or so closely related to an earlier story as to not matter. Anyway, to recast points made earlier, how hard will it really be to "smudge" these digital fingerprints? Its not really different than any other DRM, and has the same issues involved. Also, who thinks that someone is going to pay for this service, and then allow their works to remain for promotional reasons? They are going to sue the heck out of the person violating copyright.
An excellent question, and I think that any responsible answer would require more research into HCI than I have time to do. MS obviously thinks there is a better way to do things, as they are completely changing their interface. Also, I think powerpoint on a Mac is much easier to use than in Windows. There are definitely improvements that can be made, I'm just not sure I can enumerate all of them. But I would rather see the Office competitors researching improvements instead of trying to match the menu layout in Office so that users can't tell the difference. Competition is great when it lowers prices, but its even better when it creates new ways of doing things.
I'm glad to see more competition in the office space. Open Office has its issues, and Microsoft Office is still the gold standard for the general public. There are plenty of players in the space, but more can't really hurt. What I really would like is to see a suite that doesn't ape MS Office, but comes up with unique ways to do things that are more effective. Of course this is almost impossible as the cost of retraining from MS Office is prohibitive in most environments, but if MS Office is making major changes that necessitate retraining anyway, then maybe there is an opportunity for the myriad "me too" office suites to move in an unique direction as well. Probably not, as most sheep will upgrade to MS Office, but the more players in the market, the more chance that people will switch come upgrade time.
So my understanding is that they paid a flat fee to developers, and are making money based on the fact that there are high sales. In essence, they assumed the risk that there would be little or no sales. If this had happened, they would be praised, or more probably, ignored. The developers understood this risk, they decided that the flat fee was worth more to them than a percentage of the profits, and so they signed. Based on their marketing, MacHeist overcame the risk, sold a bunch of software, and profited. This is justified by the fact that they assumed all of the risk, so they have a bigger share of the reward, and the increase in sales is a result of their marketing. If sales this large were normal, the developers would not have agreed to the flat fee, or to such a low flat fee. In either case, they came out ahead. You have to judge their actions at the time they signed the contract, when the risk was real, not in hindsight. Now, we can judge the use of their profits. If they re-invest them in marketing and promoting independent developers, then what's the problem? If they close down, and the owners split and run, then yeah, there are some issues.
According to the article, tracking fish groups and monitoring water tempature changes. It also mentions chemical spills, but that seems like it would hurt the sharks, so probably not as easy to justify.
It seems like most of the kinks are worked out, and the project has been classified. The really interesting part, though, is the potential civilian applications. If this doesn't harm the sharks, it seems a lot cheaper and more efficient means than either human divers or remote subs.
On the assumption that you are actually serious, watch Austin Powers.
Sometimes people think that things the feel should be wrong are illegal. It doesn't make much sense, but even in debates with future lawyers, I hear that argument, "Well, if it isn't that way, it should be!" The law is supposed to be definite and defined for that reason: so that people know what is legal and illegal, and we don't pay for a bunch of lawsuits that just waste everyone's time and money. The problem is that most people don't have a good sense of the law, and they either don't care what lawyers advise them to do, or they find lawyers who are willing to waste time and money for their personal profit.
Having been a grunt, the M4 is an outstanding rifle, with excellent reliability in combat. Supplemented in squads with the M14, there is sufficient lethality. All of those things you mention are incremental changes, and we definitely need to continue those. However, there has to be research further afield. We must look farther than incremental changes. If we expect Soldiers to do more, then we need to provide them with better equipment. Unmanned fighters and new self propelled artillery are fine, but the Soldier on the ground deserves more advances in lethality and survivability than mere incremental changes will grant.
Yeah, some problems in the military should be cut, but not this one. The infantry soldier hasn't changed that much since WWII, at least compated to the aircraft carrier or the jet plane. It was nice that the gov't was willing to spend some money on the infantry soldier. Also, civilian technology is much more likely to flow from this project than from more remote controlled airplanes. So, yes, the money might provide more medical benefits if directly invested in medicine, but investing it in this project is likely to bring more than in another UAV. Besides, a strong military helps prevent conflict. We no longer are interested in outmanning enemies, so we must have sufficiently advanced technology to make up for the shortage in man power. And, remember, this Internet thingy with all of the tubes came out of a military research project.
I wonder if the general public will be outraged enough by this to do something about it. Its obvious to everyone here that the labels are evil, but I wonder if the public at large understands it as well, and if not, if obvious lies and manipulation are sufficient to show it to them. Of course, you would think the Sony root kit would have done the same thing, and it doesn't seem to have made a real difference.
So, we need more power, or we need to spread data centers out, or both? In this age of networking, I really don't see why most data centers cluster in Silicon Valley. There seems to be a great benefit to spreading data centers out, especially when other factors, such as natural disasters, are factored in. And lets face it, we will need more electricity, regardless of how efficient we become. We are integrating more technology into our lives, and population growth isn't slowing down. Its time to start building more nuclear power plants. It can be done safely, and more fossil fuel power plants are not the answer. If anything, we need fewer.
We need more competition at the grade and high school level. Our upper level institutions are still the best in the world, because of how they are allowed to compete, but our lower level educational system is a typical government monopoly in a field where none is needed. Allow competition, increase the level of our high schools, allow colleges to focus on college level education instead of completing things that people should learn in high school, and it will go a long way towards improving our status in education.
One of the reasons tuition is so high is because of the amount of low interest federal loans available to students. This increases the money in the market for a limited resource, and allows the colleges to charge more money. Harvard has a Billion dollar endowment. Giving more money to colleges through taxes is not the solution. Instead, there needs to be an increase in supply, either through additional colleges or trade schools for people interested in entering fields that do not require a college education. Also, if we are so behind in science, we need to examine how colleges are spending their money. History and liberal arts are essential, and people should be able to study whatever they want, but at some point we need to do an assessment on how many history teachers we really need compared to how many we are educating. Throwing more money at a problem is not always the way to solve it. People's ability to waste money is amazing.
The problem is that its not the Supreme Court's role to create standards like that. They are an unelected body appointed for life. While its true they are less open to lobbying, the more they legislate, the less like a republic the government works. There are plenty of problems with the way congress works right now. However, I would rather see Congress fixed (which is an entire other article) and be forced to do their job than the entire governmental system changed.
Hopefully, the court won't go so far as to create a new standard, just rule that the current one is not Constitutional. That would force Congress to write a new patent standard, which is who should be deciding the issue. Patents haven't become high viz enough to be a campaign issue, but I'd love to see an advisory panel of both industry and academic representatives formed to create a better system, and then have Congress vote on that.
Since Justice Cardoza sat on the Court of Appeals of New York, there has been an effort by judges to remove morality from the common law, as evidenced by contract law, and to a lesser extent, torts. Legislatures will, from time to time, legislate from a moral basis. However, if they mention a moral basis too bluntly, the Supreme Court has been pretty consistent with striking them down. No system as complex as the legal system is ever subject to any absolutes, but the US has done a pretty good job of legislating for other reasons than morality, despite the prevelance of strongly religious figures throughout the history of all legislatures in this country. There are definitely no laws that have been challenged that specifically make illegal immoral behavior. Contrast that with specific laws in other countries which do exactly that, but don't define the crime. Vague criminal statutes are unconstitutional in this country, and anything based on community standards that gets reviewed gets struck down for that reason, because standards change and are based on who applies them. The famous Supreme Court rules about pornography seem to run contrary to this, but no one has had sufficient standing to challenge them on that basis, as the general type of person prosecuted under them are child pornography. Does that answer your question more throroughly?
Really? There is an entire set of laws that are expressly not moral. For instance, what is the moral justification for allowing breach of contract? Morality has been removed from the equation, and the law is based on economic efficiency. Very few laws in the US are actually based on a moral code, and instead rely on socio-economic theory. True, some laws are very congruant with morality, such as murder and theft, but there are non-moral justifications for those as well.
A great reason why morality shouldn't be the sole basis for laws. Luckily, the US Supreme Court has overturned most laws that specifically say activites against the community morality are a crime. In countries as large as China, and the US, morals will vary greatly from place to place and person to person, and legislating it is a mistake. Those differences give us strength.
One of the main problems is the quality of the schools. If schools became more competitive, then I think a lot of these problems would be reduced. Kids could choose what school they wanted, and be more likely to stay. Other schools would have to move to niche positions, such as preparing kids for jobs immediately upon graduation. Most high schools now prepare kids for college, but not for real life. Kids who realize they aren't going to college get bored and drop out so that they can get on with their lives. If they had educational options, they might be more inclined to stay in school. And, of course, at some level you are always going to have some drop-outs. That's not always bad. Some go onto great careers, and some try and fail, but get their GED and continue on with life at their own pace.
They say hard cases make bad law, and maybe the court was trying to establish a precedent to limit similar law suits in the future. It is interesting, coming from California, which has very liberal long arm statutes and has in the past applied those to libel suits. However, even if this case was incorrectly decided, I think it is the right thing for the long term. I would rather the court err on the side of too much editorial excess than limit speech.
Orwell in Animal Farm, not 1984. Its almost a word for word quote from the book.
Wow, your last sentance sounded uncomfortable close to Orwell.
Legally, under the doctrine of claim preclusion, it is the truth, and there cannot be other opinions of it. If it comes up in court again, it is assumed that for the time period covered by the trial, MS was an abusive monopoly, and that can never be challenged.
Not if the censors already know the truth and don't care because their job provides them with either power or money or both. Its not hard to find people who are easily corrupted, and is much safer than employing people who are dedicated to your cause because they don't know the real truth.