The problem is that we don't have much of a choice from the two major parties.
Voting for third-party candidates (unless you can rally enough votes to actually win, which is structurally unlikely without changing the electoral system first) is unlikely to change that.
So, vote, but send a message. If third parties get more than 20% combined, there can be no call for "mandate" from either of the two parties.
This is rather well demonstrated to be false from the fact that, in the rather rare individual elections in which third party candidates have won more than 20% of the vote, the winning major party candidates have still claimed mandates.
For the most part, the whole point of negative campaigning is to get people who might otherwise vote for the other major party candidate to, in rough order of preference, vote for the candidate on whose behalf the negative ad is prevent, not vote at all, or vote for a third-party candidate. There's a reason why major parties often are found channeling support to "independent" or third-party candidates whose natural appeal overlaps that of their major-party opponent.
Voting for a third-party candidate doesn't "send a message" to the major parties, except the message that their negative campaigning against eachother is working exactly as designed.
Voting for the lessor of two evils is a logical fallacy.
No, its not. It may or may not be good tactics, but its certainly not a logical fallacy.
No "Users" are suing these companies, Lawyers are suing.
A suit seeking certification as a class action must be brought by one or more specific plaintiffs who are members of the class. So it is incorrect to say no users are suing the companies.
As is often the case when people sue other people, the people suing have lawyers working for them.
The US cares that much why? Its only a trade matter, as we still use primitave imperial measurements.
No, we don't.
First, because the pre-metric US system was the "US customary" system, not the "imperial" system, though some US customary units are the same as imperial units and other US customary units have the same name as imperial units despite being different (e.g., the US gallon vs. the imperial gallon.)
But, more importantly, because, since 1893, most of the units of the US system have been defined as derived units based on the units of the metric system (revisions to the precise definitions have occurred since.)
Maybe if we had switched to metric like they had told us we were going to every year in grade school this would be a big deal, but right now, who cares?
The relation between the US system and the metric system is pretty much analogous to the relationship between JRuby and Java. The underlying (metric system/JVM) is invisible to casual users, but the the exposed (US system/Ruby) system is completely dependent on the underlying system.
A treaty that is ratified by 2/3rds of the Senate gains constitutional authority. Among other things it allows the federal government to legislate in areas which would otherwise fall within the exclusive authority of the states.
Which is pretty much irrelevant in the case of ACTA, since Copyrights are an enumerated federal power, so federal authority to legislate to protect copyrights is already established and the Treaty Power isn't needed to overcome exclusive authority of the states in this area.
Unless the Republicans take control of the Senate in a few days, the Senate is unlikely to question the President's authority.
The Republican Party isn't exactly known for favoring either limits on draconian measures to support copyright holders exclusive rights or limits on executive authority in international affairs, so, unless you are just hoping that they'll decide that this particular issue is something to hold up on the basis of "Obama wants it so we must oppose it", I wouldn't put much hope in Republicans being more likely to stop this than Democrats.
In fact, given that this agreement is one that was initiated by a Republican Administration that the main thing that Obama appears to have done is accept some foreign demands to reduce the scope, expecting Republicans to scuttle the deal seems to rest on the assumption that they'd rather have none of what they want in this area than half of what they want. Which, if it was domestic law on a matter that it would be easy to rally the public around, might make some sense since they could use it as a campaign issue more if there was no progress than slight progress and then use increased legislative clout to get everything, but since its an international agreement where that kind of tactic doesn't seem likely to work and scuttling the deal isn't likely to get them a deal that does more of what they want, that doesn't seem all that likely.
But surely an Executive Ageement has nowhere near the same power as a Treaty, right? My guess is that a Treaty is pretty much a law (sometimes stronger than a law, because a country can't unilaterally repeal it)
Countries can generally unilaterally repudiate treaties under international law, and in US law it is well established that an act of Congress can limit or abolish the legal force, under US law, of a treaty.
But, yes, Executive Agreements have pretty much exactly the same force as unilateral executive actions outside of the context of an international agreement would have, so they are generally limited in scope to governing the exercise of inherent Constitutional prerogatives of the President and powers lawfully delegated to the Executive by Congress.
Treaties of the United States have to be ratified by the Senate.
Sure, that's not controversial.
Its also not controversial that there are international agreements that are not treaties, and that do not require ratification by a 2/3 vote of the Senate, particularly executive agreements that can be entered into unilaterally, and agreements that are implemented by adoption of normal legislation (which, while they require action in both houses of Congress, don't require a 2/3 vote in either.)
Whether a particular agreement is within the scope of executive authority or is something that can only be done as a treaty or legislation (or whether, if its accepted as a treaty, it is self-executing or requires additional implementing legislation) is, OTOH, often controversial.
In fact, that is particularly what is controversial here.
Even further, whether something that is accepted as being within the existing scope of the authority for executive agreements is inherently Constitutionally within executive authority or whether it is merely within the scope of executive authority given the existing statutory framework and could be withdrawn by simple legislation is also often controversial.
Isn't Flash supposedly sandboxed? And, what the hell is Flash doing in a PDF viewing utility?
Acrobat Reader is Adobe's general purpose client platform for content produced with Adobe Acrobat and related tools. That has been true, essentially, forever. Reading PDFs is, of course, an important part of that, but Acrobat hasn't been -- or been presented as -- just a "PDF viewing utility" for quite a long time, if it ever was.
It should survive or fail without help from the government.
This is a value proposition on which rationality has nothing to say, and furthermore on which there is, in practice, no consensus. Its a controversial value proposition in the case of "companies" generally, and its a particularly controversial value proposition in the case of companies established by the government for the purpose of acheiving government policy goals.
Yes, once you assume that everyone agrees with you on all value propositions, its easy to further conclude that rationality is all you need to get to consensus on policy. The problem there, though, is with that first assumption.
We're better off if we can encourage rationality rather than a predisposed propensity toward any specific political views.
The two are orthogonal.
Values are not a product of rationality.
Rationality can provide a means of determining the best way to acheive values, but it can't determine values. Differences in ideology rest largely on differences in values (there are obviously some cases where there are genuinely shared values but differences in beliefs about approach, but those aren't the main sources of political disagreements, and are -- by definition -- not differences in ideology, though they may sometimes be mistaken as differences in ideology.)
There's been a lot of people trying to popularize the idea that morals can be based on rationality and empiricism alone based on the fact that empirical science can help to explain why certain people have certain values, but explaining why people seek certain values and determining what values people should seek are, again, orthogonal.)
Yes, it is. Liberalism emerged in the enlightment advocating broader distribution of power to the people at large, and "conservatism" is the label for the ideology that emerged as an opposition to liberalism, characterized by defense of the privilege of existing elites through appeals to nationalism, traditional religious values, and the need for order and stability.
But if you typify nationalism as the marker for conservativism, then many of the world's decidedly Marxist regimes are conservative: Communist China, Soviet Russia, North Korea, Cuba, and so on.
Except in regard to the the "traditional religious values" piece (and that's not too far off except in the "traditional" sense given the faith-based adherence to the constructed mythologized "Marxism" rather any kind of critical approach based on Marx's actual critique of capitalism and proposed concrete prescriptions for correcting its ills), once they'd displaced the pre-existing elites with new ones, most "Marxist" regimes were often indistinguishable from traditional classical conservative regimes. At their height (though not as much now, for the surviving ones) some were notably weaker in specific regard to "nationalism", though, as internationalism was a specific tenant of their ideology, and one which had considerable expression particularly in the Cold War era. Its really the main substantive difference between Communist regimes and traditional conservative regimes (though its one that they certainly share with modern "neo-liberalism" which is, despite the name, a conservative ideology.)
But, in any case, nationalism, while a common trait of conservative regimes and factions, isn't the defining characteristic of conservativism, defending an existing narrow elite against efforts to broaden the distribution of effect political and/or economic power in a society is the defining trait of conservatism. Nationalism, traditional religious values, etc., are just common leverage points used by conservatives.
Conservative regimes (or parties) often portray themselves as progressive based on the (often heavily mythologized) change that brought the current local entrenched elites to power, but that's propaganda, not substance.
For those who are interested, here's a blog that discusses in more details the matter & Google's response.
Well, it provides background on the original Oracle claims and Google's responses to the original claims. It doesn't address the amended claims referred to in TFS, or any response from Google to those claims (which probably will take a while to come.)
Google should buy PostreSql, jazz it up a bit, and use it to kill Oracle's root business.
Since PostgreSQL is open source (and BSD, not GPL, so there's not as much issue with relicensing if that would be a concern) there is no reason for Google to buy PostgreSQL to do that.
Though if they didn't want to start from square one on the business side, I suppose they might want to buy EnterpriseDB.
Does the logic flow of the code need to be the same as well?
In many cases, yes, the logic flow needs to be the same if the code is to take the same inputs, produce the same outputs, and is optimized for similar use cases (or just, efficiency by similar measures.)
Seriously, most of the stuff the show is crap-and-drivel. Caprica seemed better than average there, which is probably why they canceled it, they only want to show garbage.
The qualitative assessment aside, that's probably about right. That is to say, the problem is quite likely that (as was the case with Firefly, the Babylon 5 spinoff crusade, and quite possibly Babylon 5 itself in its first home, among many, many other series) its not just the ratings of the show that matter, its how good the show is at bringing in audience members that will stay for the rest of the programming the network has to offer. I think its difficult to get enough solid scifi to support a network, and the kind of "scifi" you can get for filler doesn't make a good mix that keeps people on your network when mixed with good scifi. So good scifi shows are, generally, are hard fit for network TV. ("Good", of course, is subjective, but I think with the references to other shows here and in context of this discussion, and on Slashdot, I think the kind of thing I'm talking about in general is, clear enough.)
If a show is perceived as great by a group of people that see the rest of the networks offerings as "garbage" (and not liked by the people that like the rest of the offerings on the network), then it doesn't, in the end, do as much for a network whose revenue is driven principally by advertising as a show that is somewhat less well-received on its own by which reinforces the rest of the networks lineup.
This is not the case on premium networks (HBO, Showtime, etc.), which is one reason that shows that appeal strongly to a particular, often fairly narrow, audience but that don't necessarily appeal to the same people as other shows on the network work better there.
Unfortunately for scifi fans, none of the premium networks, despite plenty of non-mainstream series, have been particularly big on scifi series of any kind so far. But maybe those networks (perhaps rightly) don't think that the people that would be willing to pay for premium networks in any case include enough scifi fans for that to be worthwhile.
The problem with Ray's theory is this: In order for cloud computing to gain ANY real traction outside of corporations (which MSFT pretty much has a lock on with products like sharepoint and AD) you are gonna need a massive and expensive nationwide broadband rollout which I'm just not seeing in the USA.
Who cares about cloud computing taking off outside of corporations? Corporations are where all the money is, anyway, and where cloud vendors are going to make most of their money.
That aside, there's probably a reason why one of the biggest cloud vendors, and the one that has done the most to target non-corporate use (though it is, like all the rest, very heavily marketing to corporate customers, as well) -- that little company Google you might have heard of -- is also putting resources into driving broadband availability, using the "provide it yourself to push the established players" mechanisms its already used, among other places, in the browser market.
As soon as Murdoch bought the site it tanked completely. Now obviously those two things aren't entirely connected.
I wouldn't be surprised if they were entirely connected, though with perhaps the reverse of the causal relationship some people might assume.
After all, if you think you've driven your product to the maximum market value its ever going to have, its obviously a good time to sell; if you think you can cost-effectively make it worth more on the market before selling it, it makes sense to sell it.
I find it hard to believe it took Apple this long to notice and then address supposed issues with light leakage.
Considering that they failed to notice (at least, enough to do anything about it) the antenna problems on the iPhone 4 until after general release, I have no problem at all believing that Apple has serious problems, in general, identifying functional problems produced by styling decisions (perhaps, because they don't do sufficient real world testing with "production" styling, considering functionality and visual styling separate issues.)
This 'story' smacks of hooey. An entire crock's worth, you might say. Opacity of plastic is not determined by its hue, to my knowledge.
If the base polymer is essentially translucent, and the same element used to color it is also used to make it opaque, its quite likely that what is used to color it (which will be different based on the desired target color) will also affect the opacity. And, of course, if different base polymers are used for different case colors, that can also affect translucency.
Without knowing a lot more about the specific plastics and coloring in the existing black and prototype white iPhone cases, its hard to say more, but its certainly quite plausible that a white iPhone would have light-bleed issues that a black iPhone did not.
When managers see this "symptom" they need to "hire an additional employee".
Most often, that's not what management needs to do.
Most often, what management needs to do is to fix the problem with business processes that is resulting in piles of unsorted information being generated and passed to their employees rather than actionable items. Sometimes the problem may be insufficient staff resources (but where it is, it often won't be in the place where the problem shows up, but in the place where the non-actionable information is coming in from), but most often (even when resource limitations on the data source cause the source to send bad input) the real problem management needs to address is with business processes, which adding more people won't do much to help (and certainly won't help efficiently.)
A system needs to reject information that is not of the kind it can act on at the system boundary, and needs to keep the information it can act on in a manner which facilities working on it, regardless of volume. That is just as true with a system implemented with people as one implemented with computers. While -- as is less often the case with computers, generally -- adding more human processing power can, at times, provide an inefficient way of papering over the problem of failing to reject bad input data at the system boundary, or failing to properly store acceptable input data once it is received, it still isn't a good way of addressing either problem. Its essentially the equivalent of throwing more CPUs and some complicated error correction code at a problem, when the source of the problem is bugs in the code validating and storing input data.
Unmentioned is the other obvious and simple solution: don't join onto "social networks."
Which may help against the current targetting of certain exploits, but doesn't deal with the main problem. Anything you log into via an unencrypted connection on an unsecured WiFi connection is subject to the same type of attack. (And, anything you log onto via an unencrypted connection over the public internet, even over a wired connection, exposes you to credential stealing by third parties, though only ones with access to the systems over which the information actually travels.)
"Social networks" just happen to be one common class of sites that people log into that often use unencrypted transfer of credentials.
True, but irrelevant to the context of GP, which was as a response to GGPs claim that because users are responsible, LimeWire cannot be responsible. That argument only works if responsibility is absolutely exclusive.
If you use Slashdot as a forum for coordinating criminal activity, is Slashdot responsible?
If Slashdot knows about, and structures their business to encourage and profit from it, its quite likely that, yes, Slashdot would be criminally responsible.
And the rules for criminal liability are generally narrower than those for civil liability, which is what is at issue in the case at hand.
By that logic, all IRC channels and usage should be banned because botnet proprietors profit from using them to control their hordes.
Wrong. The court didn't ban the tools LimeWire used that are parallel to IRC channels (i.e., it didn't ban the use of the Gnutella protocol.) It prohibited LimeWire -- the entity that it found profited from knowingly fostering and enabling copyright infringement -- from continuing to engage in the activities by which it had knowingly fostered and enabled copyright infringement.
So, insofar as it is parallel to your example at all, it would be similar to an injunction prohibiting the actions of the botnet owner, not one prohibiting all use of the IRC channels.
Slashdot Mirror
Voting for third-party candidates (unless you can rally enough votes to actually win, which is structurally unlikely without changing the electoral system first) is unlikely to change that.
This is rather well demonstrated to be false from the fact that, in the rather rare individual elections in which third party candidates have won more than 20% of the vote, the winning major party candidates have still claimed mandates.
For the most part, the whole point of negative campaigning is to get people who might otherwise vote for the other major party candidate to, in rough order of preference, vote for the candidate on whose behalf the negative ad is prevent, not vote at all, or vote for a third-party candidate. There's a reason why major parties often are found channeling support to "independent" or third-party candidates whose natural appeal overlaps that of their major-party opponent.
Voting for a third-party candidate doesn't "send a message" to the major parties, except the message that their negative campaigning against eachother is working exactly as designed.
No, its not. It may or may not be good tactics, but its certainly not a logical fallacy.
1 in hexadecimal is the same as 1 in decimal. 1 dollar (decimal) is the same as 1 dollar (hex).
Now, 100 (hexadecimal) cents is the same as 256 (decimal) cents, which is probably what you mean.
1 dollar (decimal or hexadecimal) = 100 (decimal) cents
A suit seeking certification as a class action must be brought by one or more specific plaintiffs who are members of the class. So it is incorrect to say no users are suing the companies.
As is often the case when people sue other people, the people suing have lawyers working for them.
No, we don't.
First, because the pre-metric US system was the "US customary" system, not the "imperial" system, though some US customary units are the same as imperial units and other US customary units have the same name as imperial units despite being different (e.g., the US gallon vs. the imperial gallon.)
But, more importantly, because, since 1893, most of the units of the US system have been defined as derived units based on the units of the metric system (revisions to the precise definitions have occurred since.)
The relation between the US system and the metric system is pretty much analogous to the relationship between JRuby and Java. The underlying (metric system/JVM) is invisible to casual users, but the the exposed (US system/Ruby) system is completely dependent on the underlying system.
Which is pretty much irrelevant in the case of ACTA, since Copyrights are an enumerated federal power, so federal authority to legislate to protect copyrights is already established and the Treaty Power isn't needed to overcome exclusive authority of the states in this area.
The Republican Party isn't exactly known for favoring either limits on draconian measures to support copyright holders exclusive rights or limits on executive authority in international affairs, so, unless you are just hoping that they'll decide that this particular issue is something to hold up on the basis of "Obama wants it so we must oppose it", I wouldn't put much hope in Republicans being more likely to stop this than Democrats.
In fact, given that this agreement is one that was initiated by a Republican Administration that the main thing that Obama appears to have done is accept some foreign demands to reduce the scope, expecting Republicans to scuttle the deal seems to rest on the assumption that they'd rather have none of what they want in this area than half of what they want. Which, if it was domestic law on a matter that it would be easy to rally the public around, might make some sense since they could use it as a campaign issue more if there was no progress than slight progress and then use increased legislative clout to get everything, but since its an international agreement where that kind of tactic doesn't seem likely to work and scuttling the deal isn't likely to get them a deal that does more of what they want, that doesn't seem all that likely.
Countries can generally unilaterally repudiate treaties under international law, and in US law it is well established that an act of Congress can limit or abolish the legal force, under US law, of a treaty.
But, yes, Executive Agreements have pretty much exactly the same force as unilateral executive actions outside of the context of an international agreement would have, so they are generally limited in scope to governing the exercise of inherent Constitutional prerogatives of the President and powers lawfully delegated to the Executive by Congress.
Sure, that's not controversial.
Its also not controversial that there are international agreements that are not treaties, and that do not require ratification by a 2/3 vote of the Senate, particularly executive agreements that can be entered into unilaterally, and agreements that are implemented by adoption of normal legislation (which, while they require action in both houses of Congress, don't require a 2/3 vote in either.)
Whether a particular agreement is within the scope of executive authority or is something that can only be done as a treaty or legislation (or whether, if its accepted as a treaty, it is self-executing or requires additional implementing legislation) is, OTOH, often controversial.
In fact, that is particularly what is controversial here.
Even further, whether something that is accepted as being within the existing scope of the authority for executive agreements is inherently Constitutionally within executive authority or whether it is merely within the scope of executive authority given the existing statutory framework and could be withdrawn by simple legislation is also often controversial.
Acrobat Reader is Adobe's general purpose client platform for content produced with Adobe Acrobat and related tools. That has been true, essentially, forever. Reading PDFs is, of course, an important part of that, but Acrobat hasn't been -- or been presented as -- just a "PDF viewing utility" for quite a long time, if it ever was.
This is a fact.
This is a value proposition on which rationality has nothing to say, and furthermore on which there is, in practice, no consensus. Its a controversial value proposition in the case of "companies" generally, and its a particularly controversial value proposition in the case of companies established by the government for the purpose of acheiving government policy goals.
Yes, once you assume that everyone agrees with you on all value propositions, its easy to further conclude that rationality is all you need to get to consensus on policy. The problem there, though, is with that first assumption.
The two are orthogonal.
Values are not a product of rationality.
Rationality can provide a means of determining the best way to acheive values, but it can't determine values. Differences in ideology rest largely on differences in values (there are obviously some cases where there are genuinely shared values but differences in beliefs about approach, but those aren't the main sources of political disagreements, and are -- by definition -- not differences in ideology, though they may sometimes be mistaken as differences in ideology.)
There's been a lot of people trying to popularize the idea that morals can be based on rationality and empiricism alone based on the fact that empirical science can help to explain why certain people have certain values, but explaining why people seek certain values and determining what values people should seek are, again, orthogonal.)
Yes, it is. Liberalism emerged in the enlightment advocating broader distribution of power to the people at large, and "conservatism" is the label for the ideology that emerged as an opposition to liberalism, characterized by defense of the privilege of existing elites through appeals to nationalism, traditional religious values, and the need for order and stability.
Except in regard to the the "traditional religious values" piece (and that's not too far off except in the "traditional" sense given the faith-based adherence to the constructed mythologized "Marxism" rather any kind of critical approach based on Marx's actual critique of capitalism and proposed concrete prescriptions for correcting its ills), once they'd displaced the pre-existing elites with new ones, most "Marxist" regimes were often indistinguishable from traditional classical conservative regimes. At their height (though not as much now, for the surviving ones) some were notably weaker in specific regard to "nationalism", though, as internationalism was a specific tenant of their ideology, and one which had considerable expression particularly in the Cold War era. Its really the main substantive difference between Communist regimes and traditional conservative regimes (though its one that they certainly share with modern "neo-liberalism" which is, despite the name, a conservative ideology.)
But, in any case, nationalism, while a common trait of conservative regimes and factions, isn't the defining characteristic of conservativism, defending an existing narrow elite against efforts to broaden the distribution of effect political and/or economic power in a society is the defining trait of conservatism. Nationalism, traditional religious values, etc., are just common leverage points used by conservatives.
Conservative regimes (or parties) often portray themselves as progressive based on the (often heavily mythologized) change that brought the current local entrenched elites to power, but that's propaganda, not substance.
Well, it provides background on the original Oracle claims and Google's responses to the original claims. It doesn't address the amended claims referred to in TFS, or any response from Google to those claims (which probably will take a while to come.)
Since PostgreSQL is open source (and BSD, not GPL, so there's not as much issue with relicensing if that would be a concern) there is no reason for Google to buy PostgreSQL to do that.
Though if they didn't want to start from square one on the business side, I suppose they might want to buy EnterpriseDB.
In many cases, yes, the logic flow needs to be the same if the code is to take the same inputs, produce the same outputs, and is optimized for similar use cases (or just, efficiency by similar measures.)
The qualitative assessment aside, that's probably about right. That is to say, the problem is quite likely that (as was the case with Firefly, the Babylon 5 spinoff crusade, and quite possibly Babylon 5 itself in its first home, among many, many other series) its not just the ratings of the show that matter, its how good the show is at bringing in audience members that will stay for the rest of the programming the network has to offer. I think its difficult to get enough solid scifi to support a network, and the kind of "scifi" you can get for filler doesn't make a good mix that keeps people on your network when mixed with good scifi. So good scifi shows are, generally, are hard fit for network TV. ("Good", of course, is subjective, but I think with the references to other shows here and in context of this discussion, and on Slashdot, I think the kind of thing I'm talking about in general is, clear enough.)
If a show is perceived as great by a group of people that see the rest of the networks offerings as "garbage" (and not liked by the people that like the rest of the offerings on the network), then it doesn't, in the end, do as much for a network whose revenue is driven principally by advertising as a show that is somewhat less well-received on its own by which reinforces the rest of the networks lineup.
This is not the case on premium networks (HBO, Showtime, etc.), which is one reason that shows that appeal strongly to a particular, often fairly narrow, audience but that don't necessarily appeal to the same people as other shows on the network work better there.
Unfortunately for scifi fans, none of the premium networks, despite plenty of non-mainstream series, have been particularly big on scifi series of any kind so far. But maybe those networks (perhaps rightly) don't think that the people that would be willing to pay for premium networks in any case include enough scifi fans for that to be worthwhile.
Who cares about cloud computing taking off outside of corporations? Corporations are where all the money is, anyway, and where cloud vendors are going to make most of their money.
That aside, there's probably a reason why one of the biggest cloud vendors, and the one that has done the most to target non-corporate use (though it is, like all the rest, very heavily marketing to corporate customers, as well) -- that little company Google you might have heard of -- is also putting resources into driving broadband availability, using the "provide it yourself to push the established players" mechanisms its already used, among other places, in the browser market.
As soon as Murdoch bought the site it tanked completely. Now obviously those two things aren't entirely connected.
I wouldn't be surprised if they were entirely connected, though with perhaps the reverse of the causal relationship some people might assume.
After all, if you think you've driven your product to the maximum market value its ever going to have, its obviously a good time to sell; if you think you can cost-effectively make it worth more on the market before selling it, it makes sense to sell it.
I find it hard to believe it took Apple this long to notice and then address supposed issues with light leakage.
Considering that they failed to notice (at least, enough to do anything about it) the antenna problems on the iPhone 4 until after general release, I have no problem at all believing that Apple has serious problems, in general, identifying functional problems produced by styling decisions (perhaps, because they don't do sufficient real world testing with "production" styling, considering functionality and visual styling separate issues.)
If the base polymer is essentially translucent, and the same element used to color it is also used to make it opaque, its quite likely that what is used to color it (which will be different based on the desired target color) will also affect the opacity. And, of course, if different base polymers are used for different case colors, that can also affect translucency.
Without knowing a lot more about the specific plastics and coloring in the existing black and prototype white iPhone cases, its hard to say more, but its certainly quite plausible that a white iPhone would have light-bleed issues that a black iPhone did not.
When managers see this "symptom" they need to "hire an additional employee".
Most often, that's not what management needs to do.
Most often, what management needs to do is to fix the problem with business processes that is resulting in piles of unsorted information being generated and passed to their employees rather than actionable items. Sometimes the problem may be insufficient staff resources (but where it is, it often won't be in the place where the problem shows up, but in the place where the non-actionable information is coming in from), but most often (even when resource limitations on the data source cause the source to send bad input) the real problem management needs to address is with business processes, which adding more people won't do much to help (and certainly won't help efficiently.)
A system needs to reject information that is not of the kind it can act on at the system boundary, and needs to keep the information it can act on in a manner which facilities working on it, regardless of volume. That is just as true with a system implemented with people as one implemented with computers. While -- as is less often the case with computers, generally -- adding more human processing power can, at times, provide an inefficient way of papering over the problem of failing to reject bad input data at the system boundary, or failing to properly store acceptable input data once it is received, it still isn't a good way of addressing either problem. Its essentially the equivalent of throwing more CPUs and some complicated error correction code at a problem, when the source of the problem is bugs in the code validating and storing input data.
Unmentioned is the other obvious and simple solution: don't join onto "social networks."
Which may help against the current targetting of certain exploits, but doesn't deal with the main problem. Anything you log into via an unencrypted connection on an unsecured WiFi connection is subject to the same type of attack. (And, anything you log onto via an unencrypted connection over the public internet, even over a wired connection, exposes you to credential stealing by third parties, though only ones with access to the systems over which the information actually travels.)
"Social networks" just happen to be one common class of sites that people log into that often use unencrypted transfer of credentials.
True, but irrelevant to the context of GP, which was as a response to GGPs claim that because users are responsible, LimeWire cannot be responsible. That argument only works if responsibility is absolutely exclusive.
If Slashdot knows about, and structures their business to encourage and profit from it, its quite likely that, yes, Slashdot would be criminally responsible.
And the rules for criminal liability are generally narrower than those for civil liability, which is what is at issue in the case at hand.
Wrong. The court didn't ban the tools LimeWire used that are parallel to IRC channels (i.e., it didn't ban the use of the Gnutella protocol.) It prohibited LimeWire -- the entity that it found profited from knowingly fostering and enabling copyright infringement -- from continuing to engage in the activities by which it had knowingly fostered and enabled copyright infringement.
So, insofar as it is parallel to your example at all, it would be similar to an injunction prohibiting the actions of the botnet owner, not one prohibiting all use of the IRC channels.
That already is the rule for direct contributions.
Citizens United is about independent expenditures.