Which is true. Have you ever written software for customers? Outside of vague generalities most of them don't know exactly what they want.
I think this overstates the case, most know what they want, they just don't know what other people need to be told to understand what they want (and often they focus on what they think will give them what they want rather than what they actually want), and most developers don't know how to ask the right questions to elicit the needed information.
In theory, this is where systems/business/domain analysts come in.
But in the limit perhaps it'll be like a load of Google or whatever servers sitting around the Internet instead of in one or two datacentres.
But Google has a lot of servers around the internet, not just in one or two datacenters, so basically your pie-in-the-sky best-case scenario for this alternative is that it might, if everything goes well, end up being just like Google.
Which is great, but if I want something just like Google, I can, you know, just use Google.
Although Android is not a true open source project, they normally release the source code
A project that releases source code under an open source license is an open source project.
Android, unlike many open source projects, isn't an open community development project, but while those two things often go together, they have no necessary relationship.
Agreed, if TCO is lower, then jobs are cost, end of story.
Well, except that that's not true at all.
If you only track the jobs at the firm bearing the costs, then lower TCO could mean more internal jobs but enough less payment to outside firms to more than counteract the increase to the internal costs (or it could mean more internal jobs at enough lower pay per job without any change to external payments.)
If you track jobs with the vendors paid by the firm in question (and their vendors, and theirs, etc., until you get to the ultimate suppliers of labor or raw materials), then less payment to those firms could mean: 1. Fewer jobs at those firms, 2. More jobs at those firms at lower wages, or 3. No change in jobs, but reduced non-labor costs (taxes, raw material extraction charges, profits distributed to capital holders [because of changes in which vendors are involved, and what their particular practice in returning profits to owners is], etc.)
If you go out even further to include indirect impacts in the economy outside of the direct supply chain, then improving TCO means improving efficiency in the industry in which the TCO has been lowered, which can have many effects -- one of the most obvious being driving additional capital investment to that industry and creating more jobs in it.
At any level of analysis, "lower TCO = fewer jobs" is not a valid generalizations (though it may sometimes be the case if you bound the universe of analysis properly.)
Of course, you also forgot "Abandoned Bretton Woods, starting us on the road to the current economic mess,
The current economic mess has fuck-all to do with Bretton Woods, which had collapsed for all practical purposes long before the Nixon administration formally abandoned it, and is more directly tied to the the abandonment of Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 repealing the provisions of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1932 that were designed to prevent conflicts of interests between investment and commercial banking -- because of the direct role such conflicts had had in the financial collapse that produced the Great Depression.
Its perhaps not surprising that the behavior resulting from removing those provisions directly contributed again to a major collapse.
I was thinking more of an individual, someone with no muscle enforcing his decisions.
Sure, people can leave unions.
If you can't convince enough other people in your place of employment to go with you -- terminating the union's relationship with your employer -- you may have to find a different place to work to do that, though (depending on the particular conditions that apply to your particular circumstance.)
Besides, there is a clause in the treaty that allows any nation who has signed the document to withdraw from the provisions of the treaty.... with a notification period of at least a year before that nation withdrawing no longer is bound to the terms. As such, it really is a completely worthless document other than the fact that the great "race to the Moon" in terms of land claims will have at least a year's notice before it is carved up politically.
Claiming the Moon was secondary in the OST, the main purpose of the OST is preventing militarization of space, and particularly orbital deployment of nuclear weapons. (Which is why it has pretty much the same opt-out provisions as the ABM treaty had.)
The Outer Space Treaty certainly doesn't stop private ownership,
I don't think customary international law or any treaty recognizes private ownership of real property that's not subject to the soveriegnty of a state; Garriott could attempt to declare a sovereign lunar state, but in the absence of any human presence its unlikely that such a claim would be recognized -- it'd be a bigger uphill battle than Sealand faces.
A private company that actually established a permanent base might have some chance of gaining recognition as a soveriegn state, but given how tenuous human existence on the moon would be, there would probably not be much point.
And there's a nice fine legal morass for extractive activities, since the Moon Treaty was never ratified by any state that is actually active in space, so there isn't a legal framework beyond the launching nation's liability for harm caused by "space objects" launched by that nation, which could mean that any nation (presuming its one of the 100 states-parties to the OST) from which an extractive effort was launched would likely find itself on the receiving end of an interesting ICJ lawsuit from some or all of the other parties.
In policy debates before Congress and the FCC, the big ISPs and wireless carriers (Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, Cox, Sprint) argued that net neutrality rules would give them less incentive to upgrade their networks.
When industry reps for government policy based on whether or not that policy would give them an "incentive to do X", they almost invariably really mean "profit without doing X".
(They are more likely to be honest if they talk about a policy that would give someone else an incentive to do something, especially if that something would create more opportunities for profit in the industry doing the advocacy.)
Listening to Google Music on my UK Bought, UK registered, Android phone... Not as US centric as Google want... or maybe they don't care...
Google doesn't care. The rights-owners, at least for the stuff they sell from their store, who sell distribution rights in geographically-delineated markets even though that makes almost no sense in the 21st century, probably do care.
(1) Do you have to be the size of the SEIU in order to quit the AFL-CIO?
No. Its actually probably logistically easier for a disaffected faction in a smaller member union to organize a drive to disaffiliate than in a large union. OTOH, larger member unions (especially working together in a group like Change to Win, which is what the big unions that left AFL-CIO formed) are probably less likely to feel that the gains from disaffiliation in terms of not expending resources to support AFL-CIO strategies that they disagree with is worth losing support from the shared resources of the AFL-CIO.
(2) Can you quit the SEIU?
Sure, a local can disaffiliate and become an independent union or disaffiliate and then reaffiliate with another broader union.
You can steal property to which someone might offer under a license, or you can steal (as theft of service) a service which the owner of might provide licenses to use.
And you can steal property (e.g., a document indicating that the bearer is a licensee) which allows you to fraudulently pass yourself off as the holder of a license.
Certainly, theft related to material for which a license, rather than fee-simple ownership, is offered for sale is quite possible.
A license gives you bounded permission to use someone else's property. Someone has to have a proprietary interest before they can provide someone else a license, so the "property or license" dichotomy you suggest that someone needs to "pick one and stick to it" is nonsense. For their to be a license, there must be property.
I have been waiting for a mirasol or pixi q tablet for 6 years when I first heard of the displays. I am tired of waiting and waiting and waiting. Just put out a decent device with the display and you will sell enough to pay for that building.
Is there something wrong with the Pixel Qi model of the Notion Ink Adam?
Tell me, how is amazon SUPPRESSING media by simply refusing to sell it? Is refusing to promote or sell something "suppressing" it?
If you are one of the main distributors by which media of a particular type is distributed from creators to the public, then, yes, refusing to distribute can be a particularly effectively way of suppressing it.
If so, MSNBC is censoring because they dont espouse republican viewpoints as well as democratic ones
The premise of the question is flawed. Consider Joe Scarborough.
The "outrage", as you put it, is because inflationary language like this not only unnecessarily stirs up outrage over minor issues (a store refusing to sell content that it finds objectionable is frankly a right I would defend as much as my personal right to free speech)
Whether its a right or not doesn't make it "not censorship". Whether censorship or not doesn't depend on whether it is right or wrong or whether the government is doing it, "censorship" is a objectively defined.
but it also causes "outrage fatigue" and makes it harder to stir people up for LEGITIMATE issues of censorship (book burning, etc).
You don't get to redefine words just because you think it would be more convenient for your political purposes if existing words which apply both to things you approve of and things you don't didn't encompass both kinds of things under one label.
I mean you can try, but its probably not going to work.
There's already very good existing phrases to describe book-burning. Starting with "book burning". There's no reason to narrow the definition that censorship has had for hundreds of years just so that its impossible to discuss a category of behavior that cuts across lines you consider morally significant.
In the specific (and hilariously controversial*) case of "beg the question", it's possible to torture a nearly-sensible literal meaning out of the phrase ("This begs the question" == "This begs someone to ask the question"), so the correct use derived from the original Latin phrase (and only sensible in light of Latin's vocabulary and grammar) will die out within a couple of generations, except in philosophical specialist material.
The "correct" version in intransitive and the "incorrect" version is transitive, and since not only can the "incorrect" version be rationalized in terms of the ordinary English meaning of the component words, but also the "correct" version can also be rationalized as a special case of the "incorrect" version. (Essentially, the "correct" version can be looked at as the case of the "incorrect" version where the "question" in issue is the question already under discussion, not some other question.)
As a result, I doubt the "correct" version will die out, it will survive as the intransitive form along with the "incorrect" version as the transitive form, and both will continue to be clear and unambiguous in use, and the whole hilarious etymology will be obscure to most people.
This seems like a really foolish thing for a convicted monopoly to do.
They were convicted not only of having a monopoly (which isn't, by itself, an offense) but of leveraging it improperly to extend market power to other markets, and when convicted got to keep their ill-gotten gains, and got a slap on the wrist and time-limited monitoring.
While antisocial, it seems perfectly rational, rather than "really foolish", for them to return to the same behavior again, when its been shown to be, on balance, profitable for them to do so, even when weighing in the cost of the resulting litigation and the punishment when convicted.
A vendor refusing to sell certain content in THEIR store-- space that they have to pay for and maintain-- is now "censorship"?
Yes, exactly. Just like a broadcaster choosing what to show on their network--a system they have to pay for and maintain--is censorship, and the people who do it are called "network censors".
Censorship has always referred to the act of examining material for objectional content and suppressing that objectionable content, regardless of who does it.
Now, its true that certain subclasses of censorship -- that by agencies with disproportionate power to keep ideas out of the public square entirely by the act of censorship, and most particularly by the government, raise special concerns. But "censorship" has never exclusively referred to those most-worrisome cases.
Good grief, so what word should we now use for government-enforced book burnings, since "censorship" has been devalued to the point of worthlessness?
"Copyright enforcement". Well, at least, that's the most common case of government-enforced book-destruction.
For those that are actually objectionable-content-based, "government censorship" works just fine, same as ever. Not all censorship is government censorship, despite your effort to retroactively redefine the term just so that you can take offense at people using it properly.
But I suddenly feel scared for Barnes and Noble. They are a relatively small company daring to take a stance against a mammoth. I really, really hope they don't get crushed.:(
Hey, they are company that's up for sale, and now Microsoft has a reason to want to have influence with whoever buys them (to make B&N's rather offensive defense go away), and Google has a reason to have influence with whoever buys them (to make sure it doesn't.)
Full grunt of Linux is needed to run a simple text reader?
The Nook Color is an Android tablet with some customizations to centralize B&N's ebook reading app; its not a "simple text reader".
Even the original Nook was a much more than a simple text reader.
While Nook Reader introduced as the new low-end device at the same time as the Nook Color might really be a simple text reader, or close enough, there's obviously value in using the same core OS as is in the earlier Nook and the contemporary Nook Color rather than maintaining devices with completely different OSs underneath.
Slashdot Mirror
I think this overstates the case, most know what they want, they just don't know what other people need to be told to understand what they want (and often they focus on what they think will give them what they want rather than what they actually want), and most developers don't know how to ask the right questions to elicit the needed information.
In theory, this is where systems/business/domain analysts come in.
But Google has a lot of servers around the internet, not just in one or two datacenters, so basically your pie-in-the-sky best-case scenario for this alternative is that it might, if everything goes well, end up being just like Google.
Which is great, but if I want something just like Google, I can, you know, just use Google.
A project that releases source code under an open source license is an open source project.
Android, unlike many open source projects, isn't an open community development project, but while those two things often go together, they have no necessary relationship.
It would be more accurate to say that the WWI seizures of intangible personal property assets didn't take the internet into account.
Which, you know, isn't all that surprising.
Well, except that that's not true at all.
If you only track the jobs at the firm bearing the costs, then lower TCO could mean more internal jobs but enough less payment to outside firms to more than counteract the increase to the internal costs (or it could mean more internal jobs at enough lower pay per job without any change to external payments.)
If you track jobs with the vendors paid by the firm in question (and their vendors, and theirs, etc., until you get to the ultimate suppliers of labor or raw materials), then less payment to those firms could mean:
1. Fewer jobs at those firms,
2. More jobs at those firms at lower wages, or
3. No change in jobs, but reduced non-labor costs (taxes, raw material extraction charges, profits distributed to capital holders [because of changes in which vendors are involved, and what their particular practice in returning profits to owners is], etc.)
If you go out even further to include indirect impacts in the economy outside of the direct supply chain, then improving TCO means improving efficiency in the industry in which the TCO has been lowered, which can have many effects -- one of the most obvious being driving additional capital investment to that industry and creating more jobs in it.
At any level of analysis, "lower TCO = fewer jobs" is not a valid generalizations (though it may sometimes be the case if you bound the universe of analysis properly.)
The current economic mess has fuck-all to do with Bretton Woods, which had collapsed for all practical purposes long before the Nixon administration formally abandoned it, and is more directly tied to the the abandonment of Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 repealing the provisions of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1932 that were designed to prevent conflicts of interests between investment and commercial banking -- because of the direct role such conflicts had had in the financial collapse that produced the Great Depression.
Its perhaps not surprising that the behavior resulting from removing those provisions directly contributed again to a major collapse.
Sure, people can leave unions.
If you can't convince enough other people in your place of employment to go with you -- terminating the union's relationship with your employer -- you may have to find a different place to work to do that, though (depending on the particular conditions that apply to your particular circumstance.)
Claiming the Moon was secondary in the OST, the main purpose of the OST is preventing militarization of space, and particularly orbital deployment of nuclear weapons. (Which is why it has pretty much the same opt-out provisions as the ABM treaty had.)
I don't think customary international law or any treaty recognizes private ownership of real property that's not subject to the soveriegnty of a state; Garriott could attempt to declare a sovereign lunar state, but in the absence of any human presence its unlikely that such a claim would be recognized -- it'd be a bigger uphill battle than Sealand faces.
A private company that actually established a permanent base might have some chance of gaining recognition as a soveriegn state, but given how tenuous human existence on the moon would be, there would probably not be much point.
Mankind, in common, per the Outer Space Treaty.
And there's a nice fine legal morass for extractive activities, since the Moon Treaty was never ratified by any state that is actually active in space, so there isn't a legal framework beyond the launching nation's liability for harm caused by "space objects" launched by that nation, which could mean that any nation (presuming its one of the 100 states-parties to the OST) from which an extractive effort was launched would likely find itself on the receiving end of an interesting ICJ lawsuit from some or all of the other parties.
When industry reps for government policy based on whether or not that policy would give them an "incentive to do X", they almost invariably really mean "profit without doing X".
(They are more likely to be honest if they talk about a policy that would give someone else an incentive to do something, especially if that something would create more opportunities for profit in the industry doing the advocacy.)
Google doesn't care. The rights-owners, at least for the stuff they sell from their store, who sell distribution rights in geographically-delineated markets even though that makes almost no sense in the 21st century, probably do care.
No. Its actually probably logistically easier for a disaffected faction in a smaller member union to organize a drive to disaffiliate than in a large union. OTOH, larger member unions (especially working together in a group like Change to Win, which is what the big unions that left AFL-CIO formed) are probably less likely to feel that the gains from disaffiliation in terms of not expending resources to support AFL-CIO strategies that they disagree with is worth losing support from the shared resources of the AFL-CIO.
Sure, a local can disaffiliate and become an independent union or disaffiliate and then reaffiliate with another broader union.
You can steal property to which someone might offer under a license, or you can steal (as theft of service) a service which the owner of might provide licenses to use.
And you can steal property (e.g., a document indicating that the bearer is a licensee) which allows you to fraudulently pass yourself off as the holder of a license.
Certainly, theft related to material for which a license, rather than fee-simple ownership, is offered for sale is quite possible.
A license gives you bounded permission to use someone else's property. Someone has to have a proprietary interest before they can provide someone else a license, so the "property or license" dichotomy you suggest that someone needs to "pick one and stick to it" is nonsense. For their to be a license, there must be property.
Some of the biggest unions around -- SEIU, Teamsters, UFW, and UFCW -- did in 2005.
Or, Microsoft was overvalued in 2000.
Is there something wrong with the Pixel Qi model of the Notion Ink Adam?
If you are one of the main distributors by which media of a particular type is distributed from creators to the public, then, yes, refusing to distribute can be a particularly effectively way of suppressing it.
The premise of the question is flawed. Consider Joe Scarborough.
Whether its a right or not doesn't make it "not censorship". Whether censorship or not doesn't depend on whether it is right or wrong or whether the government is doing it, "censorship" is a objectively defined.
You don't get to redefine words just because you think it would be more convenient for your political purposes if existing words which apply both to things you approve of and things you don't didn't encompass both kinds of things under one label.
I mean you can try, but its probably not going to work.
There's already very good existing phrases to describe book-burning. Starting with "book burning". There's no reason to narrow the definition that censorship has had for hundreds of years just so that its impossible to discuss a category of behavior that cuts across lines you consider morally significant.
The "correct" version in intransitive and the "incorrect" version is transitive, and since not only can the "incorrect" version be rationalized in terms of the ordinary English meaning of the component words, but also the "correct" version can also be rationalized as a special case of the "incorrect" version. (Essentially, the "correct" version can be looked at as the case of the "incorrect" version where the "question" in issue is the question already under discussion, not some other question.)
As a result, I doubt the "correct" version will die out, it will survive as the intransitive form along with the "incorrect" version as the transitive form, and both will continue to be clear and unambiguous in use, and the whole hilarious etymology will be obscure to most people.
You can effectively block HTML5 by using a sufficiently outdated browser.
They were convicted not only of having a monopoly (which isn't, by itself, an offense) but of leveraging it improperly to extend market power to other markets, and when convicted got to keep their ill-gotten gains, and got a slap on the wrist and time-limited monitoring.
While antisocial, it seems perfectly rational, rather than "really foolish", for them to return to the same behavior again, when its been shown to be, on balance, profitable for them to do so, even when weighing in the cost of the resulting litigation and the punishment when convicted.
Yes, exactly. Just like a broadcaster choosing what to show on their network--a system they have to pay for and maintain--is censorship, and the people who do it are called "network censors".
Censorship has always referred to the act of examining material for objectional content and suppressing that objectionable content, regardless of who does it.
Now, its true that certain subclasses of censorship -- that by agencies with disproportionate power to keep ideas out of the public square entirely by the act of censorship, and most particularly by the government, raise special concerns. But "censorship" has never exclusively referred to those most-worrisome cases.
"Copyright enforcement". Well, at least, that's the most common case of government-enforced book-destruction.
For those that are actually objectionable-content-based, "government censorship" works just fine, same as ever. Not all censorship is government censorship, despite your effort to retroactively redefine the term just so that you can take offense at people using it properly.
Hey, they are company that's up for sale, and now Microsoft has a reason to want to have influence with whoever buys them (to make B&N's rather offensive defense go away), and Google has a reason to have influence with whoever buys them (to make sure it doesn't.)
That can't hurt too much.
The Nook Color is an Android tablet with some customizations to centralize B&N's ebook reading app; its not a "simple text reader".
Even the original Nook was a much more than a simple text reader.
While Nook Reader introduced as the new low-end device at the same time as the Nook Color might really be a simple text reader, or close enough, there's obviously value in using the same core OS as is in the earlier Nook and the contemporary Nook Color rather than maintaining devices with completely different OSs underneath.
Its public since you started broadcasting it.
Google is part of the public.