if you pull something off the web and use it, you're committing some sort of copyright infringement.... But increasingly, the law is moving in the opposite direction.
I know the site is USA-centric, but it's probably a good idea to specify the country in the summary. The above blanket statement is obviously not true, since, for example, the Canadian government just introduced DMCA-style legislation that would remove a lot of fair use. I'm certainly not as optimistic as the submitter.
3. Run anything you don't 100% trust in a VM without network access
Which is easier to set-up for an average user: the above, or installing an antivirus? I consider myself fairly computer savy, but I have absolutely no clue how to set up a VM.
I've also sworn off Netgear after using their shitty WGT624 for three years. I can't count the number of times that it has locked up. I wouldn't use a Netgear product even if I was given it for FREE.
Furthermore, this is the ECONOMIST saying these things, which is arguably more "right-wing" and business oriented than most "green" advocates. If both greens and business like it, things must be better than you say.
Don't be so pessimistic. Solar power, and other renewable energies, are starting to get some real momentum. The Economist has a "special report" in the June 21st issue with tons of articles on the subject.
This the first article in the issue, and this is the one on solar power. Click on the little "next article" at the bottom of each page to go through it. I don't think a subscription is required, since I'm not logged in and I can see it.
Here's a exerpt:
The engineers clearly think they can deliver the technology. But can the technology deliver the power? A back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that it can. Two years ago a task force put together by the governors of America's western states identified 200 gigawatts-worth of prime sites for solar-thermal power within their territory (meaning places that had enough reliable sunshine, were close to transmission lines and were not environmentally or politically sensitive). That is equivalent to 20% of America's existing electricity-generation capacity: not a bad start.
It sounds like this is just an example of someone making a confidence interval; "I know the answer is in a certain range, so I'll make two guesses and it should probably be in there."
If each guess is made using a different model, then you're adding more "information" to the guess. Then there's more total information in the average, than in each guess on it's own.
But what do I know, I'm not a psychologist. I could just be making stuff up.
In my personal experience, it's still possible to get extra teaching and attention, even if you have to write standardized tests.
In high school, I was part of the AP program, which involves writing difficult standardized tests at the end of every year. In addition, we still had to write our "class" tests (made by the teacher), and final exams.
I found that all of my teachers had more than enough free time and enthusiasm to teach us things outside the AP curriculum, even though we had far more material to cover than non-AP classes. The year that I graduated, our school had 3 National Scholars (me included), so clearly they were doing something right.
I didn't go to a private school either; it was a decent-sized public school in Canada. My experience probably isn't considered "standard", but at least I know it's possible.
You're describing a position where you buy a call and a put at the same strike price. These are different derivatives, so they don't cancel each other out like the portfolio in my example.
It's hard to make money buying a long call and put at the same strike price, because you're paying for two option premiums. The stock has to move a LOT in either direction for you to make money. If it doesn't move at all, you lose a ton on the premiums.
I dunno. I'm no MBA but I would imagine that the rating of any composite security should be the lowest rating of the most risky component. That's not correct in general. Many structured products and derivatives have components that cancel each other out. A really silly example is a portfolio that buys a stock and short sells it at the same time, which will net out to nothing (except lost transaction fees). Obviously CDO's and whatever are ridiculously more complicated, but you get the point.
The Oxford English Dictionary, which was first conceived in the 1850's, was a completely volunteer driven project. It's like the Wikipedia of today, except by mail and 140 years earlier. I read an awesome book about the making of the dictionary, but the title escapes me. I'll quote Wikipedia instead.
Volunteer readers would copy to quotation slips passages illustrating actual word usages, then post them to the dictionary editor. In 1858, the Society agreed to the project in principle, with the title "A New English Dictionary on Historical Principles"...... On 12 May 1860, Coleridge's dictionary plan was published, and research started. His house was the first editorial office. He arrayed 100,000 quotation slips in a 54-pigeon-hole grid. In April 1861, the group published the first sample pages; later that month, the thirty-one-year old Coleridge died of tuberculosis. Apparently the hardest part of the work was finding quotations of some of the simplest words, since everyone was interested in quoting long and complicated words.
Ah, well that explains it. - I don't currently have cable, so I didn't see that Mercer episode - I don't subscribe to Macleans or other such magazines - I generally don't thoroughly read newspapers from the front to back; I just skim the headlines from each major section - I'm not in touch with the "bloggosphere"... there are good Canadian blogs? Feel free to link me some interesting ones
Am I the only Canadian here who didn't hear about this until today? I've read the news every day this week, and I never noticed this in a headline. The National Post sure uses an odd definition of "media storm".
Unfortunately, there are people that still take him seriously. For example, he was recently on the Glen Beck Show. I personally don't take that show seriously, but I'm sure there are some people who do.
Hmmm, yes I think I see what you're saying. However, what should we do if it's not explicitly laid out in the contract? We need a way to evaluate whether we should do it or not.
Even if it is explicitly laid out in the contract, I think there's a valid reason for discussing whether it's a fair practice or not. In general, some contracts have terms that are onerous and unfair for one party. It is quite possible for a judge to strike out those portions while still maintaining the validity of the contract as a whole.
In summary, I think we should discuss the issue from outside the context of "It's a contract, you must follow".
I for one do not welcome our new surgery-performing overlords. I study to be a surgeon because it's a job that needs exceptional skill and dedication. I love the stress, the blood, the gore and the responsibility. If all this turns out to be equal to being a common technician and not about being as skilled and concentrated as humanly possible, if robotics allow every first year med student to perform as flawlessly as the highest skilled brain surgeon by compensating for their every mistake, then it's time to move to some third world country. Selfish? Absolutely. I still do hope, that robotic surgery will not be applicable to every single procedure.
I feed on difficulties, challenges and competition and my ego is, by this, most certainly bruised. Your post rather frightens me... when I considered becoming a surgeon, I liked the idea of helping people, but it was the blood and gore that turned me off. Why is this a draw for you?
Thank you for backing up your argument this time. I agree with a lot of what you're saying, and you may notice that I was only attacking the presentation of your position, not the position itself. It's impossible to debate an issue with someone if they don't present any rational arguments.
I still don't agree that it's a completely black and white issue though. I'm refering to the "exceptions" from my other post. For example, what exactly is the difference between my family sharing an internet connection in my house, and my neighbor and I sharing a connection across houses? I think most people would agree that the first scenario is incredibly common, and I personally think it's a morally OK thing to do. However, you're arguing that the 2nd scenario is not moral and depriving the ISP of revenue. Should every person in my family have to pay for the ability to use the internet in my house? The industy seems to be moving in this direction, at least indirectly, because of bandwidth metering.
I didn't quote the whole post, because that would be a waste of space. Your post can be summarized with "It's stealing revenue, don't do it, you're wrong, it's illegal, you're stupid". That's not an argument; that's a rant. Provide a rational coherent argument as to how and why sharing a wi-fi connection hurts the ISPs, or no-one is going to take you seriously.
Think about some of these questions: Would the people using the open service have bought their own connection if the open service didn't exist? How many people would actually use this service? How would this open service effect soceity as a whole? Should it be illegal in all cases, or should there be valid exceptions? If it is illegal, is it even possible to enforce?
Hmmm, that's pretty interesting. It seems Speakeasy realizes that you could be sharing the connection with your neighbor without charging them anything, or paying more yourself, so they've found the only legitimate way of earning some revenue from the practice. Free-sharing your connection has a cost now: you're losing the discount you could earn from SpeakEasy sharing. This really seems the best solution for everyone. Anyone notice any negatives?
There is a simple answer. What you are doing is wrong. It really is that simple. If you want to convince anyone, you actually have to provide an argument, rather than simply making a statement.
Slashdot Mirror
if you pull something off the web and use it, you're committing some sort of copyright infringement.... But increasingly, the law is moving in the opposite direction.
I know the site is USA-centric, but it's probably a good idea to specify the country in the summary. The above blanket statement is obviously not true, since, for example, the Canadian government just introduced DMCA-style legislation that would remove a lot of fair use. I'm certainly not as optimistic as the submitter.
3. Run anything you don't 100% trust in a VM without network access
Which is easier to set-up for an average user: the above, or installing an antivirus? I consider myself fairly computer savy, but I have absolutely no clue how to set up a VM.
I don't see that option anywhere. You are talking about AVG version 8 right?
I've also sworn off Netgear after using their shitty WGT624 for three years. I can't count the number of times that it has locked up. I wouldn't use a Netgear product even if I was given it for FREE.
Furthermore, this is the ECONOMIST saying these things, which is arguably more "right-wing" and business oriented than most "green" advocates. If both greens and business like it, things must be better than you say.
Don't be so pessimistic. Solar power, and other renewable energies, are starting to get some real momentum. The Economist has a "special report" in the June 21st issue with tons of articles on the subject.
This the first article in the issue, and this is the one on solar power. Click on the little "next article" at the bottom of each page to go through it. I don't think a subscription is required, since I'm not logged in and I can see it.
Here's a exerpt:
The engineers clearly think they can deliver the technology. But can the technology deliver the power? A back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that it can. Two years ago a task force put together by the governors of America's western states identified 200 gigawatts-worth of prime sites for solar-thermal power within their territory (meaning places that had enough reliable sunshine, were close to transmission lines and were not environmentally or politically sensitive). That is equivalent to 20% of America's existing electricity-generation capacity: not a bad start.
It sounds like this is just an example of someone making a confidence interval; "I know the answer is in a certain range, so I'll make two guesses and it should probably be in there."
If each guess is made using a different model, then you're adding more "information" to the guess. Then there's more total information in the average, than in each guess on it's own.
But what do I know, I'm not a psychologist. I could just be making stuff up.
That was the best use of "cheese orgy" in a serious context that I have ever heard.
In my personal experience, it's still possible to get extra teaching and attention, even if you have to write standardized tests.
In high school, I was part of the AP program, which involves writing difficult standardized tests at the end of every year. In addition, we still had to write our "class" tests (made by the teacher), and final exams.
I found that all of my teachers had more than enough free time and enthusiasm to teach us things outside the AP curriculum, even though we had far more material to cover than non-AP classes. The year that I graduated, our school had 3 National Scholars (me included), so clearly they were doing something right.
I didn't go to a private school either; it was a decent-sized public school in Canada. My experience probably isn't considered "standard", but at least I know it's possible.
You're describing a position where you buy a call and a put at the same strike price. These are different derivatives, so they don't cancel each other out like the portfolio in my example. It's hard to make money buying a long call and put at the same strike price, because you're paying for two option premiums. The stock has to move a LOT in either direction for you to make money. If it doesn't move at all, you lose a ton on the premiums.
security should be the lowest rating of the most risky component. That's not correct in general. Many structured products and derivatives have components that cancel each other out. A really silly example is a portfolio that buys a stock and short sells it at the same time, which will net out to nothing (except lost transaction fees). Obviously CDO's and whatever are ridiculously more complicated, but you get the point.
Ah, well that explains it.
- I don't currently have cable, so I didn't see that Mercer episode
- I don't subscribe to Macleans or other such magazines
- I generally don't thoroughly read newspapers from the front to back; I just skim the headlines from each major section
- I'm not in touch with the "bloggosphere"... there are good Canadian blogs? Feel free to link me some interesting ones
Am I the only Canadian here who didn't hear about this until today? I've read the news every day this week, and I never noticed this in a headline. The National Post sure uses an odd definition of "media storm".
Unfortunately, there are people that still take him seriously. For example, he was recently on the Glen Beck Show. I personally don't take that show seriously, but I'm sure there are some people who do.
Hmmm, yes I think I see what you're saying. However, what should we do if it's not explicitly laid out in the contract? We need a way to evaluate whether we should do it or not.
Even if it is explicitly laid out in the contract, I think there's a valid reason for discussing whether it's a fair practice or not. In general, some contracts have terms that are onerous and unfair for one party. It is quite possible for a judge to strike out those portions while still maintaining the validity of the contract as a whole.
In summary, I think we should discuss the issue from outside the context of "It's a contract, you must follow".
I feed on difficulties, challenges and competition and my ego is, by this, most certainly bruised. Your post rather frightens me... when I considered becoming a surgeon, I liked the idea of helping people, but it was the blood and gore that turned me off. Why is this a draw for you?
Thank you for backing up your argument this time. I agree with a lot of what you're saying, and you may notice that I was only attacking the presentation of your position, not the position itself. It's impossible to debate an issue with someone if they don't present any rational arguments.
I still don't agree that it's a completely black and white issue though. I'm refering to the "exceptions" from my other post. For example, what exactly is the difference between my family sharing an internet connection in my house, and my neighbor and I sharing a connection across houses? I think most people would agree that the first scenario is incredibly common, and I personally think it's a morally OK thing to do. However, you're arguing that the 2nd scenario is not moral and depriving the ISP of revenue. Should every person in my family have to pay for the ability to use the internet in my house? The industy seems to be moving in this direction, at least indirectly, because of bandwidth metering.
I didn't quote the whole post, because that would be a waste of space. Your post can be summarized with "It's stealing revenue, don't do it, you're wrong, it's illegal, you're stupid". That's not an argument; that's a rant. Provide a rational coherent argument as to how and why sharing a wi-fi connection hurts the ISPs, or no-one is going to take you seriously.
Think about some of these questions:
Would the people using the open service have bought their own connection if the open service didn't exist? How many people would actually use this service? How would this open service effect soceity as a whole? Should it be illegal in all cases, or should there be valid exceptions? If it is illegal, is it even possible to enforce?
Magic Scoobus!? I love that show.
Hmmm, that's pretty interesting. It seems Speakeasy realizes that you could be sharing the connection with your neighbor without charging them anything, or paying more yourself, so they've found the only legitimate way of earning some revenue from the practice. Free-sharing your connection has a cost now: you're losing the discount you could earn from SpeakEasy sharing. This really seems the best solution for everyone. Anyone notice any negatives?
If you like cool graphs, you might enjoy this Economist article.
Summary: "A good graphic can tell a story, bring a lump to the throat, even change policies. Here are three of history's best."
We talked about this subject last year. Check out the other thread for more ideas.
Unless there's a huge public backlash before then, I predict that Customs will roll these out to every major airport within the year.