What Paul Graham says is absolutely true. But further to any H1B reform, you need a bit more fundamental attitude change as well. Speaking as someone who is closer to the US than most (Canada), I think the Silicon Valley powers that be are way too hung up on American institutions. In my case, I went to the University of Waterloo in Canada. Not b/c I couldn't get into one of the top US schools had I tried (e.g. did well in math contests, including scoring 9/15 on the AIME), but due to various circumstances, going to Waterloo is what made the most sense for me and my family at the time. And there were many other students who "settled" for a local school instead of going to the US as well. Anyway, my point here is not to "talk about my self" - but to simply point out, there are people who "could have" gotten into the top US schools if the circumstances were different. Just b/c people from different backgrounds/schools doesn't mean they are of a lesser standard than someone who may have graduated from a MIT or a Stanford. They could be worse, or sometimes, they could even be better. But, as things stand now, if you try to make waves in the valley, someone coming from MIT, Stanford, etc. has a certain artificial "aura" that may not be shared by alumni from some of the foreign (but locally reputed) schools - at least for the first stage of the process. This attitude has to change as well.

I am torn about this. If you have a complicate problem to solve, and you spend a couple of months in a team of engineers laying out the different components and the APIs after researching what interfaces make the most sense, that IS pretty inventive. I mean, we all know many MANY programmers/engineers who write atrocious code and have no idea how to design a proper interface. They will "functionally" get something working, but it's just atrocious code. That being said, why SHOULDN"T someone who designs "proper" code get some kind of protection? I am not saying a 20 years worth of patent protection, but the limited protection (in terms of "scope" - not length) that copyright offers. Why should some other guy be able to come in, just take all the work that you put in in figuring out a well designed API and just be able to duplicate it? With all due respect given to all this "blah blah we don't want protection for software blah blah".. There is something inherently morally wrong about being able to coattail ride on someones hard work. Perhaps the compromise would be to ensure that "accidental" copyright violations would not be punished, but intentional copyright violations would be punished..

"I don't want to be driven in a bus or car that doesn't conform to safety regulations or by a driver that has been working so many hours that he is sleepy or otherwise not able to safely bring me from A to B." Well, then don't use Uber. But there is enough people who WILL want to use Uber. This is not one of those things where you need to "compromise" so that some people are disadvantaged SO THAT another group may be disadvantaged. This is simply about eliminating choice where the two systems (regulated taxi drivers and uber type system) can easily co-exist. People like you can overpay for your taxis and people like me can use Uber (and voluntarily be exposed to drivers that don't conform to safety regulations and may fall asleep).

For some reason, the first time I scanned over the title, I read it as "Toyota and Sony bring real life racism to the game world". I was waiting for an epic story - but instead only got a story about how some peeps are using GPS data in a simulation.

There is nothing elegant about this. It's complicating something much more readable. Granted, elegance is related to simplicity, readability, AND efficiency - among others.. However, efficiency should not trump the other attributes - that's the job of the compiler. It's best not to confuse the roles of the two: the programmer and the compiler.

I do not want to fuck you. Unless you are a pretty girl that is over 21.

Johnny Cage, I challenge you!

And I love the fact that slashdot gives them great coverage!

If they are trying to shut down non-profit or free institutions, that's one thing. But these programs appear to be "for profit" institutions. They should get "some" kind of regulation..

Which aspect of the current copyright laws don't you like? Fair dealing doesn't go far enough? Too much statutory damages? Double dipping in recovery? Or uncertainty as to when copyright infringement has actually taken place? (i.e. the works are similar enough to invoke copyright) Please be more specific in your criticism. I for one as a general rule don't have an issue with a content owner not wanting others to steal their content. I am not some kind of communist.

Some of the posters are saying that France produced this and that movie and Americans just ripped them off - and that somehow makes this culture tax justifiable. Well, if these movies "were" ripped off, then what you need are stronger copyright laws. The various countries have their own copyright laws that are connected with international treaties - lobby to have them strengthened. My "guess" is that while there may be a "few" movies that were "ripped off", this culture tax would try to "recover" much more than what was taken from these few movies. And what the hell does Google/youtube have to do with some American studio ripping off some French movie? These "stealing" American studios try to keep their produced content from youtube also and youtube has a good take down system. This whole episode reminds me of the blank DVD tax saga in Canada - where to support the Canadian music industry that are "negatively effected" by music piracy, the stupid government allowed a blank DVD tax where every blank DVD costs a few cents extra to go to the coffers of the Canadian music people. WTF. I don't even copy music. They tried to do the same nonsense with USB sticks - but failed.

Not going to lie. I drive faster than the regular driver on the road. But I do have fast reaction so I think I am "safer" than a lot of those drivers. Not only in terms of me "avoiding" accidents, but also making sure I don't induce others from causing accidents either... Whether it be making sure the guy behind me doesn't rear end me, the guy on the far lane doesn't merge-collide with me if both of us try to make a lane change, etc.. I am going to guess that with that all said and done, simply b/c I drive faster, I will get higher rates than the idiot who drives like a turtle simply b/c she can't drive faster, just "merges in" b/c she can't judge the flow of traffic, and makes a left turn as soon as the light turns yellow... just b/c well, she figures it's her right of way. Never mind the guy zooming down the straight road who doesn't have enough time to stop and can still make it before it turns red.. Until they can monitor all traffic simultaneously and do data analysis of your driving in relation to other cars beside you, these "measurements" will mean jack shit and will just be used by the insurance companies to make more money from those of us who have clean records, but may drive faster than normal - simply b/c we can.

If this is the worst that could happen with a Tesla, sign me up! The idiots have sold the stock, so maybe it's time for me to move in and buy it while it's on the lower side. Elon has designed so many safety features with the existing design that no one has gotten hurt. Imagine what he will do with the next iterations.. You KNOW he's holed up somewhere with the design team so that the next new models will NOT have even this kind of problem. Batteries are inherently safer than gas. As you say, it has taken DECADES for the ICE vehicles to reduce the occurrence of severe fire related occurrences. Elon will do it within a couple of years.

As the poster above (werrerra) said in a parallel thread: According to the US Bureau of Transportation,there are over 250 million cars on the road in the US. There are 150,000 fires in those vehicles a year __according to the OP__. There are 20,000 Tesla cars, with 3 fires. Relative risk = ( 3 / 20000 ) / ( 150000 / 250000000 ) = 0.00015 / 0.0006 = 0.25. Tesla is safer. Apples to apples.

A person can be smart. People are stupid.