No, but I can walk into my local AAA and walk out with a new driver's license. And they do it way better and faster than the DMV, and they have coffee in the lobby. As much as I think a national ID (even an "online only" one, as if there's a difference to my privileged white lifestyle) is a Bad Idea for America, I think this falls into the category of "nothing is so simple the government can't screw it up."
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
Corporations are in no way legally (nor, in many cases ethically) responsible to maximize their bottom line. Many companies (Ben and Jerry's as a common example) consider themselves ethically bound to take huge swaths of cash from their bottom line and give to the community and good causes, even if there's no possible hope of ROI.
The oft-cited Ford v. Dodge basically says that a company can't go out of its way to screw over the shareholders. There is a huge space of good acts between "legally required to maximize profits at all costs" and "screwing the shareholders."
You can amp up that strategy thusly: don't take the time to comment on them.
Slashdot's business is a forum. The kinds of stories that get lots of pageviews and interaction breed more of their kind. Vote with your mouse.
If you wanted to get all statistically on it, you could leverage the response rates to create confidence intervals around the numbers, but that becomes confusing to the public at large. For what Gallup was doing here, those numbers are a good reflection of the citizen's approval rates.
Link to Original Source
Link to Original Source
Not to attack you personally; I've found myself falling into that same trap many times, and have to intentionally take the time to search out opposing arguments and evaluate them on their merits. One of the dangers of the internet (especially with Google's new user-targeted-search feature) is that we will increasingly be exposed only to opinions that we agree with, and thus assume that anybody who disagrees must be in the marginal minority. It's an insidious damper on actual discourse.
Be strong. Fight the fallacy.
I think it is only a matter of time until we something that can exceed C.
Verbs, for example.
And I disagree with the notion that all bias needs to be balanced out by other bias. That smacks of "teaching the controversy" to me.
The parent wasn't saying the bias needs to be balanced out by other bias; he was saying that if the people at the top lie, it takes ten voices of truth at the bottom to reach the same audience.
For the younger crowd, I can highly recommend Computer Science Unplugged. It is a great introduction to the fundamentals of computer science - algorithmic basics, information coding and entropy, finite state automata, and a bunch of other good stuff. Interestingly, the entire course is done without a computer. It has exposition, exercises, and games that reinforce those fundamentals.
It's about 10 hours of coursework, it's free, and it's geared toward the 8-12 year old crowd. My 7-year old didn't have any troubles with it, and was always hungry for more. The novelty of teaching computer science without touching a computer is also compelling.
Now, if anyone can recommend some good coursework on introduction to programming and basic algorithms for the 8-10 set, I'd appreciate it. I haven't found any good educational materials for Scratch (it's all pretty ad-hoc and amateurish), and I think Alice is a bit much for sit-you-down-and-start-programming. Any personal experiences?
Copyrights, patents, and trademarks are very different things; we need to be very exact when discussing them in the context of discussions about our basic liberties, or we can be easily dismissed as not grasping the fundamentals of what we're talking about.
So far, the courts have upheld the scorched-earth approach, and an tying an IP address to a physical location has serviced as sufficient probably cause.
Does that leave you with a warm, fuzzy feeling about your open WiFi?
* Openly commiting a massive infringement (note that non-massive infringement would not be sufficient)
* Being sued by the Author's Guild
* Having that suit granted a class action status
* Having a large enough legal team you can fight the class action lawyers
* Convincing the class action lawyers that they should settle into a business deal instead of cashing out
* Ensuring that this deal is sweeter for the lawyers than Google's or they'll just keep monopoly rents through Google
Yep. There's no exclusive rights here at all.
Anything else is 3 wolves and a sheep having grass for dinner.