American universities should focus on Americans first.
And this is exactly the attitude that is causing America to be slipping. Don't educate the best and brightest, educate the best from the 5% who happen to be born in the USA. Don't encourage the best and brightest to come to America and make it a better place, pick from the 5% who happen to be born in the USA. If you want America to regain the place it had in the middle of the twentieth century, you need to make it an attractive place for the top foreigners to relocate to. Stop importing people to fill up jobs at the bottom and middle, and start importing world leaders again.
Or would you rather that people like Einstein and Von Braun had gone somewhere else and their jobs been taking by Real Americans(tm)? The world stage would probably look very different if that had happened...
That's one way to look at it. Another is that the movie makers are artists. This group varies wildly on what they think should be allowed with other people's art, but because they create art, they understand the possessiveness one feels when you pour your heart and soul into a project and the desire to protect said project against outside influence at all cost. Because of this, I find artists tend to be surprisingly lax when it comes to take-down notices like this one.
I also live in a place which has such law, and for quite some time; about "hurting religious feelings" (I kid you not, it's worded like that)
The only cases when it was uphold dealt with, for all intents and purposes, our state religion. Accidentally, it's also Roman Catholicism; perhaps their excessive fear of secularization and preferring central authority pushes them in this direction, I don't know...
But such law is really about trying to suppress one kind of religious freedom; only thinly disguised in "we want all religions to have a respect they deserve".
It doesn't really deal with religions. There's no way around that. Religions are simply incompatible with each other. What one preaches is blasphemous to others. If such law was uphold as worded, no preaching would be possible.
No, this is only about limiting freedom of irreligious people. They are the only ones not protected by the same law (in case of religions it's a kind of MAD). "Understandable", in a way - irreligious folks scare most religions much more than adherents of other religions.
Oh, it's not hard to get into the US illegally. But then you can't really work in a field where you might eventually be exposed to public scrunity. Like, say, research where you might one day want to participate in the Nobel Prize raffle.
Let's be honest here: Scientists not only want to research, they also want to show off like everyone. And their showing off is, by the very definition of their trade, very, very public. They also consider working in sweatshop labour places and being paid under the table beneath them. They want serious, honest work because their reputation is important to them.
So they need to immigrate honestly. And that's not too easy with the US.
It would be best if every country was good at science. If the USA stopped their anti science bias ("Evolution isn't real, me saying that climate change is fake is as valid as a climate scientist saying it is!") the whole world would benefit from that. And guess what: that includes the USA, so go ahead!
Sometime in the mid-90s the guy I was training and I were having a discussion about the future of technology while we were driving down the road in rural south Texas. I had a bag phone and an IBM Model 70 portable (lugable). He had a Zarus. We both carried pagers. A big part of the conversation was about how someday, we wouldn't need to carry all that crap just to do our job. We both knew that someday all of this stuff would be a single device. Just not a clue what that device would be or how it could work.
Today, about 15 years later, we still work together. I carry a Palm Treo and he has a iPhone. Different job, but mostly do the same thing, just not consultants anymore. I don't think either one of us could do our job without these gadgets. The ability
to ssh into our systems is key to our jobs, and it doesn't really matter what device we use anymore. The gadgets are getting to be more than just a convenience for both of us. They almost define our function in the job. Even if we're out of the office, we still take care of issues, now, not when we get back.
The gadgets have raised expectations for a lot of positions. If I still worked like I did back in the 90s, people would be waiting either until I got there, or got where I could hit a phone line and modem. Now, with the internet (ultimate gadget) and a smart phone, I can fix most problems at 70mph running down the road (as a passenger, of course, not going to break any laws, ha). And that's become almost an expectation.
So, yes I kind of see this as the decade of the gadget, but the gadgets mostly control us.
God help us all.
It's not just users. Applications still aren't being written to work properly with non-administrator accounts. I just installed SimplyAccounting 2010 on Windows XP and started getting weird errors poking around in it using a Limited Account, but switching to an Administrator account, no more errors.
I agree, the problem with Windows is not so much the OS itself but poorly written applications.
One of the largest examples is World of Warcraft. After five years, it still insists on storing all of its data in its program directory. I actually had to install it outside of Program Files to get it to work on Vista, even with UAC turned off and logged in as Administrator (the account, not an account in that group).
I think more software developers need to look at Firefox, a good example. Data, including plugins, are kept in the user's home. Different users can have different plugins and data, and everything just works even on a properly-secured system.
Blizzard can even download the source code to figure out basic stuff like "where to put files" because after all these years of writing Windows games, they still lack that basic knowledge.
Actually, in Windows 7, WoW installs itself all over ones hard drive. In Win7, WoW primarily installs into the Users-Public folders by default, apparently to avoid UAC issues, especially while updating. ( Users-Public-Games-World of WarCraft ). But it now also installs files into several other folders throughout the hierarchy. Like the update and cache info in the Users-[your user name ]- AppData-Local-Blizzard Entertainment folder. And a log file in ProgramData-Blizzard, as well as dll files and Uninstall info in Program Files-Common Files- Blizzard Entertainment-World of Warcraft. There may be other locations now as well, but the point is Blizzard must have heard your wish, because now WoW is 'installed' into so many different places in my hard drive that I'd have trouble backing this one particular application up easily on a regular basis. I don't like the way it installs now in Windows 7. I'd rather it all be in one place, so I don't have to hunt all over my hard drive in order to back this program up. Or to remove it.
Erm, yeah, I guess he expected non-stupid reactions, from people who'd automatically assume a 1920 × 1080 resolution.
Really? My 22" LCD monitor has a native resolution of 1680x1050. It just shows how stupid it is to talk about screen size when you really mean resolution. That was the point that grandparent post was making.
I have to buy another LCD monitor soon, and it will run at 1920x1200 and not 1920x1080. This is why I won't just ask for a size in inches.
he whole point is that Google is trying something no one else has bothered to do
The reason no one else has bothered to do it is because it is illegal to make available copies of works still under copyright without express permission from the author.
I really wish people would get this through their heads. Google is breaking the law, and is attempting to get a courts blessing not only to continue breaking the law, but to award them the sole and unlimited right to break the law.
Is there something I don't understand? I don't think unlocking a US cellphone has any additional value than an unlocked US cellphone. The phone's most value is on its original network and it's almost worthless on any other network.
Why would you think that? How is a phone worthless on another network? Do you even understand what unlocking is?
Here in the UK, lots of little shops offer to unlock your phone. And people pay for it, because its worth moneys to have an unlocked phone.
Asynchronous inputs are at the root of our race problems. -- D. Winker and F. Prosser