Quote Details: Oscar Levant:
"The only difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is that the Democrats allow the poor to be corrupt, too. Oscar Levant (1906 - 1972)"
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Sunday, December 2, 2007
PC World - Business Center: Are the Government's PCs Antiques?
PC World - Business Center: Are the Government's PCs Antiques?:
"Young IT workers in the U.S. government believe technology is obsolete by the time it is rolled out and are concerned that they can't get the experience they need because some functions are outsourced, according to a focus-group report released Monday.
A group of technology interns at the U.S. Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) also said cost-cutting in the U.S. government limits their ability to innovate, and they raised concerns that the more veteran IT workforce isn't oriented toward information sharing, according to the report, released by Telework Exchange, an Alexandria, Virginia, group that promotes telecommuting among government workers.
"Thursday, November 15, 2007
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Grad student suspended after pro gun rights e-mail | The Iconoclast - politics, law, and technology - CNET News.com
Grad student suspended after pro gun rights e-mail | The Iconoclast - politics, law, and technology - CNET News.com:
"A Minnesota university has suspended one of its graduate students who sent two e-mail messages to school officials supporting gun rights.
Liberals pay a weird lip-service to the rights of individuals, and then trample them freely. Do they not recognize the disconnect between their ideology and their actions? Are they really that stupid? (Don't answer that.)
"A Minnesota university has suspended one of its graduate students who sent two e-mail messages to school officials supporting gun rights.
Hamline University also said that master's student Troy Scheffler, who owns a firearm, would be barred from campus and must receive a mandatory "mental health evaluation" after he sent an e-mail message arguing that law-abiding students should be able to carry firearms on campus for self-defense."
Here's one of the things that makes me crazy: the suspension of the US Constitution on US College campuses. For those who don't know, I spent more than 10 years working in universities as both staff and faculty, and saw a complete abolition of due process where it came to the rights of students and staff with conservative views.In one case, my boss was sent to sensitivity training because it was alleged that he said "menacing" things to female students (one of these supposedly happened in my presence, but my characterization of the events differ). He asked if anyone cared whether or not the allegations were true, and the response from an Associate Dean was, "It's enough that there are complaints."
Liberals pay a weird lip-service to the rights of individuals, and then trample them freely. Do they not recognize the disconnect between their ideology and their actions? Are they really that stupid? (Don't answer that.)
Friday, October 5, 2007
Fallout from the RIAA's $220K windfall
Democratic congressman: RIAA's $222,000 win is 'excessive' | Tech news blog - CNET News.com:
"The recording industry's victory Thursday in a trial involving a Minnesota woman accused of illegal file-sharing is already turning at least a few heads on Capitol Hill."
Minnesota woman who owes RIAA $220,000 calls sum 'ridiculous' | Tech news blog - CNET News.com:
"'It says in the constitution that there should be no undue fines,' Thomas said in an interview with CNET News.com. 'I was just fined (9,000 percent more) than the value of these songs.'"
"The recording industry's victory Thursday in a trial involving a Minnesota woman accused of illegal file-sharing is already turning at least a few heads on Capitol Hill."
Minnesota woman who owes RIAA $220,000 calls sum 'ridiculous' | Tech news blog - CNET News.com:
"'It says in the constitution that there should be no undue fines,' Thomas said in an interview with CNET News.com. 'I was just fined (9,000 percent more) than the value of these songs.'"
Four reasons why the RIAA won a jury verdict of $220,000 today | The Iconoclast - politics, law, and technology - CNET News.com
Four reasons why the RIAA won a jury verdict of $220,000 today | The Iconoclast - politics, law, and technology - CNET News.com
Poor Jammie Thomas. She ran afoul of the RIAA over copyright, got herself sued, and a jury of her so-called peers awarded the stinking-rich RIAA 222,000 US large. At issue was Thomas' making available 24 songs.
In reading some of the details of the case, it seems that Thomas probably didn't know that she was making the files available. However, for the RIAA to use such a big club, and for the courts and, - for God's sake, the jury - to punish her so badly is appalling. The problem lies in the nature and wording of the law, and the RIAA's policy to defend it's property ruthlessly.
The questions that need to be asked are: Who was damaged? How much were they damaged? How intentional was the infringement? Can the fact that the material was actually distributed be proven? Beyond damages, what is a reasonable fine?
Interestingly, none of these questions need be answered, because of the way the law is worded. Pretty much, all one needs to do is make something available for distribution, and that's that. And that's what Thomas did, intentionally or not.
This is bad. Bad law, and bad policy. Not so much because I think artists shouldn't be paid, but because I think it's not fair. I think Thomas should be punished - if not for electronic distribution of intellectual property, then for being stupid enough to make it easy for the RIAA to catch her.
I especially think it's bad because I keep thinking of human waste like the Britney Spears and [INSERT HIP-HOP ARTIST NAME HERE] who do nothing but pollute our culture and reap huge awards from it, through groups like the RIAA. And it seems they now have another $222,000 to play with. New grilles all around!
Should Thomas be punished? Yes. How much? The RIAA should have to prove how many of the 24 songs were actually downloaded, how many times, and then charge her the market rate for them - about a dollar apiece. The downside is that this might have turned out to be more than her actual fine, but at least the penalty would have some basis in proof, reality and reason. As it stands, the outcome is simply arbitrary.
It ain't fair, and it would be nice if lawmakers would recognize this.
Poor Jammie Thomas. She ran afoul of the RIAA over copyright, got herself sued, and a jury of her so-called peers awarded the stinking-rich RIAA 222,000 US large. At issue was Thomas' making available 24 songs.
In reading some of the details of the case, it seems that Thomas probably didn't know that she was making the files available. However, for the RIAA to use such a big club, and for the courts and, - for God's sake, the jury - to punish her so badly is appalling. The problem lies in the nature and wording of the law, and the RIAA's policy to defend it's property ruthlessly.
The questions that need to be asked are: Who was damaged? How much were they damaged? How intentional was the infringement? Can the fact that the material was actually distributed be proven? Beyond damages, what is a reasonable fine?
Interestingly, none of these questions need be answered, because of the way the law is worded. Pretty much, all one needs to do is make something available for distribution, and that's that. And that's what Thomas did, intentionally or not.
This is bad. Bad law, and bad policy. Not so much because I think artists shouldn't be paid, but because I think it's not fair. I think Thomas should be punished - if not for electronic distribution of intellectual property, then for being stupid enough to make it easy for the RIAA to catch her.
I especially think it's bad because I keep thinking of human waste like the Britney Spears and [INSERT HIP-HOP ARTIST NAME HERE] who do nothing but pollute our culture and reap huge awards from it, through groups like the RIAA. And it seems they now have another $222,000 to play with. New grilles all around!
Should Thomas be punished? Yes. How much? The RIAA should have to prove how many of the 24 songs were actually downloaded, how many times, and then charge her the market rate for them - about a dollar apiece. The downside is that this might have turned out to be more than her actual fine, but at least the penalty would have some basis in proof, reality and reason. As it stands, the outcome is simply arbitrary.
It ain't fair, and it would be nice if lawmakers would recognize this.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Heavyweights Duke It Out Over Wireless Broadband
PC World - Heavyweights Duke It Out Over Wireless Broadband:
"'I give you the example of China exactly to make the point that even in a Communist country, consumers have more choice than they do in the cellular industry in the United States,' Hundt replied. 'This is a really weird system, and it doesn't exist because the consumers chose it, and it doesn't exist because of competition; it exists because of the bottleneck power of a couple of companies.'"
"'I give you the example of China exactly to make the point that even in a Communist country, consumers have more choice than they do in the cellular industry in the United States,' Hundt replied. 'This is a really weird system, and it doesn't exist because the consumers chose it, and it doesn't exist because of competition; it exists because of the bottleneck power of a couple of companies.'"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)