How To Foil NSA Sabotage: Use a Dead Man's Switch
The solution is to find a way to elect and appoint people who will do the right thing, and keep them on that path even when the existing bureaucracy is out to horribly screw with them. Many people have attempted this path, few if any succeed.
Rather, if at any point the problem still exists and that's not the solution, a complete change in government is the only remaining option. I don't say that flippantly, as it will come with a lot of bloodshed, misery, and loss. If you can't elect anyone to fix the system, it is no longer a republic, let alone a democratic republic.
EA Is the Game Company Disney Was Looking For
I have to say, the headline honestly surprised me. A franchise with as much potential as Star Wars, and yet it's like they went with the lowest bidder.
Or do they not have google at Disney? Virtually the entire first page of results for "EA Reputation" slams them, or is full of people very blatantly trying to work around the accepted fact that EA has a god-awful reputation.
I can find no words. Really, honestly, it is shocking. It's like the first thought was, "Let's get some businesses in here", and then they went into group-think. The immediate reaction I would have had--no, scratch that, I probably wouldn't if I were as rich as Disney, and had scammy showmen knocking at my door, but the first reaction I damn well SHOULD have had is, "Will they make good product?" And the judge of that isn't what executives think, it's what the target audience thinks.
Those reports about EA being named the worst company in America two years running are, without a doubt, overblown. However, they are the target audience providing feedback over the quality of the product.
Disney handed it over.
I don't get it. Do we need to email them the link? http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=ea+reputation
Will Donglegate Affect Your Decision To Attend PyCon?
With all due respect, the best you can hope to do is to raise the next generation to be more sensible. Not just children, but employees and everyone else you have some control over. Even if you don't have control over the situation, you can do a little for and with peers and colleagues.
It isn't that difficu--okay, sometimes it's that difficult, but it's not complicated. Reward people that do the right thing rather than immature people like her. If you have to explain to your boss, or HR, or a student's parent, or even a judge, why a whiny brat didn't get her (or his) way, well, try and make it a good speech, because it's a speech that deserves to be made.
Even if you feel helpless about the present, we are all responsible for the future, whether we embrace that responsibility or not.
Feedback On Simcity Gets User Banned From EA Forums
I'm tempted to think that EA would not draw a distinction between enlightened users refusing to buy out of protest, and lack of demand for that type of product. In other words, if lowest-common-denominator games sell despite DRM but niche genre games do not, all they'll say is "SimCity doesn't sell", or "City building games don't sell", etc. At worst, they begin to think that ONLY lowest-common-denominator games are worth putting out.
Piracy at least says "This game WOULD have sold", even EA leadership still ascribes it to malice rather than protest.
Aaron's Law: Violating a Site's ToS Should Not Land You in Jail
I have often thought that a binding TOS / EULA should be mandated to take the following form, with very clear language:
You agree not to distribute a bazillion copies of our software [Yes] [x No]
You agree that we own your content [Yes] [x No]
You agree that we are not liable for damage [Yes] [x No]
You agree to not sue us if we lose your credit card information [Yes] [x No]
I'm sorry, it seems we cannot agree on a contract. In particular, these terms are mandatory:
* You agree not to distribute a bazillion copies of our software
* You agree that we are not liable for damage
* You agree not to sue us if we lose your credit card information
The following would be stored as a user preference:
* You agree that we own your content: NO (Note: May limit functionality)
MIT Investigating School's Role In Swartz Suicide
I'd go so far as to say that a person who lectured about ethics, but has never toed the line of legality, probably has little or nothing of value to say about ethics. If you come from a world where nobody has ever questioned whether you did the right thing, who the hell are you to tell me you know right from wrong?
Doing the right thing is difficult. It's difficult because there are consequences to your actions, and very often that does, or could potentially include legal consequences. Being forced to prove that you did nothing wrong, when that is in fact true, and you did nothing wrong, is one of the challenges ethical people face. Worse, knowing that you DID do wrong, being forced to argue that the consequences of inaction would have been worse, can be a difficult spot to be in.
A Subscription-Based Movie Theater
Now, if the cinema was playing older movies or classics along with the new releases, that might start to get interesting.
I have often thought that a cinema with smaller rooms and a giant database of TV shows and movies that you could rent by the hour would work. Want to watch 20 hours of Buffy or Star Trek with friends? Groovy, get some comfy chairs, a big screen, and all the popcorn you can pay for. Soundproofing and a private screening means you can yak it up.
But then, I suppose people would prefer their own home cinema in a lot of circumstances, and unsupervised people in dark rooms...
YouTube Drops 2 Billion Fake Music Industry Views
Why not both? Two great tastes, taste great together!
Why Linux On Microsoft Surface Is a Tough Challenge
You don't understand what "Abusing a monopoly" means.
When you have a monopoly, you can apply pressure to other people, knowing that there is no competition for them to run to. If they have competition to run to, you aren't abusing anything, you are just being a damn idiot. This is Microsoft's product. The Surface is manufactured by Microsoft and is in every way theirs. They are allowed to make arguably stupid decisions when it comes to their own product, as long as there is sufficient competition that other people do not need to feel impinged upon by their mistakes.
If all UEFI bootloaders only accept this private Microsoft key, and if it turns out that's Microsoft's doing, that's one thing. However, in my understanding, other OEMs will probably take the publicly signed keys that Microsoft makes available. Microsoft surface, however, will not, which some people find disappointing.
Facebook Ordered To End Its Real Name Policy In Germany
More like I hope Facebook pulls out of Germany entirely. This is what happens when you try to govern an open, international forum by fencing yourself in.
Swedish Pirate Party Presses Charges Against Banks For WikiLeaks Blockade
Make no mistake about it, it was pressure applied to these companies to stop payment, and VISA may find themselves in the middle of two governments who differ in their interpretation of what is required here.
One side will say they were funding terrorism, and the money needs to be withheld (if not seized), and the other side will say there isn't sufficient legal basis to withhold.
When they became international money handlers, I bet they thought they could get all the perks of global power and none of the liabilities that come with governance. Certainly, the ones that inherited the company after decades of prosperity and peace thought so.
Naivete is so cute.
Anonymous Hacks Westboro Baptist Church
By the same measure, discussing out loud in a public place plans to kill and harm people should be "protected" as a human right?
It's not bad because it's a crime, it's a crime because it's bad. When bad things aren't crimes, you should expect some amount of vigilante action, even if you fundamentally believe in civilization.
We as a nation can't find a middle ground between our principles and protecting the populace from hatespeech. When we do, vigilante action will happen less, or at least be less applauded.
Automation Is Making Unions Irrelevant
But some people don't try. They don't want to try. If given a choice between a free shack and a nice home they can work to afford, they will choose the shack. How do we get them to contribute something positive to society, and to take the risks that the safety net is intended to promote?
If you were content with your life, and someone was shouting that you ought to be more ambitious because of some principle they hold, how would you view them? Some people prefer to live in a shack because it solves a problem. For example, they may be paranoid or OCD, and not needing to work for a living cuts their stress tenfold. They may be hated by the nearby populace (racism, classism, religious prejudice, etc), and not courageous enough to go searching the country for a place where they belong. In each of these cases, trying to force them to work normally (or expecting incentives to work and thinking badly of them when they don't) is arguably the wrong choice.
In these circumstances, people are not contributing positively only because other factors are contributing negatively. If you want positive contributions, you have to solve their problems first, whether that's teaching them to solve their own problems, or incentivizing others to help them.
And by the way, saying "They don't try. They don't want to try." is expecting incentives to work, and thinking badly of people when they don't. There are a lot of things "I don't want to try because", which is different from "I don't want to try period." Some of them are curable fears, anxieties, etc. Some of them are based on opinions. Some are just cultural ignorance. But more often than you seem to give credit for, those reasons are, well, reasonable.
Hackers Discover Wii U's Processor Design and Clock Speed
And, frankly, I'm a little disappointed that Sony ... haven't done a little innovating and created their own technology like SLI/Crossfire to connect several cheap GPUs for their heavy graphics lifting on their machines
The Cell processor (what that powers the Sony PS3) is a processor tech designed by Sony and if I remember right is meant to hook a whole bunch of fairly small GPU-like units (vector processors) together, usable for general programming rather than mostly graphics.
It's one of the reasons the PS3 cost so much, along with blu-ray. And the reason the cell processor cost so much is because Sony the R&D themselves instead buying off-the-shelf parts. If any of the console companies "does a little innovating" in hardware, they will have similar R&D costs.
Additionally, if the only (or just the first) place that these technologies exist is on a such platform, such as Sony with the Cell processor, it becomes a pain to program for that platform, and ESPECIALLY to port programs from one console to the next.
Nate Silver's Numbers Indicate Probable Obama Win, World Agrees
The majority of mouth-breathing, drooling, sycophants with no knowledge or interest beyond their personal prejudices, greed, and entertainment... are getting exactly what they deserve.
You say that as though a generation ago, they held a vote on whether to be sensible or idiots, and all decided to be the latter. It didn't start with their generation, or the one before, or the one before. Everything iterates, slowly but surely. Whatever assholes in government and whatever dullards in the populace we have today are their answer to the life they had growing up.
What they deserve? Talk that way when they have a viable choice, and have MADE that choice wrong. And you'd better believe that it will continue if we don't find a way to give those after us a viable choice. You'll look at people that were born with the potential to be anything--good, bad, or indifferent--and complain that they "deserve" this, because of what we choose during our lifetimes.
ITER Fusion Project Struggles To Put the Pieces Together
To summarize the summary of the summary: People are a problem
Amazon Founder Jeff Bezos Calls For Governments To End Patent Wars
Free and open societies may allow some injustices to occur. But the notion that totalitarian (not fascist) societies don't is just totalitarian propaganda.
Propaganda for a type of government is silly; the people actually in charge can and will make all the difference. The larger problem is that forms of government last across generations, and what might be right for one generation (a dictatorship with a benevolent king) can be terrible the next (the benevolent king's evil son). This is equally true with democracies, republics, federations, and all other forms of government; even anarchy might do alright for a generation or two before devolving into depravity and evil.
Part of the question of what government is best is about planning for this multi-generational span, and the modern answer (constitutional republics, especially with the legislative/judicial/executive breakdown) seem to do alright. However, especially now that the world's changing, we are getting a good look at some of the flaws, and I fear a little bit for the future. Given the complexity of the system, I wonder how it could possibly be fixed without someone using nearly dictatorial powers to overcome it.
And, naturally, the people involved may have different definitions of what a "fixed" system looks like, which is part of what makes it so dangerous to involve dictatorship...
Amazon Founder Jeff Bezos Calls For Governments To End Patent Wars
That's because laws are fixed. In any scenario, if you stare at fixed defenses long enough, you can find some way to get around them. What you need is a vigilant and trustworthy justice system that punishes attempts to get around the law.
It can happen, it's just that it comes closer to fascism than most people are comfortable with. If you want to punish abuses of the law, you have to say, "Even if the law would let you get away with it, I won't." That's not how most people view a free and open society, although arguably it is necessary to maintain one.
U.S. Defense Secretary Warns of a Possible 'Cyber-Pearl Harbor'
That would get in the way of government and corporate operations. I don't see it happening.
US Supreme Court Says Wiretapping Immunity Will Stand
Protesting is inherently public. As you protest, if you break more and more laws, you get less and less support, because everyone's watching you descend into madness.
Much of what the government does is behind closed doors. If they were to continue and break more and greater laws up to and including constitutional mandates, it's still happening in private, and each act has to be reported to get the same loss of confidence and support. The government breaking its own laws ought to be viewed with the same "slippery slope" glasses as terrorism, because in the same way, it can get out of control without you ever realizing it, and then explode all at once, destroying everything that was valuable about the system.