That's an arrogant assumption that one candidate deserves to have your vote already, and if you do not give it to him, you are 'taking something away'. A vote must be earned! Not assumed. Stop counting 3rd party voters as if they are failed two-party voters. If someone is voting third party, that means they don't like either of the major candidates, therefore their vote CANNOT be assumed to have gone to either one of them. No one has a prior claim on anyone's vote: period. End of story.
If Stallman gets his wish, patents will only be leveraged on dedicated devices intended to set up walled content gardens; this will, of course, drive big corporations more forcefully toward the walled garden approach, so they can 'protect their IP' -- this is no great loss, since big corporations are already running in this direction as fast as they can, in order to achieve anticompetitive things like user lock-in. On the other hand, if general purpose computing is excepted, then there will be a much stronger business case for eschewing the walled garden approach, should any upstart competitors choose to go there.
Not a bad compromise; however, precisely because it seeks to turn general purpose computing into a place where competitors can flourish, there is no way the oligarchy will let this happen.
Here's the way it works as far as I can tell: any proposed solution will either fundamentally fail to address the problem, in which case it has a chance of being accepted, or else it will actually address, in which case, short of a far-reaching democratic revolution in the West, it is sure to fail.
While there are ways of estimating, typically the hard facts about how much traffic a band's website receives are known only to the band (or their webmaster if they have one). So, what sort of verification do you imagine could be done, beyond asking those people and taking their word for what its worth?
You made an oblique reference to the actual point of the study, but you still trumpeted its conclusions, when the whole point of the study was for you NOT to trumpet its conclusions. The point of the study was to produce such an ABSURD result that it would be impossible for the media to trumpet that conclusion. The scientist who did the study expected it to be so ridiculous that chocolate produces Nobel winners, that it would clearly spark a discussion about correlation and causation. But you (and the source article) instead portrayed the conclusion as non-absurd, and relegated the correlation lesson to a footnote.
I hope that you can see how completely backwards and wrong it is, what you have done here.
Cripes Techdirt do you even read this stuff before you link it? The first link specifically says that this was a study designed to demonstrate the *fallibility* of common statistical methods in science. The conclusion that more chocoloate equals more Nobel prizes was intended to so absurd as to demonstrate to the flaws in the methodology. And here you are publishing it as fact and unwittingly proving the scientist's point. LOL!
You've never heard of the verb, to him off? Meaning to hone, or to sharpen? Thus, "let's him off the hook on bogus answer" -- as in, upon hearing a bogus answer, let us sharpen the hook with which we will hold the President to account. See? You've just misinterpreted it.
I am perfectly happy with this situation and I hope it continues for the foreseeable future. However, any news from the current Canadian government that makes proponents of internet freedom feel more comfortable, should be treated with the utmost skepticism.
Yes I too learned how to program on an Apple IIe in school. Unfortunately, however, nobody is going to learn to program on an iPad because they are locked down consumer-only machines that are totally enslaved to Apple's wishes and Apple doesn't wish anyone to program on an iPad -- end of learning!
The problem with the whole 'cheese eating surrender monkey' is not that its offensive, it's that it dragged an irrelevant cultural battle into the issue, thereby derailing all the commentary (even winning the top 'blessed' spot below the article) and entirely blunting the effectiveness of the article in highlighting its point.
Want to be an effective writer? Don't do this sort of thing. I am not offended, just unimpressed.
Your argument amounts to saying Christian outrage is unjustified whereas feminist outrage is justified. I suspect Christians would disagree with you on that. I also suspect that Christians would say that homosexual lifestyle affects society. I completely disagree with Christians on that, but that is what some of them say, isn't it?
The rest of what you said is very true and I agree. I only make the distinction that even though it may be *deserved* and I might not lose any sleep over it, that does not therefore make it *ethical*. And the reason this distinction is so important to me is that I do not want society to devolve to the point where anybody who is outraged by something thinks they are totally in the clear to dox the person responsible, and they will be in the moral clear. They will not be in the moral clear, because I will be there, and others like me, saying, 'Hey buddy, maybe the dude deserved it, but that was still a shitty thing to do.'