I say set capital gains tax to 100% if sold within an hour of purchase (the time is debatable, but I would think a minute at minimum). That way, HFT has, by definition, zero profit, but it doesn't penalize anyone who made a bad bet and just wants to get their money back.
This is for businesses where knowing the location of your employees is a significant factor in your ability to do business. Delivery (UPS, pizza..), on-site service (in-home or in-office services, like computer repair, or utility crews repairing infrastructure), emergency response personnel. Many of these kinds of companies (and government services) already have some form of employee tracking.
Given that employers tried to demand Facebook login information, and the government is saying "no", I think we can safely assume that inappropriate use of this technology would get similar attention.
I don't know where "Fleet Battle Experiment Juliet" came from, but Millenium Challenge 2002 seems to be the military exercise they are referring to. Looking at how the rules were reset to fix the game in America's favor, it seems there is a problem with at at least some of the top brass as far as admitting weaknesses and trying to learn from a lesson. While I'd be surprised if they've done nothing to try and address the shortcomings highlighted in the exercise, it is quite possible they've been slow about it. It doesn't look good or stroke one's ego to spend yet more money in order to properly address poorly-funded threats.
I'd love to pay the artists, but currently there isn't a legal way to do so without paying these parasites in the middle.
There are plenty of bands that aren't beholden to middlemen. I've purchased several albums now from artists on Bandcamp with a pay-what-you-want deal, which is great because I am willing to pay more if I know it will go to the artist. Sure, ASCAP et al. will still try to skim off the top should you play the songs in public or something, but reducing their marketshare is the best way to weaken their influence.
None of your argument affects those who bought the game for the multiplayer experience. If the servers are down, even if there was a single player option it would do me no good as I would be starting from scratch on a new character only to never touch it until the servers are down again. It's no different from any other multiplayer game in that aspect. Yes, I understand it is a concern for those who treat it as a single-player game, and I am right there on boycotting always-on singleplayer games, but as always-on is a functional requirement for how I and most others play the game, I will have to disagree with those single-player advocates when it comes to Diablo 3.
It is technically impossible to single out one application and treat it in a privileged way without using deep packet inspection
I've been thinking for a while now that any internet service, in addition to specifying max up/down speeds, should have some portion as a guaranteed (quality metric here) connection. Give the user a way to specify what gets priority. The ISP shouldn't care if it's VOIP or random webpages, if the user flags it as high priority it gets treated as such up to the designated bandwidth.
Any concerns with this? It should satisfy both net neutrality (ISP doesn't discriminate by traffic type) and QoS concerns for things like VOIP.
Someone asserted that money needs no place in music production, only passion. So he countered that he does, in fact, need money in order to fully pursue his passion (i.e. the two are inextricably linked to an extent). You then take his comment out of context, and get modded +5 insightful.
Please read what the comments actually say, not what you want them to say.
If you think it's not easy, I'm willing to bet you aren't taking good care of your finances, savings, etc.
There are plenty of people who will not be able to find a buyer for their home in a reasonable amount of time (due to the market in the area), so they cannot afford to move even if they aren't under water on their mortgage. Of course, not having kids gives you a huge boost to expendable income, allowing you to better pay down debt, absorb sudden costs associated with moving, etc. so your anecdote has little bearing on a typical family (even a fiscally responsible one).
Given these people willingly met with a venture capitalist (or someone they thought was a VC), it seems they were interested in profiting from piracy. I can't say I have much sympathy for them, nor can I take offense at the MPAA's tactics here.
If the MPAA/RIAA are going so far as to infiltrate your home with 'actors' to thwart copyright infringement, they really have hit the bottom of the cesspool.
Are we going to start hating on people who track down their laptop thief and pose as a buyer in order to nail them? The common tactic of remotely turning on the webcam would certainly be more intrusive than being welcomed into the house.
But it just seems anathema to me that instead of fixing the product before they sell it to us and our clients, i.e. adjusting Windows such that crapware becomes extinct, Microsoft instead turns around and recognizes that there is this new market here created by a deficit in their flawed product
Except they only charge for fixing a computer you bring in, you can buy OEM-branded computers with this "Signiture" service without the $99 extra. I believe the newspaper article I saw mentioned the service includes a year of tech support (they gave examples that you can use this support to be walked through how to install Chrome or iTunes, not just how to resolve computer problems). I think it's a better solution than somehow locking out crapware (the article also mentioned that some people prefer the OEM's software over the built-in Windows equivalent, so there isn't a blanket rule to judge what to block).
I don't feel that's a fair assumption, but even if it were we would be certain coffee-related industries would be making that disclaimer loud and clear (while if this study didn't include the "correlation not causation" disclaimer on coffee's benefits, the coffee industry wouldn't be the one to point it out).
What if the government set up a bittorrent service, where anyone posting a file needs to be registered (maybe they send your account activation code to your address). You can post whatever files you want (unprotected, password-protected archives, or whatever encryption method you like), but the file can be traced to you. The government doesn't get in the way, all transfers are assumed legal until proven otherwise, but should the government find an illegal file, or a copyright holder find an infringing file, it is easy to track down the person who posted it. You could get away with piracy so long as no authority can see the contents of your files, but you are at risk if you post the password in a public forum.
How feasible would it be to block all torrent traffic outside of this official service? How might this limit legitimate bittorrent traffic? Could those concerns be met? (Note this is only theoretical, as once non-approved torrent traffic is shut down, there is nothing stopping the government from changing the rules).
I intend to play Diablo 3 on Blizzard servers with friends, never single player "offline". Therefore, the DRM has no negative impact for me. If you were hoping to play it on your own, offline, sure the DRM means the game isn't for you, but that doesn't make you somehow more intelligent, your preferences are just different. If we were talking about a game that has no online/community gameplay (so far as I know Assassin's Creed meets that description), then I am 100% with you, as in that case the DRM is certainly a problem. I would certainly like to see Blizzard allow offline single player (to accomodate those who want to play that way), but that doesn't bother me as much as people like you telling me I'm an idiot for buying a game for reasons that don't affect me.
So long as they pre-paid for the fraud, I don't see the problem here. No need to discourage honest criminals. I just wonder if they prepaid in fines only, or if they managed to find a warden willing to let them prepay their time served too.
The problem there is that the NFL rules seem to change all the time, not for the benefit of the players, but so that the NFL can maximize profits from the games. They've been engineering game play with that goal in mind for years. They're not going to want to change the game now because the players get hurt.
Starting with last season they moved up the kickoff on the basis that injury rates were higher on kickoff plays and hoping that making it a shorter play would reduce that. We'll have to see how much of a difference we see (although the increased number of touchbacks would certainly have an impact).
You have three groups:
-Climate scientists, who are steadily adding to the evidence supporting AGW and improving our models of what will happen.
-Environmentalists (Greenpeace and similar), who latch onto any protect nature idea, but don't often understand the whole issue. (There are well-informed environmentalists, but the more emotional types get the most attention).
-Those who seek power, and will do whatever it takes to get it. Some hope (A)GW will be their ticket to more power.
Only the first group is trying to work from facts, the other two groups feed off of emotion. They use facts when it helps them, and ignore facts when it doesn't. Unfortunately the media also prefers emotion over facts, so they give the latter two groups more attention. As a result, you end up with an image that all three groups are actually one, working for a common cause.
Slashdot Mirror
I say set capital gains tax to 100% if sold within an hour of purchase (the time is debatable, but I would think a minute at minimum). That way, HFT has, by definition, zero profit, but it doesn't penalize anyone who made a bad bet and just wants to get their money back.
it simply means the judge believes it's worth hearing
I guess he isn't very sympathetic to the ADA argument then.
This is for businesses where knowing the location of your employees is a significant factor in your ability to do business. Delivery (UPS, pizza..), on-site service (in-home or in-office services, like computer repair, or utility crews repairing infrastructure), emergency response personnel. Many of these kinds of companies (and government services) already have some form of employee tracking.
Given that employers tried to demand Facebook login information, and the government is saying "no", I think we can safely assume that inappropriate use of this technology would get similar attention.
I don't know where "Fleet Battle Experiment Juliet" came from, but Millenium Challenge 2002 seems to be the military exercise they are referring to. Looking at how the rules were reset to fix the game in America's favor, it seems there is a problem with at at least some of the top brass as far as admitting weaknesses and trying to learn from a lesson. While I'd be surprised if they've done nothing to try and address the shortcomings highlighted in the exercise, it is quite possible they've been slow about it. It doesn't look good or stroke one's ego to spend yet more money in order to properly address poorly-funded threats.
If you're looking to use training wheels to help your kid learn to ride a bike, you've already failed as a parent?
Their role being to get the Israeli military out of Lebanon and keep them out.
Sending mortars over the border on a regular basis is an interesting way to keep Israel out.
I'd love to pay the artists, but currently there isn't a legal way to do so without paying these parasites in the middle.
There are plenty of bands that aren't beholden to middlemen. I've purchased several albums now from artists on Bandcamp with a pay-what-you-want deal, which is great because I am willing to pay more if I know it will go to the artist. Sure, ASCAP et al. will still try to skim off the top should you play the songs in public or something, but reducing their marketshare is the best way to weaken their influence.
3) The article says Slashdot broke the news, and now Slashdot is pointing at the article that is pointing at Slashdot...
Tread carefully. We don't want to slashdot slashdot.
None of your argument affects those who bought the game for the multiplayer experience. If the servers are down, even if there was a single player option it would do me no good as I would be starting from scratch on a new character only to never touch it until the servers are down again. It's no different from any other multiplayer game in that aspect. Yes, I understand it is a concern for those who treat it as a single-player game, and I am right there on boycotting always-on singleplayer games, but as always-on is a functional requirement for how I and most others play the game, I will have to disagree with those single-player advocates when it comes to Diablo 3.
It is technically impossible to single out one application and treat it in a privileged way without using deep packet inspection
I've been thinking for a while now that any internet service, in addition to specifying max up/down speeds, should have some portion as a guaranteed (quality metric here) connection. Give the user a way to specify what gets priority. The ISP shouldn't care if it's VOIP or random webpages, if the user flags it as high priority it gets treated as such up to the designated bandwidth.
Any concerns with this? It should satisfy both net neutrality (ISP doesn't discriminate by traffic type) and QoS concerns for things like VOIP.
What if there are rabid Linux fans out there who buy the games from a windows PC 100 times at $.01 just to keep the Windows average low?
Someone asserted that money needs no place in music production, only passion. So he countered that he does, in fact, need money in order to fully pursue his passion (i.e. the two are inextricably linked to an extent). You then take his comment out of context, and get modded +5 insightful.
Please read what the comments actually say, not what you want them to say.
If you think it's not easy, I'm willing to bet you aren't taking good care of your finances, savings, etc.
There are plenty of people who will not be able to find a buyer for their home in a reasonable amount of time (due to the market in the area), so they cannot afford to move even if they aren't under water on their mortgage. Of course, not having kids gives you a huge boost to expendable income, allowing you to better pay down debt, absorb sudden costs associated with moving, etc. so your anecdote has little bearing on a typical family (even a fiscally responsible one).
If the MPAA/RIAA are going so far as to infiltrate your home with 'actors' to thwart copyright infringement, they really have hit the bottom of the cesspool.
Are we going to start hating on people who track down their laptop thief and pose as a buyer in order to nail them? The common tactic of remotely turning on the webcam would certainly be more intrusive than being welcomed into the house.
Six fouls and you foul out?
[...] and will happily burn a hole through anything that tries to prevent it from doing so
Wait, is that a pro or a con?
But it just seems anathema to me that instead of fixing the product before they sell it to us and our clients, i.e. adjusting Windows such that crapware becomes extinct, Microsoft instead turns around and recognizes that there is this new market here created by a deficit in their flawed product
Except they only charge for fixing a computer you bring in, you can buy OEM-branded computers with this "Signiture" service without the $99 extra. I believe the newspaper article I saw mentioned the service includes a year of tech support (they gave examples that you can use this support to be walked through how to install Chrome or iTunes, not just how to resolve computer problems). I think it's a better solution than somehow locking out crapware (the article also mentioned that some people prefer the OEM's software over the built-in Windows equivalent, so there isn't a blanket rule to judge what to block).
I don't feel that's a fair assumption, but even if it were we would be certain coffee-related industries would be making that disclaimer loud and clear (while if this study didn't include the "correlation not causation" disclaimer on coffee's benefits, the coffee industry wouldn't be the one to point it out).
Why isn't there an app for this?
There was, until the guy successfully tested it.
What if the government set up a bittorrent service, where anyone posting a file needs to be registered (maybe they send your account activation code to your address). You can post whatever files you want (unprotected, password-protected archives, or whatever encryption method you like), but the file can be traced to you. The government doesn't get in the way, all transfers are assumed legal until proven otherwise, but should the government find an illegal file, or a copyright holder find an infringing file, it is easy to track down the person who posted it. You could get away with piracy so long as no authority can see the contents of your files, but you are at risk if you post the password in a public forum.
How feasible would it be to block all torrent traffic outside of this official service? How might this limit legitimate bittorrent traffic? Could those concerns be met? (Note this is only theoretical, as once non-approved torrent traffic is shut down, there is nothing stopping the government from changing the rules).
NCES = national clean energy standard. Not that you'd want to clarify that in the summary or anything.
I intend to play Diablo 3 on Blizzard servers with friends, never single player "offline". Therefore, the DRM has no negative impact for me. If you were hoping to play it on your own, offline, sure the DRM means the game isn't for you, but that doesn't make you somehow more intelligent, your preferences are just different. If we were talking about a game that has no online/community gameplay (so far as I know Assassin's Creed meets that description), then I am 100% with you, as in that case the DRM is certainly a problem. I would certainly like to see Blizzard allow offline single player (to accomodate those who want to play that way), but that doesn't bother me as much as people like you telling me I'm an idiot for buying a game for reasons that don't affect me.
So long as they pre-paid for the fraud, I don't see the problem here. No need to discourage honest criminals. I just wonder if they prepaid in fines only, or if they managed to find a warden willing to let them prepay their time served too.
The problem there is that the NFL rules seem to change all the time, not for the benefit of the players, but so that the NFL can maximize profits from the games. They've been engineering game play with that goal in mind for years. They're not going to want to change the game now because the players get hurt.
Starting with last season they moved up the kickoff on the basis that injury rates were higher on kickoff plays and hoping that making it a shorter play would reduce that. We'll have to see how much of a difference we see (although the increased number of touchbacks would certainly have an impact).
You have three groups:
-Climate scientists, who are steadily adding to the evidence supporting AGW and improving our models of what will happen.
-Environmentalists (Greenpeace and similar), who latch onto any protect nature idea, but don't often understand the whole issue. (There are well-informed environmentalists, but the more emotional types get the most attention).
-Those who seek power, and will do whatever it takes to get it. Some hope (A)GW will be their ticket to more power.
Only the first group is trying to work from facts, the other two groups feed off of emotion. They use facts when it helps them, and ignore facts when it doesn't. Unfortunately the media also prefers emotion over facts, so they give the latter two groups more attention. As a result, you end up with an image that all three groups are actually one, working for a common cause.