Sure. Because you have an idea, on average, of the amount of interuptions, appeals, etc. Otherwise, you cannot really give good advice to your client about whether they should persue an action. So it seems perfectly reasonable to me to say that the lawyer is probably the best judge of the total effort involved, and therefore should flat-fee it. Some bids make more money than others. A few outliers lose money, but overall, the cases make money.
If everyone gets equal time broadcasting their views, then the influence of being able to broadcast your view is drowned out. It would certainly allow all kinds of crazy response ads. The point though would be that fairly quickly media would simply stop accepting all paid political ads. It wouldn't be in their financial interest to continue doing so.
Well, if you open the standard to "anyone who wants to rebut" with the stated goal of "making it too costly to risk putting a political ad up", then I believe it might accomplish this goal. But it seems like it would never pass. And the Supreme Court would probably say that the only reasonable subtext was to limit free speecha nd overturn it/limit it to one response on those grounds.
I would prefer a law that forced the development of C-SPAN (whatever), the all political ad channel, with equal time for all crazy points of view.
Could this decision by made ineffective by passing a law saying that when political / issue advertising is purchased in media, groups with opposition views must be _freely_ given an equal amount of time / space to rebut the advertisement.
First, it wouldn't work: Hot girls having a 10-some, "beer should be given freely in elementary schools" - sponsored by Budweiser; Old ugly librarian says in a crochety voice "beer is evil and the 18th amendment must be reinstated" - provided by Some_Group_That_Is_Definately_Not_Affiliated_With_Budweiser[OrMiller]_And_Was_Fairly_Choosen_By_The_Company_That_Budweiser_Just_Paid_To_Run_The_Ad.
Second, people would bitch about the media losing control of "their" airwaves and the cost to them
Third, if you tell people they have to devote some time to "X", they cannot be saying "Unrelated Y". Therefore, you are limiting free speech in some manner.
Lastly, there are more than two sides of most issues.
They have part numbers on them (which end in a reference to bible verses). It's up the manufacturer to come up with part numbers. There's no graffiti or anything like it. Looking at the part number, I couldn't figure out what the big deal was until someone literally pointed at the offensive portion.
At least the manufacturer isn't inscribing "JN3:16"...
Actually, that is how they are inscribing the verses. Only there is no colon, so JN316. And they put a bunch more alphanumerics in front of it, so AB123456JN316. And they call it a part number, and the whole string can be used to identify the part.
A company wants to end all its part numbers in a veiled reference to New Testiment verses? What's the big deal.
Good luck finding the quotes. It's not in text, but rather the end of the part number. That is, ________JN316 as a part number (I don't know if that was a real verse, but it is the convention
The constitution is there to limit the government's ability to take those rights away. Being able to buy a newspaper advertisement or broadcast an advertisement isn't something that the goverment should be able to prevent you (or the company you've formed) from doing.
I would object, first and foremost, to your blurring between a citizen (who has rights inherently) and a corporation (which gains rights from somewhere... namely government). I think you'd be hardpressed to explain why a government sponsored institution (all corporations) should be allowed to do what a government cannot.
To go further, a corporation is supposed to maximize profits. Therefore the money spent on a campaign has to get a ROI. Doesn't that make it a bribe?
Don't give it to them, now[sic] matter how much you want the government to be your Nanny.
I want the government to ensure that when I go buy a hamburger at a truck-stop while driving cross-country, I don't get food poisoning and sick. (Pre-empting the reductio ad absurdum argument, obviously there is a reasonable effort for a reasonable assurance that I want. I do not want or expect perfection.) This resturant serves only for cross-country drivers, so their reputation doesn't suffer. Given the high costs of a lawsuit, and my time spent on it, I doubt I would try a civil suit. So what disincentive can we place upon this business, other than only eating at McDonalds with its deep corporate coffers and world-wide reputation. Or can I not eat a hamburger without a corporation providing 20 references?
. There are plenty of other people who have not already demonstrated their untrustworthiness, so I can get by without that former thief just fine.
Well, in the search-engine world, you have Google and Ask. Yahoo is really just a skinned [seems to flip between Bing and Google]. So who is your trusted source? MS just wants your money, Google wants your life. I wouldn't trust either. So which search should I use?
I tend to still use Google a little more, but I'll go to Bing instead of the second page of Google results.
One, it's a corporation. Therefore, the freedom an individual might enjoy (barring anyone who uses Microsoft products, since we are on slashdot), is replaced with the ability to act to maximize shareholder profits.
Two, they agreed to rent a hotel room, sans any restrictions. Once they make a deal, they cannot unilaterally change their mind.
Three, that's not true of public places (e.g. a mall)
Four, it's not true in general. You can control access, but not behavior. Of course, you can make access conditional on behavior, but that's still access.
If you don't like the size of taxation in the US, maybe you should do something about that military?
The military budget pays for a lot of things with civilian use, ARPAdnet and GPS for one. Also, it pays for food programs for children (cannot have malnurished soldiers).
The other fact is that US does tend to lead most peacekeeping missions. It's a burden on us, and we are happy to shoulder it, because we can. So next time you see a sick American, thank him for his sacrifices for world peace.
This is independent from whether we fucked up by going into Iraq. I think everyone understands that, regardless of how it started, the US needs to leave order behind.
It always appeared to me that the big problem with dnf was they really wanted it to be a ground breaking game
True. Rule 1, you cannot have a ground-breaking engine if you license someone else's.
But the original Duke Nukem, and then Duke Nukem 3D were both well implemented, but technologically boring. The only "groundbreaking" thing about it was the strippers, I suppose. And breakable toilets. Still, it was very well implemented and fun. Maybe they should have stayed with their strength.
But it's an all-purpose electronic device in a novel. Can I create "Home Sweet Tara" placards [Tara is the mansion from "Gone With the Wind"]? It's obviously an allusion.
Which was the part I liked the most about Avatar, the 3D was there but not a gimmick.
Huh? With the exception of "3D coolness", everyone I know would have skipped the movie. It was like the Wizard of Oz for color, Star Wars for CG and the Matrix for bullet-time: the movie that does a new technology well and frees the rest of the world to use it without having to make the movie about it.
. It's often gimicky, because producers (I assume it's producers) demand excuses to show of "it's 3D!" usually by having something pointy come out of the frame too far
And the Wizard of Oz used super-saturated colors for the same reason. But imagine trying to view any movie in black and white now. 3D will be less gimmacky soon as well.
On the other hand, he's probably been caught in the same set of traps that a fair number of people have. Even a couple of years ago, everyone was recklessly optimistic about the housing market. All of this guy's friends and family, the people on TV, and probably even the people at the bank were probably encouraging him to borrow as much as he could and buy the most expensive house possible
That's the best reason not to help him. If "I was following the crowd" becomes an acceptable excuse for a bailout, there's no benefit to bucking the trend (trend is right and you miss out, or trend is wrong and you have to bail everyone else out. It's all the conformity of communism and all the wealth inequality of capitalism.
No, I made the best decision I could with the information I had. I don't also "feel foolish" when other people win the lottery.
My father once said, to paraphrase.. "you can be one of those complaining about the people getting free cash.. or you can be one of the people getting free cash."
While its true that those who get free cash seldom complain about it (absent CEOs), I actually cannot go out and get a ridiculous morgage. It was pretty inconcievable that the government would step in like that. Unprecidented to say the least.
That said, there's nothing left to do but try to keep free cash out.
. Beyond my lack of comprehension for how he could possibly cover the payments on a startup salary, he apparently didn't consider the risks very carefully, and as it would happen, the startup went belly up. Now he wants people to pay his mortgage for him.
And he still doesn't seem to have learned his lesson:
We have always lived within our means[Empasis added]. It was close each month[Empasis added], like most people, but hard work paid off and allowed us to live in the home we desired, in a nice neighborhood.
My problem with this logic is why not give me a raise at the price of the coffee, so I can buy my own coffee. What if I don't like coffee. I can save up 2 coffees for a red bull.
Because the raise I can give you for the price of coffee is far less than what it will cost you buy your own coffee. Buying in bulk has savings. So does the decreased transaction costs of not needing to recoup costs of other coworkers drinking your coffee (intentional or accidental stealing). So does the ability to brew an entire pot at a time, saving on filters and coffee pots needed. Also, there's the time. It costs time to go to Starbucks or have everyone make their own.
Buying coffee increases comradery around the office to some degree, as it creates more of a community. This helps intraoffice interaction.
Also, it's pretty well proven that most people value $1 of coffee more than the dollar, as a gift.
Our per-employee, per-month coffee costs are $5/employee/month. That's $2.50 more in your paycheck (or $1.80 after payroll taxes, or maybe $1.50 after all taxes if you're in a low 16% bracket). That's less than a cup at Starbucks, which is a few blocks away at any rate.
So, wouldn't you rather have all the coffee you want at the office? Even if you don't, cannot you imagine the vast majority of employees choosing that?
And the supply *is* infinite, specially since millions of people are willing to donate the cost of making a new copy
As a wise man once said, "Cost != price." Those same millions of people are unwilling to pay the cost of the item.
Obviously, without copyright law, the supply would be practically unlimited. However, the reason for copyright law to exist is to allow the cost of such items to remain above $0.0001 or what-have-you, enabled fixed costs to be recouped.
The problem is that supply and demand don't work when the supply is infinite. Sellers have to convince people to pay based on "use value" and not supply and demand, which is obviously hard to do.
Supply is of course finite, because supply can only be increased by the copyright owner's volition.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure. Because you have an idea, on average, of the amount of interuptions, appeals, etc. Otherwise, you cannot really give good advice to your client about whether they should persue an action. So it seems perfectly reasonable to me to say that the lawyer is probably the best judge of the total effort involved, and therefore should flat-fee it. Some bids make more money than others. A few outliers lose money, but overall, the cases make money.
Well, if you open the standard to "anyone who wants to rebut" with the stated goal of "making it too costly to risk putting a political ad up", then I believe it might accomplish this goal. But it seems like it would never pass. And the Supreme Court would probably say that the only reasonable subtext was to limit free speecha nd overturn it/limit it to one response on those grounds.
I would prefer a law that forced the development of C-SPAN (whatever), the all political ad channel, with equal time for all crazy points of view.
I've seen several pictures. The one's I saw outside the article either did not have colons or I didn't notice the colons.
Same poitn applies though, sorry for getting the details slightly flawed. The part number is "alphanumerics plus a colon". Consider this an erratum.
First, it wouldn't work: Hot girls having a 10-some, "beer should be given freely in elementary schools" - sponsored by Budweiser; Old ugly librarian says in a crochety voice "beer is evil and the 18th amendment must be reinstated" - provided by Some_Group_That_Is_Definately_Not_Affiliated_With_Budweiser[OrMiller]_And_Was_Fairly_Choosen_By_The_Company_That_Budweiser_Just_Paid_To_Run_The_Ad.
Second, people would bitch about the media losing control of "their" airwaves and the cost to them
Third, if you tell people they have to devote some time to "X", they cannot be saying "Unrelated Y". Therefore, you are limiting free speech in some manner.
Lastly, there are more than two sides of most issues.
They have part numbers on them (which end in a reference to bible verses). It's up the manufacturer to come up with part numbers. There's no graffiti or anything like it. Looking at the part number, I couldn't figure out what the big deal was until someone literally pointed at the offensive portion.
Actually, that is how they are inscribing the verses. Only there is no colon, so JN316. And they put a bunch more alphanumerics in front of it, so AB123456JN316. And they call it a part number, and the whole string can be used to identify the part.
A company wants to end all its part numbers in a veiled reference to New Testiment verses? What's the big deal.
Good luck finding the quotes. It's not in text, but rather the end of the part number. That is, ________JN316 as a part number (I don't know if that was a real verse, but it is the convention
People are complaining about a power of 2 being arbitrary? And a number that's a power of 16 to boot?
I would object, first and foremost, to your blurring between a citizen (who has rights inherently) and a corporation (which gains rights from somewhere... namely government). I think you'd be hardpressed to explain why a government sponsored institution (all corporations) should be allowed to do what a government cannot.
To go further, a corporation is supposed to maximize profits. Therefore the money spent on a campaign has to get a ROI. Doesn't that make it a bribe?
I want the government to ensure that when I go buy a hamburger at a truck-stop while driving cross-country, I don't get food poisoning and sick. (Pre-empting the reductio ad absurdum argument, obviously there is a reasonable effort for a reasonable assurance that I want. I do not want or expect perfection.) This resturant serves only for cross-country drivers, so their reputation doesn't suffer. Given the high costs of a lawsuit, and my time spent on it, I doubt I would try a civil suit. So what disincentive can we place upon this business, other than only eating at McDonalds with its deep corporate coffers and world-wide reputation. Or can I not eat a hamburger without a corporation providing 20 references?
Well, in the search-engine world, you have Google and Ask. Yahoo is really just a skinned [seems to flip between Bing and Google]. So who is your trusted source? MS just wants your money, Google wants your life. I wouldn't trust either. So which search should I use?
I tend to still use Google a little more, but I'll go to Bing instead of the second page of Google results.
In the US we do not have a verb "trialled" at all. We use "tried".
They make new versions to sell more products, fix bugs or add features.
I don't tend to update unless there's a positive reason to do so (such as new features, bug fixes, security holes closed, what have you.)
One, it's a corporation. Therefore, the freedom an individual might enjoy (barring anyone who uses Microsoft products, since we are on slashdot), is replaced with the ability to act to maximize shareholder profits.
Two, they agreed to rent a hotel room, sans any restrictions. Once they make a deal, they cannot unilaterally change their mind.
Three, that's not true of public places (e.g. a mall)
Four, it's not true in general. You can control access, but not behavior. Of course, you can make access conditional on behavior, but that's still access.
The military budget pays for a lot of things with civilian use, ARPAdnet and GPS for one. Also, it pays for food programs for children (cannot have malnurished soldiers).
The other fact is that US does tend to lead most peacekeeping missions. It's a burden on us, and we are happy to shoulder it, because we can. So next time you see a sick American, thank him for his sacrifices for world peace.
This is independent from whether we fucked up by going into Iraq. I think everyone understands that, regardless of how it started, the US needs to leave order behind.
True. Rule 1, you cannot have a ground-breaking engine if you license someone else's.
But the original Duke Nukem, and then Duke Nukem 3D were both well implemented, but technologically boring. The only "groundbreaking" thing about it was the strippers, I suppose. And breakable toilets. Still, it was very well implemented and fun. Maybe they should have stayed with their strength.
But it's an all-purpose electronic device in a novel. Can I create "Home Sweet Tara" placards [Tara is the mansion from "Gone With the Wind"]? It's obviously an allusion.
Huh? With the exception of "3D coolness", everyone I know would have skipped the movie. It was like the Wizard of Oz for color, Star Wars for CG and the Matrix for bullet-time: the movie that does a new technology well and frees the rest of the world to use it without having to make the movie about it.
And the Wizard of Oz used super-saturated colors for the same reason. But imagine trying to view any movie in black and white now. 3D will be less gimmacky soon as well.
The unemployeed guy who owed $1.3 million just lost his home today, so there is some justice in the world.
That's the best reason not to help him. If "I was following the crowd" becomes an acceptable excuse for a bailout, there's no benefit to bucking the trend (trend is right and you miss out, or trend is wrong and you have to bail everyone else out. It's all the conformity of communism and all the wealth inequality of capitalism.
And his wife is popping out a sixth kid.
No, I made the best decision I could with the information I had. I don't also "feel foolish" when other people win the lottery.
While its true that those who get free cash seldom complain about it (absent CEOs), I actually cannot go out and get a ridiculous morgage. It was pretty inconcievable that the government would step in like that. Unprecidented to say the least.
That said, there's nothing left to do but try to keep free cash out.
And he still doesn't seem to have learned his lesson:
Those statements are mutually exclusive.
Because the raise I can give you for the price of coffee is far less than what it will cost you buy your own coffee. Buying in bulk has savings. So does the decreased transaction costs of not needing to recoup costs of other coworkers drinking your coffee (intentional or accidental stealing). So does the ability to brew an entire pot at a time, saving on filters and coffee pots needed. Also, there's the time. It costs time to go to Starbucks or have everyone make their own.
Buying coffee increases comradery around the office to some degree, as it creates more of a community. This helps intraoffice interaction.
Also, it's pretty well proven that most people value $1 of coffee more than the dollar, as a gift.
Our per-employee, per-month coffee costs are $5/employee/month. That's $2.50 more in your paycheck (or $1.80 after payroll taxes, or maybe $1.50 after all taxes if you're in a low 16% bracket). That's less than a cup at Starbucks, which is a few blocks away at any rate.
So, wouldn't you rather have all the coffee you want at the office? Even if you don't, cannot you imagine the vast majority of employees choosing that?
True
As a wise man once said, "Cost != price." Those same millions of people are unwilling to pay the cost of the item.
Obviously, without copyright law, the supply would be practically unlimited. However, the reason for copyright law to exist is to allow the cost of such items to remain above $0.0001 or what-have-you, enabled fixed costs to be recouped.
Supply is of course finite, because supply can only be increased by the copyright owner's volition.