Wouldn't it have been easier and more efficacious to sit at the guy's work and see if he showed up or not? People can get to work a variety of ways, and a variety of people can use cars.
> "Smartphone: text message to Jane. I had a great time on our date last night. What are you doing on Saturday?"
I was shocked that my Nexus S can practically do this now. "Send text to XXXX, I'll be home around 6 p.m." It worked, mostly. The text recognition worked flawlessly, but I did have to hit the "send" button with a finger. Beats using the on-screen keyboard.
What if somebody is a brilliant theoretician but they easily lose focus when people nearby do distracting things? Still a weak-minded, unmotivated individual?
Um, yeah. Of course, back then, a tight sweater would have been a hell of a lot more distracting than a laptop screen saver.
If you easily lose focus, that's your issue. Learn to concentrate. Banning laptops won't take care of your problem anyway. Lectures don't all take place in dark, windowless rooms -- something distracting will always happen.
Freddie and Fannie were laggers in the subprime market. The regulation that I think you're referring to said that banks could not use different loan criteria based on where the customer lives -- so if you made the business decision to offer NINJA loans in the suburbs, you had to offer them in the inner city as well. Nobody forced any bank to issue any NINJA loan.
I'd be more likely to believe the fiction that the poor financial institutions were helpless in the face of big government if it weren't for the loan derivatives that were the real cause of the crisis. Wall Street gambled, abetted by the ratings agencies, and left taxpayers on the hook when the scheme ran out of steam.
If you think that the lesson of the housing crash is that the government should have left private industry to its own devices, there's absolutely no hope for you whatsoever.
I still don't understand how saying "you can't discriminate" is the same as a government takeover. Under that logic, every damn lunch counter in the southern U.S. must be the property of the feds.
These are damages that are available to the plaintiff according to the statute. They are statutory damages. They're available because the alternative is to make the plaintiff go through the time and expense of figuring out what the "real" damages were, when they were the wronged party in the first place. Think about a guy in a van selling fake Disney t-shirts. In order to figure out the real damages, Disney needs to know how many shirts the guy sold. They could do so by relying on the guy's immaculate double-entry bookkeeping, I suppose. Luckily, under U.S. copyright law, they don't have to.
That scenario is probably closer to what the framers had in mind, since digital file sharing wasn't a concern back then. The law needs to be updated to address non-commercial digital infringements. But statutory damages aren't the problem here, and have their place.
That's what SHE said.
Seriously, it's great to see broadband being pondered as a national infrastructure priority somewhere -- 'cause it sure as hell isn't in the states.
The 2009 deficit of about 1.4 trillion was Bush's last budget. The CBO projection for 2009, released two weeks before Obama was inaugurated, was for a deficit of 1.2 trillion. So if you want to blame Obama for 200 billion in spending, that's fine.
I think you forgot about the Bobs (Bob Bennett in Utah and Bob Inglis in South Carolina) the party-switchers (Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania and Parker Griffith in Alabama), but otherwise spot on.
Re:Setup is always painful but details change...
on
MythTV 0.23 Released
·
· Score: 1
The most horrifying part is configuring clear QAM cable channels
Use the Web interface to do this; it's a breeze. (Comcast recently moved a bunch of digital channels around and I had to rescan.) Check a box next to any channel that didn't get an ID and delete them all in one fell swoop.
I have no idea where this idea of "choice" comes from. My employer offers services from a single insurance company. One. I don't like this particular insurance company, but my "choice" is to either pay them $400 a month for middlin' coverage for my family or go without insurance altogether. I had a heart attack two years ago, so the individual market is out of the question. I was excited about the public option until I found out that employed people wouldn't have access to it. That's irrelevant now anyway.
Are you contending that the government has no jurisdiction over unlawful content currently? I'm trying to figure out how you reach the conclusion that neutrality rules are a gateway to censorship. Your example doesn't seem to be mutually exclusive with the status quo.
Borrowed from Gizmodo, so we know exactly what we're talking about:
Under the draft rules, subject to reasonable network management, a provider of broadband Internet access service may not:
1) prevent any of its users from sending or receiving the lawful content of the user's choice over the Internet;
2) prevent any of its users from running the lawful applications or using the lawful services of the user's choice;
3) prevent any of its users from connecting to and using on its network the user's choice of lawful devices that do not harm the network;
4) deprive any of its users of the user's entitlement to competition among network providers, application providers, service providers, and content providers.
5) A provider of broadband Internet access service must treat lawful content, applications, and services in a nondiscriminatory manner.
6) A provider of broadband Internet access service must disclose such information concerning network management and other practices as is reasonably required for users and content, application, and service providers to enjoy the protections specified in this rulemaking
Where are they controlling/enforcing what is being transmitted?
Slashdot Mirror
Wouldn't it have been easier and more efficacious to sit at the guy's work and see if he showed up or not? People can get to work a variety of ways, and a variety of people can use cars.
I could swear this was part of the plot to a "Numbers" episode.
> "Smartphone: text message to Jane. I had a great time on our date last night. What are you doing on Saturday?"
I was shocked that my Nexus S can practically do this now. "Send text to XXXX, I'll be home around 6 p.m." It worked, mostly. The text recognition worked flawlessly, but I did have to hit the "send" button with a finger. Beats using the on-screen keyboard.
Should just fire one off in some random direction into deep space for the one in a googolplex chance of confusing the hell out of some ETs.
We can only pray that these jokers choose a decent writer and director for like the first time in their lives.
You may not have liked his work, but Christopher Nolan would generally be thought of in the "decent" director category.
What if somebody is a brilliant theoretician but they easily lose focus when people nearby do distracting things? Still a weak-minded, unmotivated individual?
Um, yeah. Of course, back then, a tight sweater would have been a hell of a lot more distracting than a laptop screen saver.
If you easily lose focus, that's your issue. Learn to concentrate. Banning laptops won't take care of your problem anyway. Lectures don't all take place in dark, windowless rooms -- something distracting will always happen.
And the telephone sanitizers.
Freddie and Fannie were laggers in the subprime market. The regulation that I think you're referring to said that banks could not use different loan criteria based on where the customer lives -- so if you made the business decision to offer NINJA loans in the suburbs, you had to offer them in the inner city as well. Nobody forced any bank to issue any NINJA loan.
I'd be more likely to believe the fiction that the poor financial institutions were helpless in the face of big government if it weren't for the loan derivatives that were the real cause of the crisis. Wall Street gambled, abetted by the ratings agencies, and left taxpayers on the hook when the scheme ran out of steam.
If you think that the lesson of the housing crash is that the government should have left private industry to its own devices, there's absolutely no hope for you whatsoever.
I still don't understand how saying "you can't discriminate" is the same as a government takeover. Under that logic, every damn lunch counter in the southern U.S. must be the property of the feds.
I don't want to go straight up and come right back down again. Can't they sub-orbit my ass to Sydney or something useful?
These are damages that are available to the plaintiff according to the statute. They are statutory damages. They're available because the alternative is to make the plaintiff go through the time and expense of figuring out what the "real" damages were, when they were the wronged party in the first place. Think about a guy in a van selling fake Disney t-shirts. In order to figure out the real damages, Disney needs to know how many shirts the guy sold. They could do so by relying on the guy's immaculate double-entry bookkeeping, I suppose. Luckily, under U.S. copyright law, they don't have to.
That scenario is probably closer to what the framers had in mind, since digital file sharing wasn't a concern back then. The law needs to be updated to address non-commercial digital infringements. But statutory damages aren't the problem here, and have their place.
That's what SHE said. Seriously, it's great to see broadband being pondered as a national infrastructure priority somewhere -- 'cause it sure as hell isn't in the states.
Forget mimicry. I want either Peter Weller (in a Robocop voice) or Patrick Warburton (in a Tick voice) to say "Step aside, citizen."
Didn't David Gray record White Ladder in his bathroom or something?
The truth, like "discovering" a place where people already lived?
The 2009 deficit of about 1.4 trillion was Bush's last budget. The CBO projection for 2009, released two weeks before Obama was inaugurated, was for a deficit of 1.2 trillion. So if you want to blame Obama for 200 billion in spending, that's fine.
I think you forgot about the Bobs (Bob Bennett in Utah and Bob Inglis in South Carolina) the party-switchers (Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania and Parker Griffith in Alabama), but otherwise spot on.
The most horrifying part is configuring clear QAM cable channels
Use the Web interface to do this; it's a breeze. (Comcast recently moved a bunch of digital channels around and I had to rescan.) Check a box next to any channel that didn't get an ID and delete them all in one fell swoop.
I have no idea where this idea of "choice" comes from. My employer offers services from a single insurance company. One. I don't like this particular insurance company, but my "choice" is to either pay them $400 a month for middlin' coverage for my family or go without insurance altogether. I had a heart attack two years ago, so the individual market is out of the question. I was excited about the public option until I found out that employed people wouldn't have access to it. That's irrelevant now anyway.
$750 minimum x treble damages for willful infringement x 24 violations = $54000.
Are you contending that the government has no jurisdiction over unlawful content currently? I'm trying to figure out how you reach the conclusion that neutrality rules are a gateway to censorship. Your example doesn't seem to be mutually exclusive with the status quo.
Where are they controlling/enforcing what is being transmitted?
Man makes public documents available, for free, to the public. Obviously, this sort of thing cannot be allowed to continue.
A little like saying U2 for "Helter Skelter." Nice of the Beatles to cover Bono.
Try "The Cascades."
Getting relationship advice from /. is a little like getting dieting advice from Aintitcoolnews.