Don't you see the point? To use your own example, one of the methods by which the North Korean government maintains power over its people is to block access by those people to things like the web, e-mail, IM, etc. If you keep the people incommunicado, then you can more easily keep them under control.
If the US prohibits its corporations from providing things like IM, e-mail, etc to the people of repressive governments, it's basically helping those governments maintain control over their own people. If the goal of the US gov is to subvert repressive governments, denying the people of those nations access to communication with the rest of the world will not achieve that goal. If on the other hand the goal is to dehumanize the people of those countries, making it easier for all of us to accept wars with those countries, well, blocking communications would certainly help accomplish that.
Generally speaking, you're right, but there's no reason "sic" can't be used in that fashion. Use of "sic" is meant simply to draw the reader's attention to something that the author wrote, and the editor knows is wrong, but doesn't feel justified in correcting. I would think that factual errors are at least as likely to fall into this category as typographical errors, which should just be corrected without comment by the editor, in most cases.
Are you fucking stupid? Go back and read my post: note the if-then formation? I wasn't suggesting that the poster's boycott would make a difference, but that it could make a difference, if enough regular purchasers of Square products share his view.
I'm sure they are quaking in their boots over that.
Maybe they should be, if the GP was previously a regular purchaser of Square-Enix products. If a company's core audience suddenly turns on it, that company would be in a lot of trouble. Brand is everything, and if this move by Square tarnishes their corporate brand in the eyes of those who purchase their products, they may find that protecting the Chrono Trigger properties will cost them far more than they ever anticipated.
I don't think the app contains "a reference" to the album, I think it contains the actual content of the album, explicit lyrics and all. If you pay attention to what the app is capable of, one of the big features is access to instant streaming video and audio, and there's a lot of it. We're not talking about 30 second teaser clips here. nin.com offers re-mixes, concert videos, maybe older videos done for mtv. I wouldn't be surprised if you could get all of The Downward Spiral in one form or other directly off the site (and therefore through the app).
Now I'm not in favour of censoring explicit lyrics, but unfortunately, many people in the US are so inclined, and many of those people purchase products from the Apple store. Presumably Apple is thinking of those people.
That could have been the solution to a lot of the CIA's problems. I wonder if they would have gotten more info out of suspects had they rendered them off to the Netherlands instead of Syria.
I also am skeptical of the current claims about the infectious rate and the death rate. I was watching on t.v. (take with a grain of salt) a scientist here in Ontario who pointed out that given what we know about the virus' virulence there may have been one- or two hundred thousand cases of this flu by now in Mexico, that have simply gone unreported because people haven't gotten sick enough to go to the hospital. If that's the case, and if we can believe the current figure on deaths out of Mexico, then this flu isn't any more deadly than your garden variety seasonal flu.
Sorry, I'm a little distracted. I didn't check out the nytimes article. So the fine is "up to %10 of world sales". Basing the fine on world sales does seem a litte unfair. I'd like to know more about the actual rationale for the numbers set for the fines, and whether the maximum fine is ever handed out.
More specifically, does the EU simply measure their fines in terms of % of world sales to gauge the impact of the fine on the company, or do they perform a calculation of the fine on the basis of "x% of chip value X number of chips sold worldwide". If the latter, that would be unjust, for the reasons you state. But if the courts decide on the fines for other reasons, and merely use the %10 of global sales figure as a cap, I don't see the injustice of that. Remember that a fine is not "damages", fines are meant to punish, damages are meant to put the wronged party right. The article suggests that such a high fine might bankrupt a company. I would bet that the courts would likely refrain from levying a fine so large that it would bankrupt a company. The %10 of global sales number might represent a statutory cap to prevent judges from getting too overzealous with their fines.
The letter contained three specific charges: that Intel offered discounts to a major European personal computer distributor to favour its products, paid a PC maker to delay marketing a model line using AMD chips, and also paid it to use Intelâ(TM)s own microprocessors in preference.
It's ambiguously worded, but my interpretation is that the allegedly infringing activities all occurred in Europe.
But the OP, being an American, doesn't get to make that determination for Europeans. It's this arrogant notion that America should rightly determine the laws of every land that I'm objecting to.
Okay. So first of all, the article did not state how steep the discounts are. They may indeed be below cost. We don't know.
Second, this is about Intel's business practices in Europe, not America. Governments (and presumably voters) in Europe get to determine what laws are passed there, and what laws are enforced there. Not Intel, and not you. "The problem" is that Intel appears to be in violation of several EU laws. The EU is taking steps to do something about it.
Why exactly would you think that Intel should be above European law?
In that alternate dimension where governments, not corporations, get to decide what the laws are. If Intel wants to do business in Europe, they have to abide by European law.
Here's a reason why it should be a class action: because the costs to each particular plaintiff to sue for a remedy would outweigh the possible awards they could receive. Think about it, we're talking about books that are out of print. The authors and publishers aren't making any money from sales, because there are no sales. So Google comes along, scans the books, and makes some ad revenue from making those books available and searchable. What exactly has the author lost? In terms of money, they've lost nothing, even if their copyright has been violated. Even going for a share of the ad revenue might net them very little, on a case by case basis. Getting an injunction and a piddling amount of ad revenue, at the expense of the costs of litigation, isn't a good deal for a single plaintiff in this case. The whole point of class action suits is to allow a class of plaintiffs to enjoy the benefits of "economies of scale".
The settlement itself may seem unfair, but the process is just. Remember, it's rights-holders that were suing Google, not the other way around. If some of them don't like the settlement, they can refuse it. To let a rights-holder enjoy the benefit of automatically being included in the suit, then forcing the defendant to have to chase them all down to ask for their confirmation of the settlement, would be horribly wasteful and unfair to the defendant.
the "opt-out" component isn't a function of the settlement, it's a function of the way class action suits are managed. In this situation, because Google seems to be getting some advantage out of the settlement, making Plaintiffs opt out of the settlement seems unfair. But generally, in class-action suits, the whole point of the system is that the class is included in the suit automatically, and then they can choose to opt-out if they wish.
This rule exists to protect the interests of the Plaintiffs, who if they were required to opt-in as parties might suffer injustices if they'd not heard that the suit was going forward, or for other reasons where opting in would be too onerous.
The Plaintiffs collectively save a pile of money by being brought into the class automatically. This already puts the defendant at greater risk of suit, because the cost of suing is reduced in comparison to the possible benefit. Should the defendant then have to be put to the cost of going around to each Plaintiff, most of whom aren't even named parties (making them harder to find), and ask that Plaintiff if they want to opt in to the settlement? That wouldn't be just.
If you are automatically included in the suit, you should automatically be included in the settlement, unless you decide to actively get yourself out of the settlement.
Makes me glad I chose the buisness model I did: Making and selling GPS devices, and also running a secret assasin organization which kills patent trolls that get in my way. With poison darts.
Oh dude. I sooo patented that business method. Just you wait til -- hey, what's that noi
Slashdot Mirror
Governments don't make rulings, they make laws. Judges make rulings.
Don't you see the point? To use your own example, one of the methods by which the North Korean government maintains power over its people is to block access by those people to things like the web, e-mail, IM, etc. If you keep the people incommunicado, then you can more easily keep them under control.
If the US prohibits its corporations from providing things like IM, e-mail, etc to the people of repressive governments, it's basically helping those governments maintain control over their own people. If the goal of the US gov is to subvert repressive governments, denying the people of those nations access to communication with the rest of the world will not achieve that goal. If on the other hand the goal is to dehumanize the people of those countries, making it easier for all of us to accept wars with those countries, well, blocking communications would certainly help accomplish that.
typographical and grammatical errors, I meant to say. Off for more coffee.
Generally speaking, you're right, but there's no reason "sic" can't be used in that fashion. Use of "sic" is meant simply to draw the reader's attention to something that the author wrote, and the editor knows is wrong, but doesn't feel justified in correcting. I would think that factual errors are at least as likely to fall into this category as typographical errors, which should just be corrected without comment by the editor, in most cases.
If this is to be believed, they salvage and rebuild as much as they can, and send the rest to recycling.
Are you fucking stupid? Go back and read my post: note the if-then formation? I wasn't suggesting that the poster's boycott would make a difference, but that it could make a difference, if enough regular purchasers of Square products share his view.
I'm sure they are quaking in their boots over that.
Maybe they should be, if the GP was previously a regular purchaser of Square-Enix products. If a company's core audience suddenly turns on it, that company would be in a lot of trouble. Brand is everything, and if this move by Square tarnishes their corporate brand in the eyes of those who purchase their products, they may find that protecting the Chrono Trigger properties will cost them far more than they ever anticipated.
I don't think the app contains "a reference" to the album, I think it contains the actual content of the album, explicit lyrics and all. If you pay attention to what the app is capable of, one of the big features is access to instant streaming video and audio, and there's a lot of it. We're not talking about 30 second teaser clips here. nin.com offers re-mixes, concert videos, maybe older videos done for mtv. I wouldn't be surprised if you could get all of The Downward Spiral in one form or other directly off the site (and therefore through the app).
Now I'm not in favour of censoring explicit lyrics, but unfortunately, many people in the US are so inclined, and many of those people purchase products from the Apple store. Presumably Apple is thinking of those people.
It gets me farther from Jobs?
That could have been the solution to a lot of the CIA's problems. I wonder if they would have gotten more info out of suspects had they rendered them off to the Netherlands instead of Syria.
The Ministry of Agriculture is not responsible for Titanium Spider Silk. Or is it....?
I also am skeptical of the current claims about the infectious rate and the death rate. I was watching on t.v. (take with a grain of salt) a scientist here in Ontario who pointed out that given what we know about the virus' virulence there may have been one- or two hundred thousand cases of this flu by now in Mexico, that have simply gone unreported because people haven't gotten sick enough to go to the hospital. If that's the case, and if we can believe the current figure on deaths out of Mexico, then this flu isn't any more deadly than your garden variety seasonal flu.
I know. It's frustrating and maddening, and I suppose my last post was a little too abrupt. Sorry about that.
Never mind, I was waiting to be Bel-Aired.
Or maybe not...Ford looks like it actually might make it through the recession. GM and Chrysler, on the other hand....
Sorry, I'm a little distracted. I didn't check out the nytimes article. So the fine is "up to %10 of world sales". Basing the fine on world sales does seem a litte unfair. I'd like to know more about the actual rationale for the numbers set for the fines, and whether the maximum fine is ever handed out.
More specifically, does the EU simply measure their fines in terms of % of world sales to gauge the impact of the fine on the company, or do they perform a calculation of the fine on the basis of "x% of chip value X number of chips sold worldwide". If the latter, that would be unjust, for the reasons you state. But if the courts decide on the fines for other reasons, and merely use the %10 of global sales figure as a cap, I don't see the injustice of that. Remember that a fine is not "damages", fines are meant to punish, damages are meant to put the wronged party right. The article suggests that such a high fine might bankrupt a company. I would bet that the courts would likely refrain from levying a fine so large that it would bankrupt a company. The %10 of global sales number might represent a statutory cap to prevent judges from getting too overzealous with their fines.
The letter contained three specific charges: that Intel offered discounts to a major European personal computer distributor to favour its products, paid a PC maker to delay marketing a model line using AMD chips, and also paid it to use Intelâ(TM)s own microprocessors in preference.
It's ambiguously worded, but my interpretation is that the allegedly infringing activities all occurred in Europe.
But the OP, being an American, doesn't get to make that determination for Europeans. It's this arrogant notion that America should rightly determine the laws of every land that I'm objecting to.
Okay. So first of all, the article did not state how steep the discounts are. They may indeed be below cost. We don't know.
Second, this is about Intel's business practices in Europe, not America. Governments (and presumably voters) in Europe get to determine what laws are passed there, and what laws are enforced there. Not Intel, and not you. "The problem" is that Intel appears to be in violation of several EU laws. The EU is taking steps to do something about it.
Why exactly would you think that Intel should be above European law?
In that alternate dimension where governments, not corporations, get to decide what the laws are. If Intel wants to do business in Europe, they have to abide by European law.
Mod AC up please.
Take it up with your elected representatives. They make the laws.
Here's a reason why it should be a class action: because the costs to each particular plaintiff to sue for a remedy would outweigh the possible awards they could receive. Think about it, we're talking about books that are out of print. The authors and publishers aren't making any money from sales, because there are no sales. So Google comes along, scans the books, and makes some ad revenue from making those books available and searchable. What exactly has the author lost? In terms of money, they've lost nothing, even if their copyright has been violated. Even going for a share of the ad revenue might net them very little, on a case by case basis. Getting an injunction and a piddling amount of ad revenue, at the expense of the costs of litigation, isn't a good deal for a single plaintiff in this case. The whole point of class action suits is to allow a class of plaintiffs to enjoy the benefits of "economies of scale".
The settlement itself may seem unfair, but the process is just. Remember, it's rights-holders that were suing Google, not the other way around. If some of them don't like the settlement, they can refuse it. To let a rights-holder enjoy the benefit of automatically being included in the suit, then forcing the defendant to have to chase them all down to ask for their confirmation of the settlement, would be horribly wasteful and unfair to the defendant.
the "opt-out" component isn't a function of the settlement, it's a function of the way class action suits are managed. In this situation, because Google seems to be getting some advantage out of the settlement, making Plaintiffs opt out of the settlement seems unfair. But generally, in class-action suits, the whole point of the system is that the class is included in the suit automatically, and then they can choose to opt-out if they wish.
This rule exists to protect the interests of the Plaintiffs, who if they were required to opt-in as parties might suffer injustices if they'd not heard that the suit was going forward, or for other reasons where opting in would be too onerous.
The Plaintiffs collectively save a pile of money by being brought into the class automatically. This already puts the defendant at greater risk of suit, because the cost of suing is reduced in comparison to the possible benefit. Should the defendant then have to be put to the cost of going around to each Plaintiff, most of whom aren't even named parties (making them harder to find), and ask that Plaintiff if they want to opt in to the settlement? That wouldn't be just.
If you are automatically included in the suit, you should automatically be included in the settlement, unless you decide to actively get yourself out of the settlement.
Makes me glad I chose the buisness model I did: Making and selling GPS devices, and also running a secret assasin organization which kills patent trolls that get in my way. With poison darts.
Oh dude. I sooo patented that business method. Just you wait til -- hey, what's that noi