They claim they get the big bux because the buck stops with them. If they negligently let the legal team make whatever crazy move it wants without supervision, and compound their negligence by not correcting the situation after the fact, why should they be absolved?
Yes, physical things often cost more than non-physical. But even there, there comes a point where nickel and dimeing turns away customers. For example, the grocery store or farmer's marked doesn't charge by the minute. You don't have to pay by the word for conversation with the cashier. No cart rental fee. In most places, no charge for parking.
At one time, some stores got the bright idea that pay toilets could be a thing. Some went out of business, some removed the coin box. On more than one occasion, I saw a story about a mother encouraging her child to pee on the floor and other shoppers cheering.
Stores that liked to lock everything behind glass lost out to ones that just accepted a certain amount of "loss".
But in general, note how brick and mortar stores that have to put the cost of having a store front in the price are losing out to Amazon. Also notice how for the most common use case, furniture and appliance rental are a horrible deal. Even then, none of them try to keep you from letting your neighbor do a load of clothes or sit in your living room. They can even watch TV with you without an additional charge.
Divx is dead and so is the company that created it.
But in general, trade, often using money in some form as an intermediary mostly works where the marginal cost of production is significant and the amount traded greatly exceeds the cost of accounting. Micro transactions mostly fail because the cost of accounting (including the intangible cost of the customer's own mental accounting) is a significant portion of the total cost. That is, too much friction.
We don't need a "solution" for micro transactions, I already have one. Just say no.
Facebook would dry up and blow away because they couldn't sell information about you to 3rd parties anymore. Imagine if the information on every form you fill is DRMed and can't be handed over to a 3rd party.
It kind of reminds me of the situation a few years ago when European news outlets "won" the right to not have search engines excerpt their news articles. And how only days later all those newspapers clutched their pearls and moaned about how mean old Google stopped indexing their websites and was sending readers elsewhere.
Odds are the browser you used to post that was shared with you without requiring you to pay. The site you posted it to doesn't require you to pay. The OS, web server, and perl interpreter the site runs on didn't require payment.
I'm not charging you to read this comment. I'm also not charging people who haven't posted to this discussion.
If we DRM and charge for everything, the additional friction would drag our economy to it's knees in an instant.
The unicorns are out there. The catch is, they are necessarily older developers who have chosen not to go into management. If HR doesn't want to hire older developers, they'll never get a unicorn.
Just because you CAN do everything, doesn't mean you have to. It does mean that when you do your part, you can do it in such a way that you don't make another part unnecessarily hard. It also gives you a better ability to determine where the various parts should be done. That is an advantage in any case
It also means that you can guide less experienced developers to do some of the parts while you work on others.
And then there are those projects that are fairly small but cross a number of domains. You can either do it quickly with a full stack developer or you can create a team and take 3 times longer due to communications overhead.
I'm pretty sure none of their roles include leaking their bag of tricks to blackhats so they can be sold on the dark web. That was a collossal screw up that nobody seems to have been held accountable for. Perhaps we should sew their names into their mittens?
The access doesn't have to be physical. All you need is the ability to run your own code. You can even get that for free with a trial account in many clouds.
The cloud can never be as safe as your own machines. When you set up a VM in the cloud, you're still running it. It's still you making it safe or not. If you can;t secure your own machine in your home or in a colo, you won't do any better running a VM in the cloud.
The difference is, in the cloud you don't know who else is running a VM on the same host. That opens up an attack surface that doesn't exist when you own your own.
The UK isn't signatory to that part. Why? From the same page: "Double jeopardy has been permitted in England and Wales in certain (exceptional) circumstances since the Criminal Justice Act 2003.". (Scotland and Northern Ireland have similar laws.)
But since he didn't murder someone, get acquitted, and then boast about getting away with murder, didn't rape a child, or sell drugs to children, his crime just isn't that exceptional.
Exceptional means not routine. Not common, not usual.
Look it up.. By all means, follow the references. American prosecutors' willingness to stretch sophistry beyond credulity to get around the Constitution is one of many reasons our justice system is so mistrusted now, here and abroad.
The principle behind that is much older than the Constitution, going back to the Roman Empire at least. Many nations have adopted that principle.
And so it would be a violation of his rights to try him in the U.K. until it was finally decided that he would not be facing trial in the U.S.
You left out all the robosigning and financial "experts" advising the naive that those markets would hold up, even while knowing they couldn't. Also, the fraudulent ratings, the screwy CDOs, and banks knowingly selling toxic assets.
It's worse. Revenge only applies when someone actually did something wrong. The U.S. no longer concerns itself with actual guilt. So it's really just throwing as many people as it can get away with into a hellhole.
They'll just have to get more courts or indict less people. At the federal level, if we dumped drug cases where only consenting adults were involved, we'd have plenty of capacity.
But denying justice (including the right to a speedy trial with legal representation) is never an acceptable "solution" to overloaded courts.
WOOOO HOOOO, We are not the worst! We are not the worst!
Sounds a bit hollow, yes?
As for the rest, he is still subject to UK law and so it's not as if there are no consequences in his future. It's just that those consequences won't involve being shipped to a foreign country where his health care will be denied
1) It also requires that the punishments be reasonably similar. The U.S. is fond of long sentences and tends to include seriously sub-standard health care. The former creates resistance to extradition and the latter is considered unconscionable in many countries.
The U.S. placing the financial burden of defense on the defendant except in cases of indigence is also questioned outside of the U.S. It;s just too damned expensive to defend yourself in the U.S. (even successfully), even more so when you don't live here.
People object in part because the feds seem to be more interested in enforcing copyright than they are in saving lives. Many feel that copyright should never have become a criminal matter (at one time it was a civil matter only). They also object to the crazy inflated damages claimed in practice. They object to the sheer nuttiness of some infamous copyright actions. People object to the insane length of copyright. People object to the uneven enforcement of copyright.
That's not the same as objecting in principle to any form of copyright.
I do know how the paper ballot system works. Your votes are recorded on a punch card which disappears into a box. You get an "I voted" sticker and you're on your way. Later, a lady with a bunch of balloons walks slowly by the security camera as your ballot gets swapped out and Putin wins again.
Slashdot Mirror
Releasing the source isn't costly. NOT honoring the license by releasing the source is what can get costly.
They claim they get the big bux because the buck stops with them. If they negligently let the legal team make whatever crazy move it wants without supervision, and compound their negligence by not correcting the situation after the fact, why should they be absolved?
Yes, physical things often cost more than non-physical. But even there, there comes a point where nickel and dimeing turns away customers. For example, the grocery store or farmer's marked doesn't charge by the minute. You don't have to pay by the word for conversation with the cashier. No cart rental fee. In most places, no charge for parking.
At one time, some stores got the bright idea that pay toilets could be a thing. Some went out of business, some removed the coin box. On more than one occasion, I saw a story about a mother encouraging her child to pee on the floor and other shoppers cheering.
Stores that liked to lock everything behind glass lost out to ones that just accepted a certain amount of "loss".
But in general, note how brick and mortar stores that have to put the cost of having a store front in the price are losing out to Amazon. Also notice how for the most common use case, furniture and appliance rental are a horrible deal. Even then, none of them try to keep you from letting your neighbor do a load of clothes or sit in your living room. They can even watch TV with you without an additional charge.
Divx is dead and so is the company that created it.
But in general, trade, often using money in some form as an intermediary mostly works where the marginal cost of production is significant and the amount traded greatly exceeds the cost of accounting. Micro transactions mostly fail because the cost of accounting (including the intangible cost of the customer's own mental accounting) is a significant portion of the total cost. That is, too much friction.
We don't need a "solution" for micro transactions, I already have one. Just say no.
Facebook would dry up and blow away because they couldn't sell information about you to 3rd parties anymore. Imagine if the information on every form you fill is DRMed and can't be handed over to a 3rd party.
It kind of reminds me of the situation a few years ago when European news outlets "won" the right to not have search engines excerpt their news articles. And how only days later all those newspapers clutched their pearls and moaned about how mean old Google stopped indexing their websites and was sending readers elsewhere.
Odds are the browser you used to post that was shared with you without requiring you to pay. The site you posted it to doesn't require you to pay. The OS, web server, and perl interpreter the site runs on didn't require payment.
I'm not charging you to read this comment. I'm also not charging people who haven't posted to this discussion.
If we DRM and charge for everything, the additional friction would drag our economy to it's knees in an instant.
The unicorns are out there. The catch is, they are necessarily older developers who have chosen not to go into management. If HR doesn't want to hire older developers, they'll never get a unicorn.
Just because you CAN do everything, doesn't mean you have to. It does mean that when you do your part, you can do it in such a way that you don't make another part unnecessarily hard. It also gives you a better ability to determine where the various parts should be done. That is an advantage in any case
It also means that you can guide less experienced developers to do some of the parts while you work on others.
And then there are those projects that are fairly small but cross a number of domains. You can either do it quickly with a full stack developer or you can create a team and take 3 times longer due to communications overhead.
I'm pretty sure none of their roles include leaking their bag of tricks to blackhats so they can be sold on the dark web. That was a collossal screw up that nobody seems to have been held accountable for. Perhaps we should sew their names into their mittens?
The access doesn't have to be physical. All you need is the ability to run your own code. You can even get that for free with a trial account in many clouds.
No, access to a neighboring VM is sufficient. You can get that fairly cheap in the cloud.
The cloud can never be as safe as your own machines. When you set up a VM in the cloud, you're still running it. It's still you making it safe or not. If you can;t secure your own machine in your home or in a colo, you won't do any better running a VM in the cloud.
The difference is, in the cloud you don't know who else is running a VM on the same host. That opens up an attack surface that doesn't exist when you own your own.
The UK isn't signatory to that part. Why? From the same page: "Double jeopardy has been permitted in England and Wales in certain (exceptional) circumstances since the Criminal Justice Act 2003.". (Scotland and Northern Ireland have similar laws.)
But since he didn't murder someone, get acquitted, and then boast about getting away with murder, didn't rape a child, or sell drugs to children, his crime just isn't that exceptional.
Exceptional means not routine. Not common, not usual.
Look it up.. By all means, follow the references. American prosecutors' willingness to stretch sophistry beyond credulity to get around the Constitution is one of many reasons our justice system is so mistrusted now, here and abroad.
The principle behind that is much older than the Constitution, going back to the Roman Empire at least. Many nations have adopted that principle.
And so it would be a violation of his rights to try him in the U.K. until it was finally decided that he would not be facing trial in the U.S.
To be fair, they COULDN't prosecute him as long as he was facing extradition for the crime. If they did, it would be double jeopardy.
You left out all the robosigning and financial "experts" advising the naive that those markets would hold up, even while knowing they couldn't. Also, the fraudulent ratings, the screwy CDOs, and banks knowingly selling toxic assets.
It's worse. Revenge only applies when someone actually did something wrong. The U.S. no longer concerns itself with actual guilt. So it's really just throwing as many people as it can get away with into a hellhole.
They'll just have to get more courts or indict less people. At the federal level, if we dumped drug cases where only consenting adults were involved, we'd have plenty of capacity.
But denying justice (including the right to a speedy trial with legal representation) is never an acceptable "solution" to overloaded courts.
WOOOO HOOOO, We are not the worst! We are not the worst!
Sounds a bit hollow, yes?
As for the rest, he is still subject to UK law and so it's not as if there are no consequences in his future. It's just that those consequences won't involve being shipped to a foreign country where his health care will be denied
1) It also requires that the punishments be reasonably similar. The U.S. is fond of long sentences and tends to include seriously sub-standard health care. The former creates resistance to extradition and the latter is considered unconscionable in many countries.
The U.S. placing the financial burden of defense on the defendant except in cases of indigence is also questioned outside of the U.S. It;s just too damned expensive to defend yourself in the U.S. (even successfully), even more so when you don't live here.
People object in part because the feds seem to be more interested in enforcing copyright than they are in saving lives. Many feel that copyright should never have become a criminal matter (at one time it was a civil matter only). They also object to the crazy inflated damages claimed in practice. They object to the sheer nuttiness of some infamous copyright actions. People object to the insane length of copyright. People object to the uneven enforcement of copyright.
That's not the same as objecting in principle to any form of copyright.
Yet, it is a single agency with a definite agenda. It's members are expected to toe that line or GTFO.
Just be careful you don't end up whitewashing the fence.
I do know how the paper ballot system works. Your votes are recorded on a punch card which disappears into a box. You get an "I voted" sticker and you're on your way. Later, a lady with a bunch of balloons walks slowly by the security camera as your ballot gets swapped out and Putin wins again.
Why not, they currently trust one that gives you nothing but an "I voted" sticker.