Wonder how they'll handle the words class, association, etc...
The same way. The Middlegender high school parent teacher rear endociation welcomes the clbutt of 1998 for its 10th anniversary celebration.
I remember seeing an actual BBS that did exactly that (clbutt). The really hilarious thing is that if you try to search for "clbutt" in Google, unless you surround it with quotes to force an exact match, Google's synonym detection automatically uncensors it to "class".
Ah. That makes a lot more sense. Based on the previous reply, I did a Google search for "f**king Lincolnshire" and got a combination of rants about people hating the area and pages whose descriptions looked suspiciously like porn sites, so that clearly wasn't right....
You'd be wrong. Trafficking even following the oxford dictionary is not about paying for the service of sex, it's about paying to obtain a sexual servant.
Actually, by the definition you posted, the GP appears to be correct:
âoethe recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for the purpose of a commercial sex act.â
That appears to cover solicitation. The next one appears to cover brothels, the fourth appears to cover pimping, the fifth appears to redundantly cover solicitation. Only the third one appears to cover what most of us think of as sex trafficking, and even that one is missing any mention of lack of consent, force, coercion, false pretense, or indentured servitude.
Now I understand the excuse given — that requiring the government to prove those things makes it harder to prosecute traffickers because they have to actually build up a proper case — but it is also the difference between a law that bans what most people think of as trafficking and a law that nationally bans prostitution, as this one appears to do.
The problem is, local government in California is making tons of money through criminal infringment of the right to travel under Proposition 13. It's absurd that somebody has to pay 20x the property taxes of somebody else with an identical lot for choosing to exercise the right to travel.
Traveling != owning property.
That said, Prop 13 is the main reason that Bay Area traffic is as obscene as it is. People who buy homes have a strong disincentive to move closer to where they work whenever they change jobs, and as a result, nearly everyone commutes considerably farther than they otherwise might. And ironically, that hurts the poorest Californians most (the folks Prop 13 was designed to protect). Basically, Prop 13 needs to be gutted and completely rethought from the ground up.
Should this criminal conduct by California government ever get corrected - and that will have to happen or we might as well throw out the Bill of Rights and that government as a whole is a criminal organization - then all of a sudden California local government becomes massively in debt, and the infrastructure is in serious trouble, and at that point the state government itself will be in serious trouble.
Hardly. If Prop 13 ever gets gutted, it will almost certainly result in a significant increase in property tax revenue overall, which would increase the amount of money that can be spent on infrastructure.
Point taken; but still, it's not one of the more common cancers.
Actually, according to cancer.org, it is the tenth most common kind of cancer:
breast cancer
lung and bronchus cancer
prostate cancer
colorectal cancer
melanoma of the skin
bladder cancer
non-Hodgkin lymphoma
kidney and renal pelvis cancer
endometrial cancer
leukemia
Although this is actually something of a lie, as the source they got their numbers from intentionally excludes non-melanoma skin cancers (presumably because the case fatality rate for carcinoma is two orders of magnitude lower). Really, that means it is #11. Either way, it ranks ahead of pancreatic cancer, thyroid cancer, liver cancer, all forms of brain cancer, bone cancer, etc.
And by fatality count, it rises to #7. Also note that if we could get everyone to stop smoking, it would move up another notch, both in fatalities and incidence.
And that top ten list doesn't have that wide a probability spread, either. Breast cancer and lung cancer are each only about 4x as common as leukemia. It is not a rare cancer by any means.
Leukemia is frequently more genetic risk than environmental even when it does occur.
That's also not true. Most forms of Leukemia have no familial link. There is an increased prevalence in first-degree relatives and twins of people with leukemia, but this is likely because those people lived in the same house, drank the same water, breathed the same air, went to schools in the same classrooms, etc. When you see only a first-degree link and no broader familial link, this strongly suggests that environmental factors are the predominant cause, not genetics.
So, if you violate all standards in accounting practices, as well as the law, you can make it out to be a deficit.
I think you're missing the point, which is that the government of California uses bond measures precisely because the state constitution does not allow it to run a deficit. The law and accounting practices aside, bond measures function in almost precisely the same way as a budget deficit, just under a different name. The only meaningful difference between the government issuing bonds and running a budget deficit is that *some* bonds require voter approval, and not even all of those. All the other differences are basically semantic sugar.
From their bosses at cable companies, I would imagine.
AWS or not, their logic is fundamentally flawed. Nobody gets bandwidth for free. Everyone, whether it is me, you, or Netflix, pays for service from their server/laptop/phone to the Internet backbone, and they pay based on how much bandwidth they use (or, in the case of residential service, by how much bandwidth they have available divided by some fixed multiplier that is determined by the average amount of bandwidth consumers use). The backbone providers then charge money to the end-user ISPs for transit over their networks. This is proportional to the amount of bandwidth that those ISPs use.
The problem is that Comcast is simply too large. They have control over an ever-expanding percentage of residential Internet customers in the United States, and they are abusing that near-monopoly to extort money out of companies in exchange for access to their users.
The easiest way to explain this is with a postal service analogy. If I send a letter to Netflix, I pay for a stamp that pays the postal service. If they send me back a letter, they pay for a stamp that pays the postal service. Netflix bundles the cost of that stamp into their service cost, so I end up paying it indirectly, but they still paid the cost of postage. Comcast charging money to Netflix is equivalent to my local mail carrier deciding that Netflix sends too much mail, and demanding that Netflix pay him/her an extra five cents to take the mail from the local post office to my house. See how absurd that is? Netflix would tell my postal carrier to eff off.
But suppose that postal carrier gets together with a group of postal carriers and forms a union of concerned postal workers. And suppose that group then demands ten cents for every Netflix-originated letter distributed by any of their workers. Suddenly, Netflix has to pay attention, because otherwise their letters won't get there. But Netflix already paid for their stamp, so there's no legitimate reason for them to have to pay more.
The difference, of course, is that if postal carriers did this, they would go to jail, and Comcast executives, being powerful corporate types, likely won't. But otherwise, there's really no meaningful difference.
Be quiet you, all blue areas of the countries run huge deficits every good conservative knows that and any information to the contrary is just fake news like any other facts they don't like.
Well, it all depends on how you spin the numbers. When we talk about the federal government, there's one giant pool of debt, largely because the federal government can print money. When we talk about the state government, there are a bunch of tiny pools of debt. We call them bond measures. Each of those is debt that the state government took on so that they can fund a particular project, and each one gets paid off over a period of time through tax dollars or bridge tolls or whatever.
If you take all of those bond measures and consider only the annual payment on them, then yes, the budget is at least ostensibly balanced. If you consider the entire amount of the bond, then it is anything but balanced, and the state is in pretty serious debt. Want to decrease that debt? Every time you see a bond measure on the ballot, vote "no". No matter what it is, vote "no". Or maybe agree to local bond measures, knowing that municipalities can declare bankruptcy if worst comes to worst. Either way. On the other hand, the infrastructure will probably crumble if you do this, so it probably isn't a good idea.
As a lawyer, you are really, really wrong on that. Legal writing is also a creative process and diminishing returns kick in pretty quick.
But I'd be shocked if that was the majority of what a new lawyer ended up doing, unless by writing, you mean crafting nearly pure boilerplate contracts and wills. The hard stuff shouldn't be going to people just starting out.
there's above average folks who can put the hours in.
I don't believe that this is true. I have yet to encounter anyone who could work extremely long hours consistently without their productivity falling through the floor. I've certainly encountered people who work long hours and achieve tolerable levels of productivity, but in every case, if you took someone with comparable amounts of experience and had them work a 35-hour week, that second person would get at least as much done, largely because of making fewer errors that had to be corrected later.
Mind you, there probably is some variation from one person to another as to how long a week they can tolerate (driven mostly by differences in how much sleep they need, the number of outside activities they are involved in, whether they have kids, etc.), but we are talking about the difference between being optimal up to 35 hours and being optimal up to 40 hours, not being optimal up to 60 hours or 80 hours. The only people who are optimal at programming for 80 hours per week are the ones who are really hiring a team of programmers in India or some other low-wage country to do the first 80% of the work, and then spend 20 hours each week integrating that work, all while billing it as 80 hours worth of work.
The only companies that do well by forcing people to work crazy hours are game developers, and that's because they know they can burn out one group of devs and move on to the next set of suckers. For everybody else, it is generally self-defeating.
Those aren't NEARLY the only companies. Junior invetsment bankers routinely work 90 hour weeks for 2-3 years on end. i understand that it's no better in law, and Doctors have it EVEN WORSE.
My entire reply was in the context of its parent, which was about programming jobs. Junior investment bankers and junior lawyers have entirely different points of diminishing returns, because the type of work is entirely different.
Software engineering is, despite having a technical component, first and foremost a creative job. Creative jobs give you the fewest useful hours per week. You can push paper and look up pertinent case law and do financial analysis and background research on random stocks for a lot more hours than you can usefully write code. Worse, because programming is so creative, you often don't realize how much your quality is suffering when you write crazy amounts of code for long periods of time, which means things start to go wrong, and nobody can explain why, so they decide that it's a crunch, and everybody has to work longer hours. This generally results in a death spiral.
Wouldn't work in software since there's such a lack of programmers compared to demand and programming has such a huge communication overhead that it's more efficient to work more hours than add more people.
Actually, all the research I've seen in this area says the opposite — that you can work maybe one 60-hour week before you start to lose productivity, and over the long term, you're no better off working 60 hours than 30 hours. Your productivity actually goes negative at around 45 hours, IIRC, and diminishing returns begin at 25 or 30 hours. I forget the exact numbers, but that's in the right ballpark. So you're almost always better off adding more people than working more hours, unless the need is very short-term.
The only companies that do well by forcing people to work crazy hours are game developers, and that's because they know they can burn out one group of devs and move on to the next set of suckers. For everybody else, it is generally self-defeating.
Correct. Without registration, you are eligible only for actual damages, not statutory damages. That means if you can prove that you lost money because they did not license the work, they owe you what your licensing fee would have been, plus whatever money they made because of your work. Because they did not sell the photo in question, it is unlikely that the latter amount would have been nonzero, and unless the photographer has a posted rate schedule, it is unlikely that the first amount would have been nonzero, either, which basically makes the entire case moot even without a fair use argument.
That said, IMO, the fair use determination is bogus, and would likely be overturned on appeal. Of course, the actual damages would still be zero, so IMO the photographer would be crazy to pursue this. The right way to handle this would be, rather than send a C&D, to send a bill for a modest licensing fee and request appropriate credit. And then, if they don't agree to the fee, send a C&D. This allows the site owner to save face for what was probably inadvertent infringement resulting from some low-level staffer making a bad choice, and gets you credit for the photo, and possibly provides an opportunity to actually make real revenue by selling prints of the photo via a page linked off of that high-traffic website. Everybody wins.
Trying to go the lawsuit route... everybody loses except the lawyers, unless the copyright is registered, and often, even then.
It's funny if you're at a comedy club. It's NOT funny when it's on the internet, posing as real news. Because yes, some people don't realize it's a joke, and yes, sometimes people DO weird, insane, ridiculous, dastardly things.
No, it's not funny on the Internet, but the reason it isn't funny is because it is so believable. Trump has a history of appointing people to key positions who have absolutely zero background in the area that they are supposed to be running, like naming DeVos as secretary of education. Shatner at least has some appreciation of what NASA does, so it wouldn't be his worst appointment by a fairly large margin.
When reality has become so bizarre that no sane person would have believed it possible just a few years ago, any attempt at separating truth from fiction is impossible without significant amounts of independent research, which is why fake news is spreading so easily. We brought it on ourselves.
Per the Census, income per capita (adjusted for constant dollars) has increased since 1970s. Minimum wage may be stagnant, but actual wages aren't.
Bzzt. That's not what that means. Thanks for playing. Repeat after me: Averages are useless without standard deviations.
I'll let that sink in for a moment. What you're saying is that the average wage has gone up. What the folks on the other side are saying is that the poorest and most vulnerable people — the ones who are actually making minimum wage are getting seriously screwed. You are both correct. But the purpose of a minimum wage is to protect the poorest and most vulnerable, not to raise the average wage. The latter is merely an unavoidable side effect of the former. So that means the minimum wage is too low.
As far as minimum wage laws go, there shouldn't be one at a Federal, and most likely even at State levels. What minimum wage would you set that would apply in San Francisco or Manhattan that would also be applicable to McAllen, TX? It makes no sense on a Federal level. And in some States (such as CA), it makes no sense state-wide. The cost of living in Oxnard is about 46% of that in Santa Monica, just 45 minutes away. How do you set a minimum wage that is "livable" for someone in a high-income area and doesn't kill small businesses in low-cost areas?
What makes you think that the minimum wage in San Francisco ($14.00) is the same as the minimum wage in McAllen, TX ($7.25)? The federal minimum wage is just that — a minimum. States like California ($11.00) are allowed to set higher minimums. And municipalities are allowed to set even higher minimums than at the state level. What they are not allowed to do is set a lower minimum than is prescribed by a less granular law.
Thus, the federal minimum wage should be based on the average baseline cost of living, ignoring cities with significantly elevated cost of living. It need not be high enough to allow mobility from the poorest area to the richest area, but it does need to be high enough to allow some mobility, within reason.
Similarly, the state's minimum wage should be based on the average cost of living, possibly ignoring outlier cities like San Francisco, and each city's minimum wage should be based on the average cost of living in the city, again possibly ignoring outlier neighborhoods like Pacific Heights.
Ostensibly, a city could even provide minimum wage zones in which the minimum wage was higher or lower than the normal city minimum wage, though that would tend to result in not having employees in the lower-wage zones, so this is probably a bad idea in practice, but nothing legally prevents it.
The solution is to eliminate a minimum wage law at the Federal and State level, and let counties or municipalities set it if they so choose.
Congratulations. You've just solved a problem that doesn't actually exist. States, counties, and municipalities already can set the wage higher if they so choose. And there is no valid reason to allow them to set the minimum wage lower than some reasonable median poverty line for the state, because doing would eliminate any possibility of mobility for people in the poorest areas.
Another possible reason might be to have the ability to turn off your plate while parked but not even sure if that is legal.
A more useful trick would be to use a bit of machine vision to detect what color the traffic light is and then turn it off if the intersection is listed in a red light camera database....
There's a middle ground between a quick dialog box and requiring people to root their phone in order to add a root certificate.
But the simplest middle ground is permanently allowing a cert for a specific.local hostname, and not adding the root cert to begin with. Adding root certs sort of makes sense in the enterprise space, but for home use, it's massive overkill, and there are easier ways that are less likely to cause less experienced users to get MITMed.
Train them well enough to ignore cert errors and the cert error ceases to have meaning.
Strongly agreed. You should get exactly one notice per.local hostname (never more than once), and it should be different enough from the invalid cert warning that nobody confuses the two. Ideally, it should not even mention certs at all — something like "You are attempting to access the device or service 'Service name' on your local network for the first time. If you have recently added this device or service to your network, click 'Continue'. Otherwise, click 'Cancel.' [More Info]----[OK]----[[Cancel]]" The "More Info" button should bring up a full cert dialog for people who want to hand-verify the keys.
Not that much harder. I mean, ostensibly yes, if somebody puts an open Wi-Fi network with the same SSID as your closed network, that might be a risk, but if that happens, you won't be able to see any of the other devices on your network, and you will start to get suspicious pretty quickly.
Besides, the critical piece of the puzzle is permanent key pinning. Like SSH, the public key of each device should be stored permanently in your computer's keychain, and future accesses to foo.local should always use that key. If your browser or whatever encounters a device named foo.local whose public key is different (because of a network substitution), it should scream loudly. So the window of opportunity for an attack is basically the five minutes between when you unbox the random device and when you first connect your computer to it. This is a relatively low-risk approach — particularly if limited to.local.
And I'm going to go through an insured bank transfer. The money is protected from fraud just the same, but instead of incurring a debt on a credit sub-account, I'm just deducting the amount from my main account.
Except that with an insured bank transfer, you pay the cost of the transfer (probably with an extra fee for the insurance). With a credit card transaction, the seller pays that cost, and it gets built into the cost of the product. It makes the accounting easier if you can point to a single line item and say "this is the cost".
Let me turn that around for you. You use somebody's public Wi-Fi, and it asks you to click on something that installs a new root cert. If it is easy, the average person will do it without hesitation, at which point HTTPS is completely broken.
Sometimes, there are good reasons to make unusual things hard.
No, the right answer is for somebody to come up with a sensible standard for.local certificates in which they are accepted with SSH-like behavior — ask once, and never ask again (with no expiration), but accepted only for that specific hostname, never allowed to be treated as any sort of root cert, etc.
What exactly would you have Uber change? I'm seriously asking here.
The ability to redirect payments to a checking account under a different person's name without providing a government-issued photo ID under both names, a marriage certificate or name change certificate, and at least one other form of identification, perhaps?
Or, for that matter, the ability to make major changes to the account without contacting the account owner at his/her callback number to verify it?
Or, for that matter, the ability to do any of those things without going in person to see an actual, human customer service representative?
Slashdot Mirror
The same way. The Middlegender high school parent teacher rear endociation welcomes the clbutt of 1998 for its 10th anniversary celebration.
I remember seeing an actual BBS that did exactly that (clbutt). The really hilarious thing is that if you try to search for "clbutt" in Google, unless you surround it with quotes to force an exact match, Google's synonym detection automatically uncensors it to "class".
Ah. That makes a lot more sense. Based on the previous reply, I did a Google search for "f**king Lincolnshire" and got a combination of rants about people hating the area and pages whose descriptions looked suspiciously like porn sites, so that clearly wasn't right....
Actually, by the definition you posted, the GP appears to be correct:
That appears to cover solicitation. The next one appears to cover brothels, the fourth appears to cover pimping, the fifth appears to redundantly cover solicitation. Only the third one appears to cover what most of us think of as sex trafficking, and even that one is missing any mention of lack of consent, force, coercion, false pretense, or indentured servitude.
Now I understand the excuse given — that requiring the government to prove those things makes it harder to prosecute traffickers because they have to actually build up a proper case — but it is also the difference between a law that bans what most people think of as trafficking and a law that nationally bans prostitution, as this one appears to do.
What am I missing?
Traveling != owning property.
That said, Prop 13 is the main reason that Bay Area traffic is as obscene as it is. People who buy homes have a strong disincentive to move closer to where they work whenever they change jobs, and as a result, nearly everyone commutes considerably farther than they otherwise might. And ironically, that hurts the poorest Californians most (the folks Prop 13 was designed to protect). Basically, Prop 13 needs to be gutted and completely rethought from the ground up.
Hardly. If Prop 13 ever gets gutted, it will almost certainly result in a significant increase in property tax revenue overall, which would increase the amount of money that can be spent on infrastructure.
Actually, according to cancer.org, it is the tenth most common kind of cancer:
Although this is actually something of a lie, as the source they got their numbers from intentionally excludes non-melanoma skin cancers (presumably because the case fatality rate for carcinoma is two orders of magnitude lower). Really, that means it is #11. Either way, it ranks ahead of pancreatic cancer, thyroid cancer, liver cancer, all forms of brain cancer, bone cancer, etc.
And by fatality count, it rises to #7. Also note that if we could get everyone to stop smoking, it would move up another notch, both in fatalities and incidence.
And that top ten list doesn't have that wide a probability spread, either. Breast cancer and lung cancer are each only about 4x as common as leukemia. It is not a rare cancer by any means.
That's also not true. Most forms of Leukemia have no familial link. There is an increased prevalence in first-degree relatives and twins of people with leukemia, but this is likely because those people lived in the same house, drank the same water, breathed the same air, went to schools in the same classrooms, etc. When you see only a first-degree link and no broader familial link, this strongly suggests that environmental factors are the predominant cause, not genetics.
I think you're missing the point, which is that the government of California uses bond measures precisely because the state constitution does not allow it to run a deficit. The law and accounting practices aside, bond measures function in almost precisely the same way as a budget deficit, just under a different name. The only meaningful difference between the government issuing bonds and running a budget deficit is that *some* bonds require voter approval, and not even all of those. All the other differences are basically semantic sugar.
From their bosses at cable companies, I would imagine.
AWS or not, their logic is fundamentally flawed. Nobody gets bandwidth for free. Everyone, whether it is me, you, or Netflix, pays for service from their server/laptop/phone to the Internet backbone, and they pay based on how much bandwidth they use (or, in the case of residential service, by how much bandwidth they have available divided by some fixed multiplier that is determined by the average amount of bandwidth consumers use). The backbone providers then charge money to the end-user ISPs for transit over their networks. This is proportional to the amount of bandwidth that those ISPs use.
The problem is that Comcast is simply too large. They have control over an ever-expanding percentage of residential Internet customers in the United States, and they are abusing that near-monopoly to extort money out of companies in exchange for access to their users.
The easiest way to explain this is with a postal service analogy. If I send a letter to Netflix, I pay for a stamp that pays the postal service. If they send me back a letter, they pay for a stamp that pays the postal service. Netflix bundles the cost of that stamp into their service cost, so I end up paying it indirectly, but they still paid the cost of postage. Comcast charging money to Netflix is equivalent to my local mail carrier deciding that Netflix sends too much mail, and demanding that Netflix pay him/her an extra five cents to take the mail from the local post office to my house. See how absurd that is? Netflix would tell my postal carrier to eff off.
But suppose that postal carrier gets together with a group of postal carriers and forms a union of concerned postal workers. And suppose that group then demands ten cents for every Netflix-originated letter distributed by any of their workers. Suddenly, Netflix has to pay attention, because otherwise their letters won't get there. But Netflix already paid for their stamp, so there's no legitimate reason for them to have to pay more.
The difference, of course, is that if postal carriers did this, they would go to jail, and Comcast executives, being powerful corporate types, likely won't. But otherwise, there's really no meaningful difference.
Well, it all depends on how you spin the numbers. When we talk about the federal government, there's one giant pool of debt, largely because the federal government can print money. When we talk about the state government, there are a bunch of tiny pools of debt. We call them bond measures. Each of those is debt that the state government took on so that they can fund a particular project, and each one gets paid off over a period of time through tax dollars or bridge tolls or whatever.
If you take all of those bond measures and consider only the annual payment on them, then yes, the budget is at least ostensibly balanced. If you consider the entire amount of the bond, then it is anything but balanced, and the state is in pretty serious debt. Want to decrease that debt? Every time you see a bond measure on the ballot, vote "no". No matter what it is, vote "no". Or maybe agree to local bond measures, knowing that municipalities can declare bankruptcy if worst comes to worst. Either way. On the other hand, the infrastructure will probably crumble if you do this, so it probably isn't a good idea.
Yeah, the courts love those sorts of tricks.
See also: Treble damages
But I'd be shocked if that was the majority of what a new lawyer ended up doing, unless by writing, you mean crafting nearly pure boilerplate contracts and wills. The hard stuff shouldn't be going to people just starting out.
I don't believe that this is true. I have yet to encounter anyone who could work extremely long hours consistently without their productivity falling through the floor. I've certainly encountered people who work long hours and achieve tolerable levels of productivity, but in every case, if you took someone with comparable amounts of experience and had them work a 35-hour week, that second person would get at least as much done, largely because of making fewer errors that had to be corrected later.
Mind you, there probably is some variation from one person to another as to how long a week they can tolerate (driven mostly by differences in how much sleep they need, the number of outside activities they are involved in, whether they have kids, etc.), but we are talking about the difference between being optimal up to 35 hours and being optimal up to 40 hours, not being optimal up to 60 hours or 80 hours. The only people who are optimal at programming for 80 hours per week are the ones who are really hiring a team of programmers in India or some other low-wage country to do the first 80% of the work, and then spend 20 hours each week integrating that work, all while billing it as 80 hours worth of work.
My entire reply was in the context of its parent, which was about programming jobs. Junior investment bankers and junior lawyers have entirely different points of diminishing returns, because the type of work is entirely different.
Software engineering is, despite having a technical component, first and foremost a creative job. Creative jobs give you the fewest useful hours per week. You can push paper and look up pertinent case law and do financial analysis and background research on random stocks for a lot more hours than you can usefully write code. Worse, because programming is so creative, you often don't realize how much your quality is suffering when you write crazy amounts of code for long periods of time, which means things start to go wrong, and nobody can explain why, so they decide that it's a crunch, and everybody has to work longer hours. This generally results in a death spiral.
Actually, all the research I've seen in this area says the opposite — that you can work maybe one 60-hour week before you start to lose productivity, and over the long term, you're no better off working 60 hours than 30 hours. Your productivity actually goes negative at around 45 hours, IIRC, and diminishing returns begin at 25 or 30 hours. I forget the exact numbers, but that's in the right ballpark. So you're almost always better off adding more people than working more hours, unless the need is very short-term.
The only companies that do well by forcing people to work crazy hours are game developers, and that's because they know they can burn out one group of devs and move on to the next set of suckers. For everybody else, it is generally self-defeating.
Correct. Without registration, you are eligible only for actual damages, not statutory damages. That means if you can prove that you lost money because they did not license the work, they owe you what your licensing fee would have been, plus whatever money they made because of your work. Because they did not sell the photo in question, it is unlikely that the latter amount would have been nonzero, and unless the photographer has a posted rate schedule, it is unlikely that the first amount would have been nonzero, either, which basically makes the entire case moot even without a fair use argument.
That said, IMO, the fair use determination is bogus, and would likely be overturned on appeal. Of course, the actual damages would still be zero, so IMO the photographer would be crazy to pursue this. The right way to handle this would be, rather than send a C&D, to send a bill for a modest licensing fee and request appropriate credit. And then, if they don't agree to the fee, send a C&D. This allows the site owner to save face for what was probably inadvertent infringement resulting from some low-level staffer making a bad choice, and gets you credit for the photo, and possibly provides an opportunity to actually make real revenue by selling prints of the photo via a page linked off of that high-traffic website. Everybody wins.
Trying to go the lawsuit route... everybody loses except the lawyers, unless the copyright is registered, and often, even then.
No, it's not funny on the Internet, but the reason it isn't funny is because it is so believable. Trump has a history of appointing people to key positions who have absolutely zero background in the area that they are supposed to be running, like naming DeVos as secretary of education. Shatner at least has some appreciation of what NASA does, so it wouldn't be his worst appointment by a fairly large margin.
When reality has become so bizarre that no sane person would have believed it possible just a few years ago, any attempt at separating truth from fiction is impossible without significant amounts of independent research, which is why fake news is spreading so easily. We brought it on ourselves.
Per the Census, income per capita (adjusted for constant dollars) has increased since 1970s. Minimum wage may be stagnant, but actual wages aren't.
Bzzt. That's not what that means. Thanks for playing. Repeat after me: Averages are useless without standard deviations.
I'll let that sink in for a moment. What you're saying is that the average wage has gone up. What the folks on the other side are saying is that the poorest and most vulnerable people — the ones who are actually making minimum wage are getting seriously screwed. You are both correct. But the purpose of a minimum wage is to protect the poorest and most vulnerable, not to raise the average wage. The latter is merely an unavoidable side effect of the former. So that means the minimum wage is too low.
As far as minimum wage laws go, there shouldn't be one at a Federal, and most likely even at State levels. What minimum wage would you set that would apply in San Francisco or Manhattan that would also be applicable to McAllen, TX? It makes no sense on a Federal level. And in some States (such as CA), it makes no sense state-wide. The cost of living in Oxnard is about 46% of that in Santa Monica, just 45 minutes away. How do you set a minimum wage that is "livable" for someone in a high-income area and doesn't kill small businesses in low-cost areas?
What makes you think that the minimum wage in San Francisco ($14.00) is the same as the minimum wage in McAllen, TX ($7.25)? The federal minimum wage is just that — a minimum. States like California ($11.00) are allowed to set higher minimums. And municipalities are allowed to set even higher minimums than at the state level. What they are not allowed to do is set a lower minimum than is prescribed by a less granular law.
Thus, the federal minimum wage should be based on the average baseline cost of living, ignoring cities with significantly elevated cost of living. It need not be high enough to allow mobility from the poorest area to the richest area, but it does need to be high enough to allow some mobility, within reason.
Similarly, the state's minimum wage should be based on the average cost of living, possibly ignoring outlier cities like San Francisco, and each city's minimum wage should be based on the average cost of living in the city, again possibly ignoring outlier neighborhoods like Pacific Heights.
Ostensibly, a city could even provide minimum wage zones in which the minimum wage was higher or lower than the normal city minimum wage, though that would tend to result in not having employees in the lower-wage zones, so this is probably a bad idea in practice, but nothing legally prevents it.
The solution is to eliminate a minimum wage law at the Federal and State level, and let counties or municipalities set it if they so choose.
Congratulations. You've just solved a problem that doesn't actually exist. States, counties, and municipalities already can set the wage higher if they so choose. And there is no valid reason to allow them to set the minimum wage lower than some reasonable median poverty line for the state, because doing would eliminate any possibility of mobility for people in the poorest areas.
See also:
A more useful trick would be to use a bit of machine vision to detect what color the traffic light is and then turn it off if the intersection is listed in a red light camera database....
But the simplest middle ground is permanently allowing a cert for a specific .local hostname, and not adding the root cert to begin with. Adding root certs sort of makes sense in the enterprise space, but for home use, it's massive overkill, and there are easier ways that are less likely to cause less experienced users to get MITMed.
Strongly agreed. You should get exactly one notice per .local hostname (never more than once), and it should be different enough from the invalid cert warning that nobody confuses the two. Ideally, it should not even mention certs at all — something like "You are attempting to access the device or service 'Service name' on your local network for the first time. If you have recently added this device or service to your network, click 'Continue'. Otherwise, click 'Cancel.' [More Info]----[OK]----[[Cancel]]" The "More Info" button should bring up a full cert dialog for people who want to hand-verify the keys.
Not that much harder. I mean, ostensibly yes, if somebody puts an open Wi-Fi network with the same SSID as your closed network, that might be a risk, but if that happens, you won't be able to see any of the other devices on your network, and you will start to get suspicious pretty quickly.
Besides, the critical piece of the puzzle is permanent key pinning. Like SSH, the public key of each device should be stored permanently in your computer's keychain, and future accesses to foo.local should always use that key. If your browser or whatever encounters a device named foo.local whose public key is different (because of a network substitution), it should scream loudly. So the window of opportunity for an attack is basically the five minutes between when you unbox the random device and when you first connect your computer to it. This is a relatively low-risk approach — particularly if limited to .local.
Except that with an insured bank transfer, you pay the cost of the transfer (probably with an extra fee for the insurance). With a credit card transaction, the seller pays that cost, and it gets built into the cost of the product. It makes the accounting easier if you can point to a single line item and say "this is the cost".
Let me turn that around for you. You use somebody's public Wi-Fi, and it asks you to click on something that installs a new root cert. If it is easy, the average person will do it without hesitation, at which point HTTPS is completely broken.
Sometimes, there are good reasons to make unusual things hard.
No, the right answer is for somebody to come up with a sensible standard for .local certificates in which they are accepted with SSH-like behavior — ask once, and never ask again (with no expiration), but accepted only for that specific hostname, never allowed to be treated as any sort of root cert, etc.
You will. And the company that will bring it to you: AT&T.
Must have been those self-driving Uber scammers.
The ability to redirect payments to a checking account under a different person's name without providing a government-issued photo ID under both names, a marriage certificate or name change certificate, and at least one other form of identification, perhaps?
Or, for that matter, the ability to make major changes to the account without contacting the account owner at his/her callback number to verify it?
Or, for that matter, the ability to do any of those things without going in person to see an actual, human customer service representative?