The AP is NOT the source, the newspapers are. AP is owned by the newpapers. AP gets it's stories from the member newpapers (they also have some of their own reporters). When there are no newspapers, there is no AP.
Well, it took about 3 minutes of searching, but the 2010 budget for 'Traffic Operations' is $69,143,348. 'Traffic Operations' is described as:
Coordinates are assists in all activities aimed at improving traffic flow and enforcing regulations that supplement or support those activities. These activities include monitoring traffic signal and street light contractors, maintaining traffic control devices (signs, lane, and crosswalk markings) and providing environmental impact services. Enforcement activities include maintenance, collection from, and installation of parking meters.
It doesn't seem at all unreasonable to think that ~3M of that (5%) is for replacement of street signs.
All caps grabs your attention. It is why we still have STOP and SPEED LIMIT signs. You want driver's eyes to be drawn to them, because the information is important. Street names are not important, unless you are specifically looking for them. So for street name signs mixed case is better, because you can both read it easier when you are looking for a street, but you are not encouraged to look at them otherwise.
They ARE replacing the signs as part of normal maintenance. There is no 'additional' money being spent. The total cost of the project may well be $27M, but it is the same $27M they would have spent replacing signs even if they didn't change the lettering.
But that is probably just because capitals are larger for a given font size. If you scale the font up so that the average lower-case letter is the size the average capital is now, and then use mixed-case, it will probably be even easier to read.
It's Guam (average temp 30C). Something the size of a mouse isn't going to stay frozen very long. The mice are attached to streamers so they get caught in the tree tops (where the snakes are) and get moved by air currents. They are testing it now, having already dropped 250 mice.
The purpose of copyright is, and always has been, to give people a reason to CREATE. The only viable model we have is 'pay after creation'. How would any possible 'pay first' model work?
Good thing the workers that built my house don't know about that, or I'd be paying them royalties.
The discussion is not about one-time payments vs royalties, it is about payment or no payment. Try not paying those workers (after the work is started) and see how long you remain in control of the house.
They should also spend some brain power developing business models that don't revolve around selling an infinite resource.
OK, so they do that, and decide digging ditches is better than having their work ripped off. Now you have no apps, pirated or not (and before you yell FOSS!, why aren't you using FOSS apps now instead of ripping someone off?) Does that somehow improve your life?
These days, when billions of people are connected by the Internet, lots of them creative for the sake of creativity, not for monetary gain, it's more of a hindrance to the propagation of scientific and artistic thought.
Yep, which is why there is this huge explosion of freely available creative stuff which has just entirely removed the market for the stuff created by those greedy for-the-money bastards, right? So remind me again why it is necessary to pirate stuff which the creators did NOT want to give away for free.
OK, let's say you purchase something online from store A. Your neighbor purchases the same thing from store B. You both pay the same price, including shipping charges (for basic delivery). Your store ships the item basic delivery, just like you agreed to. The other store ponies up some money of it's own and bumps the shipping to '2-day' delivery. Has the shipping company done something wrong by delivering your neighbors package several days sooner?
Yes there is. Best effort is quite a common term, and not just in networking. Best effort means a task will be done as time allows, with no target deadline. It is not a statement of high priority. Basically it means that if you have nothing else to do you will work on that task. Everything of higher priority comes before best effort.
So because you are paying for something that means no-one else is allowed to pay more for better service? So FedEx should not be allowed to sell 'Custom Critical' services because it may interfere with your 'Ground' delivery? Airlines should not be allowed to sell first class seats because those seats take away from your standby-coach leg room?
The only thing you can reasonably expect is that you get the same priority as everyone else paying the same price. Saying a business should not treat customers differently based on how much they spend is just silly.
Where do you get any of that from this article? The one central theme to all this is that the basic concept of copyright (creators get to control their works) stays constant REGARDLESS of what technology is available. Yes, in each case people were complaining that the new technology would allow infringement, and they did not want the new technology. And no doubt in each case there were people gloating about how this new technology made the old stuff obsolete and they were now free to make their own copies. And in each case, what was the outcome? Was the technology banned? No. Was the tech allowed to be used for infringement? No. Instead, a reasonable balance was struck - the technology moves forward, and the law changes to make it clear that just because you CAN infringe more easily doesn't mean you are ALLOWED to. You don't think all the mentions of 'mechanical reproductions' and phonorecords, and photostatic reproductions, and digital files got in the law accidentally do you?
That is the best you could come up with? I ask for something that is not a blatant rip-off, and all you can come up with is a supposed 'parody' which was later found by a federal judge to be nothing more than a rip-off?
So you're saying that all of the 318,000 new books published in the UK and US last year are infringing copyright? Seems to me there were a lot of new songs released last year also (including many by indie artists). And plenty of new movies. The courts must be jam-packed with all those lawsuits, I wonder why we don't hear about them?
So is my contribution to your new work vital or not? If it is, is there any reason you should not get my permission to use it? If my contribution is not vital to your new work, remove it and you owe me nothing.
How does copyright 'guarantee profits' or prevent someone from having a better product? All copyright attempts to do is say 'if you want MY product, you get it from ME, on terms we agree on'. And make no mistake, the 'product' is the song, movie, story, etc, NOT the CD, DVD, or book it is contained on. You are perfectly free to make a 'better' song, movie, or book than me.
An argument COULD be made for parent/child privilege (and it seems some people in Massachusetts are trying to do that, but it is not currently the law, so it has no effect on this case. As for confidant or friend, no that makes no sense at all. There is no legal relationship called 'friend' or 'confidant'. What would the test be?
The Fifth Amendment (a person can not be compelled to testify against himself) is the reason he can not be legally required to tell the court even if he told no-one else.
Bottom line: if you want something to be truly private, don't tell anyone.
Slashdot Mirror
The AP is NOT the source, the newspapers are. AP is owned by the newpapers. AP gets it's stories from the member newpapers (they also have some of their own reporters). When there are no newspapers, there is no AP.
If you're going to file a claim under trademark law (Lanham Act), step one would be to own a trademark.
Well, it took about 3 minutes of searching, but the 2010 budget for 'Traffic Operations' is $69,143,348. 'Traffic Operations' is described as:
Coordinates are assists in all activities aimed at improving traffic flow and enforcing regulations that supplement or support those activities. These activities include monitoring traffic signal and street light contractors, maintaining traffic control devices (signs, lane, and crosswalk markings) and providing environmental impact services. Enforcement activities include maintenance, collection from, and installation of parking meters.
It doesn't seem at all unreasonable to think that ~3M of that (5%) is for replacement of street signs.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/12/041219171930.htm
They already did the study (actually six of them), focusing on older drivers. It is why they are changing the signs: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/12/041219171930.htm
.00001% need to be replaced each year? Really? The average life of a street sign is 10 million years? Wow. Thanks for the info.
All caps grabs your attention. It is why we still have STOP and SPEED LIMIT signs. You want driver's eyes to be drawn to them, because the information is important. Street names are not important, unless you are specifically looking for them. So for street name signs mixed case is better, because you can both read it easier when you are looking for a street, but you are not encouraged to look at them otherwise.
The important signs are in caps because caps grabs your attention. You don't want every street name you pass to grab your attention.
They ARE replacing the signs as part of normal maintenance. There is no 'additional' money being spent. The total cost of the project may well be $27M, but it is the same $27M they would have spent replacing signs even if they didn't change the lettering.
But that is probably just because capitals are larger for a given font size. If you scale the font up so that the average lower-case letter is the size the average capital is now, and then use mixed-case, it will probably be even easier to read.
It's Guam (average temp 30C). Something the size of a mouse isn't going to stay frozen very long. The mice are attached to streamers so they get caught in the tree tops (where the snakes are) and get moved by air currents. They are testing it now, having already dropped 250 mice.
The purpose of copyright is, and always has been, to give people a reason to CREATE. The only viable model we have is 'pay after creation'. How would any possible 'pay first' model work?
Good thing the workers that built my house don't know about that, or I'd be paying them royalties.
The discussion is not about one-time payments vs royalties, it is about payment or no payment. Try not paying those workers (after the work is started) and see how long you remain in control of the house.
They should also spend some brain power developing business models that don't revolve around selling an infinite resource.
OK, so they do that, and decide digging ditches is better than having their work ripped off. Now you have no apps, pirated or not (and before you yell FOSS!, why aren't you using FOSS apps now instead of ripping someone off?) Does that somehow improve your life?
These days, when billions of people are connected by the Internet, lots of them creative for the sake of creativity, not for monetary gain, it's more of a hindrance to the propagation of scientific and artistic thought.
Yep, which is why there is this huge explosion of freely available creative stuff which has just entirely removed the market for the stuff created by those greedy for-the-money bastards, right? So remind me again why it is necessary to pirate stuff which the creators did NOT want to give away for free.
Basically the service providers are paying on their customers behalf. What is wrong with that? It's called competition.
OK, let's say you purchase something online from store A. Your neighbor purchases the same thing from store B. You both pay the same price, including shipping charges (for basic delivery). Your store ships the item basic delivery, just like you agreed to. The other store ponies up some money of it's own and bumps the shipping to '2-day' delivery. Has the shipping company done something wrong by delivering your neighbors package several days sooner?
Yes there is. Best effort is quite a common term, and not just in networking. Best effort means a task will be done as time allows, with no target deadline. It is not a statement of high priority. Basically it means that if you have nothing else to do you will work on that task. Everything of higher priority comes before best effort.
So because you are paying for something that means no-one else is allowed to pay more for better service? So FedEx should not be allowed to sell 'Custom Critical' services because it may interfere with your 'Ground' delivery? Airlines should not be allowed to sell first class seats because those seats take away from your standby-coach leg room?
The only thing you can reasonably expect is that you get the same priority as everyone else paying the same price. Saying a business should not treat customers differently based on how much they spend is just silly.
Where do you get any of that from this article? The one central theme to all this is that the basic concept of copyright (creators get to control their works) stays constant REGARDLESS of what technology is available. Yes, in each case people were complaining that the new technology would allow infringement, and they did not want the new technology. And no doubt in each case there were people gloating about how this new technology made the old stuff obsolete and they were now free to make their own copies. And in each case, what was the outcome? Was the technology banned? No. Was the tech allowed to be used for infringement? No. Instead, a reasonable balance was struck - the technology moves forward, and the law changes to make it clear that just because you CAN infringe more easily doesn't mean you are ALLOWED to. You don't think all the mentions of 'mechanical reproductions' and phonorecords, and photostatic reproductions, and digital files got in the law accidentally do you?
That is the best you could come up with? I ask for something that is not a blatant rip-off, and all you can come up with is a supposed 'parody' which was later found by a federal judge to be nothing more than a rip-off?
Please point out exactly where in my post (any one of them) I advocated anything remotely like banning or constraining any technology.
Ah, I see. OK, name ONE case where the evil cartel won (or even filed) a case against one of the outsiders for something OTHER than a blatant rip-off.
So you're saying that all of the 318,000 new books published in the UK and US last year are infringing copyright? Seems to me there were a lot of new songs released last year also (including many by indie artists). And plenty of new movies. The courts must be jam-packed with all those lawsuits, I wonder why we don't hear about them?
So is my contribution to your new work vital or not? If it is, is there any reason you should not get my permission to use it? If my contribution is not vital to your new work, remove it and you owe me nothing.
How does copyright 'guarantee profits' or prevent someone from having a better product? All copyright attempts to do is say 'if you want MY product, you get it from ME, on terms we agree on'. And make no mistake, the 'product' is the song, movie, story, etc, NOT the CD, DVD, or book it is contained on. You are perfectly free to make a 'better' song, movie, or book than me.
An argument COULD be made for parent/child privilege (and it seems some people in Massachusetts are trying to do that, but it is not currently the law, so it has no effect on this case. As for confidant or friend, no that makes no sense at all. There is no legal relationship called 'friend' or 'confidant'. What would the test be?
The Fifth Amendment (a person can not be compelled to testify against himself) is the reason he can not be legally required to tell the court even if he told no-one else.
Bottom line: if you want something to be truly private, don't tell anyone.