Sprint owns 51% of Clearwire. All of the "4G" services Sprint offers use the Clearwire network. Keep in mind that this is WiMax, and not really 4G, but because they sold it before 4G was a standard, they can continue to advertise as such.
Rumors are of a deal between Sprint, T-Mobile, and Clearwire regarding 4G, so I suspect something significant to come of this soon, probably for the worse (for the consumer) and for the better for the beleaguered business deal.
Is 4G a standard? Last I heard it was just a marketing term used by the telco's to describe their 'better than 3G' service. 4G could be LTE, WiMax, or HSPA+; all very different, all '4G'
Who are these groups? Who are they? Are they right, are they left, are they clean, are they dirty, are they front groups? I don't know.
Wait, wait, wait, so what are you accusing them of? Absolutely nothing? And if you don't know then why are you telling us to investigate them? Maybe because you know nobody will do it and instead they'll just continue listening to you? "Is Glenn Beck, good, bad, is he left, is he right, is he clean, is he dirty? I don't know. Maybe you should keep your eye on him?"
George Soros (central to Beck's favorite 'puppet master' conspiracy theory) should secretly wire Beck $100,000, then "leak" it somewhere his fans would notice.
Sarkozy isn't an MS shill, he's a shill for the french equivalent of the RIAA.
Sarkozy is a MS shill. Remember when MS bought the ISO standard? The French ISO members were supporting ODF, but were ordered by the French government to vote for MS. The boss of MS France and Sarkozy are old friends.
I stand corrected; I did not remember that. He's a regular bag of dicks (sac de bites?), that guy.
Who is actually getting the payout from the "mobile OS netbook tax"? Are they applying it to non-Windows machines under the assumption that you will install an illegal copy of Windows on it? Or does it even matter?
I can't find anything about how the existing tax on media, USB sticks, and MP3 players is disbursed, but I doubt it's going to Microsoft. I think they're just trying to add 'tablets' to that list of things get a levy on behalf of whatever copyright think-tank writes their laws, because everyone is, apparently, assumed to be a criminal.
Consider their viewpoint. They would tax every single means of data storage if they could. People would (rightfully) balk at the idea of taxing any hard drive, or their laptop, but they presently pay a bs tax on MP3 players. So there is a clear line there. So they're thinking "What if they just bought an iPad instead? We can't tax those!" and trying to move tablets and 'mobile devices' to the taxable, 'MP3 player' side of that line.
Ask yourself: Why would they intentionally exclude tablets running Win7 from their potential pool of revenue? Microsoft does not have the legislative influence in France that they do in the states, I really doubt that this is a case of MS massaging their laws and not (poor wording)/((poor/sensational) interpretation) by the press.
Sarkozy isn't an MS shill, he's a shill for the french equivalent of the RIAA. This seems like an extension of the tax they put on mp3 players, as it is based on the internal storage capacity of the device.
"The scale ranges from 0.09 euros for models with up to 128MB of 12 euros for those with 64 GB
Thus I suspect 'mobile/clean operating system' is meant to refer to any operating system that can run on a mobile device, and then be used to play music that you probably stole. We all know how the copyright cartels think, why would they intentionally exclude windows users?
This would not work for your ASUS example because those motherboards were legally imported.
And these watches weren't legally imported? I bet they were
The 9th's decision is based on their interpretation that they were not. However, upon a third reading, I think I'm angry again. You are correct in that court allows that these are legit watches. Copyright language is confusing as fuck. I read it as copy cannot be sold in a region it cannot be otherwise purchased. As in, if they aren't selling it in the States yet, you can't either; but if they are: it's fair game. I then assumed that since they were available here, via Omega, all that language about 'grey market' and 'undisclosed 3rd party' was meant to infer counterfeiting.
Since the only thing protected by copyright here is the little picture on the watch, the 9th's opinion seems to be that art cannot be resold in a country that it was not originally intended for. That's ludicrous.
Costco obtained watches bearing the copyrighted design from the "gray market"[1] in the following manner: Omega first sold the watches to authorized distributors overseas. Unidentified third parties eventually purchased the watches and sold them to ENE Limited, a New York company, which in turn sold them to Costco.
Omega claims that the copies of the design were not "lawfully made under [Title 17]" in these circumstances. 17 U.S.C. 109(a).
Costco bought the watches from a company who can't say where they got them. I believe Omega is using the US copyright on their 'Omega Globe' engraving to try and stop what they believe to be the resale of counterfeit/stolen watches. This would not work for your ASUS example because those motherboards were legally imported.
Since my view of the case hinges on the chain of custody between the rights holder and the distributor getting murky and Omega claiming they were unlawful copies; I'm curious how they would have ruled if Costco bought the watches overseas themselves, and resold them here. If I am understanding them, this should be permissible.
IANAL, but I've read the 9th circuit's opinion, and I think it's a fair argument; once you realize this is not about the watch (which I'll get to). This comes down to Omega never authorizing the importation of these copyrighted materials. 9th states that
Second, the application of 109(a) after foreign sales would "`render 602 virtually meaningless'" as a tool against the unauthorized importation of nonpiratical copies because importation is almost always preceded by at least one lawful foreign sale that will have exhausted the distribution right on which 602(a) is premised. Id. at 319-20 (quoting Scorpio, 569 F.Supp. at 49).
The watches found their way to Costco via "unidentified third parties,"
Costco obtained watches bearing the copyrighted design from the "gray market"[1] in the following manner: Omega first sold the watches to authorized distributors overseas. Unidentified third parties eventually purchased the watches and sold them to ENE Limited, a New York company, which in turn sold them to Costco.
I am inferring from this that Costco could not prove that these were authorized replications of Omega's copyrighted material. By ruling in favor of Costco they set a precident which could allow me to sell pirate CDs I bought from 'an unspecified 3rd party' wholesaler in China and claiming 'First sale doctrine, bro; I'm just a reseller.' I get that, kind of, if were were talking about CDs, books, or movies.
Here is the part that is fucking retarded: Omega isn't talking about the watch, the watch isn't copyrighted. They are claiming infringement on their logo, the "Omega Globe Design," which just happens engraved on the watch, and which they hold a US copyright on. So by my read, Costco is free to file off the logo and sell them however they want.
I'm not talking about "socialism", but about donating money in such a way that any given cause will not need future donations. In other words solving a problem instead of helping to manage the results.
Well that is far more difficult. Consider what you are asking, rather than giving a person a service they cannot afford; provide them the means to afford it. Help build their financial infrastructure so that it become more self sufficient.
Sounds great, but how do you do that? You could expand their disposable income so they can provide for themselves. If you set up your fund, lets say it makes 50m a year. Housing is a major drain on everyone's disposable income, do you take 4,000 people and buy them a house/pay off their mortgage each year? This would help me, certainly, but what's to prevent them from taking out a second mortgage on it and winding up in debt all over again? Does the foundation retain ownership of the house? Do you have to apply to them if you really need that second mortgage (ie: medical bills)? What happens when they want to sell it? How does the foundation ensure the house is maintained to not get hit with laws against being a bad landlord? Do they have to?
I think you could work out a system like that, but I think it could wind up feeling a little invasive because to ensure that it was actually effective, you would have to ensure people were being responsible. This could turn the program into a PR nightmare as the foundation starts getting painted as a corporate fiefdom by a few unhappy recipients and a journalist trying to make a name for themselves.
Their entire business model is making money by suing "infringers". In this case, the economic value to Righthaven is INCREASED by someone else posting it in its entirety.
Under that model the value of the work is defined by their profit from a lawsuit. So if they win and get a settlement, the value is increased; thus, on appeal, they will lose. But now they expended all these legal fees, and have taken a loss. Their license on the article now has a negative value; thus, on a second appeal, they will win.
The question we need to ask is how many appeals will land this in the Supreme Court? If it's an odd number, Righthaven will spiral into bankruptcy. If it is an even number, Righthaven's business model will make them an unstoppable profit machine.
20,000 hours over 5 years is 80 hours a week. Impressive. If we assume time and a half for overtime, that's 3 million for 25000 hours, or $120 an hour or ~$250,000 a year as a base salary. I don't know if that would be close to enough to make me put in hours like that, for 5 years straight.
if everybody on the planet each got a knife made out of recycled glass and used it carefully to murder a neighbour, then the whole problem would be halved over night.
If everybody went next door to murder a neighbor, no one would be next door to be a victim.
You assume one occupant per house, or one destination per household. If the average household has 2 people in it, and they went to different houses, then everyone would be in their neighbor's living room having a knife fight with their neighbor's neighbor, while their neighbors and their neighbors' neighbors' neighbors fought in their neighbors' neighbors' living rooms.
But then you've recorded it with the intent of commiting a tort or crime. ('tort of crime' is a typo in the article)
' 2511(2)(d) requires that a communication be
17 intercepted for the purpose of a tortious or criminal act
18 that is independent of the intentional act of recording.
BTW, looking at the photos my first thought was "traditional pylons doesn't need chains to maintain verticallity"
Non-traditional, but is it unusual? I thought I'd seen transmission towers with guy wires, or at least some looked as though they should have guy wires (narrow base, tapering up and out).
When the topic of games based on earlier conflicts is brought up, like WWII games, she calls all surviving vets "not real people" and says that games like that are fine because of how they're not real people...
Jesus. I don't even know how to attack logic like that. It seems like it should have already attacked itself, and yet here it is.
If that's true (like you said, we don't know) then Fox News would be to blame here for opportunistically using her only in a story about war games portraying the other side, rather than in a piece about war games generally.
I would be shocked to learn this was the case. Shocked!
I can't watch the video, so this is based solely on the summary. It is entirely possible that the 'Gold Star Mom' (huh?) now objects to all depictions of war as entertainment. The summary doesn't say she thinks it's OK to play the US side, but not the side who killed her boy. It just says she objects to war being portrayed as a game.
This is not a viewpoint that I share, but she's welcome to it.
Genuinely surprised this isn't coming from Will Wright, this meta-gaming/user-content-generating stuff is right up his alley. I also thought The Sims already did something along these lines.
Secret classification is one step up from Sensitive (SSNs, addresses, phone numbers, etc...) and it isn't very well controlled.
False. "Sensitive" but Unclassified -> Confidential -> Secret -> TS/SCI
Secret can get people killed. That it clearance is handed out to degenerates is a failure of the investigators, not evidence that Secret material is harmless.
Slashdot Mirror
Sprint owns 51% of Clearwire. All of the "4G" services Sprint offers use the Clearwire network. Keep in mind that this is WiMax, and not really 4G, but because they sold it before 4G was a standard, they can continue to advertise as such. Rumors are of a deal between Sprint, T-Mobile, and Clearwire regarding 4G, so I suspect something significant to come of this soon, probably for the worse (for the consumer) and for the better for the beleaguered business deal.
Is 4G a standard? Last I heard it was just a marketing term used by the telco's to describe their 'better than 3G' service. 4G could be LTE, WiMax, or HSPA+; all very different, all '4G'
Who are these groups? Who are they? Are they right, are they left, are they clean, are they dirty, are they front groups? I don't know.
Wait, wait, wait, so what are you accusing them of? Absolutely nothing? And if you don't know then why are you telling us to investigate them? Maybe because you know nobody will do it and instead they'll just continue listening to you? "Is Glenn Beck, good, bad, is he left, is he right, is he clean, is he dirty? I don't know. Maybe you should keep your eye on him?"
George Soros (central to Beck's favorite 'puppet master' conspiracy theory) should secretly wire Beck $100,000, then "leak" it somewhere his fans would notice.
For science.
Sarkozy isn't an MS shill, he's a shill for the french equivalent of the RIAA.
Sarkozy is a MS shill. Remember when MS bought the ISO standard? The French ISO members were supporting ODF, but were ordered by the French government to vote for MS. The boss of MS France and Sarkozy are old friends.
I stand corrected; I did not remember that. He's a regular bag of dicks (sac de bites?), that guy.
Who is actually getting the payout from the "mobile OS netbook tax"? Are they applying it to non-Windows machines under the assumption that you will install an illegal copy of Windows on it? Or does it even matter?
I can't find anything about how the existing tax on media, USB sticks, and MP3 players is disbursed, but I doubt it's going to Microsoft. I think they're just trying to add 'tablets' to that list of things get a levy on behalf of whatever copyright think-tank writes their laws, because everyone is, apparently, assumed to be a criminal.
Consider their viewpoint. They would tax every single means of data storage if they could. People would (rightfully) balk at the idea of taxing any hard drive, or their laptop, but they presently pay a bs tax on MP3 players. So there is a clear line there. So they're thinking "What if they just bought an iPad instead? We can't tax those!" and trying to move tablets and 'mobile devices' to the taxable, 'MP3 player' side of that line.
Ask yourself: Why would they intentionally exclude tablets running Win7 from their potential pool of revenue? Microsoft does not have the legislative influence in France that they do in the states, I really doubt that this is a case of MS massaging their laws and not (poor wording)/((poor/sensational) interpretation) by the press.
"The scale ranges from 0.09 euros for models with up to 128MB of 12 euros for those with 64 GB
Article linked from TFA
Thus I suspect 'mobile/clean operating system' is meant to refer to any operating system that can run on a mobile device, and then be used to play music that you probably stole. We all know how the copyright cartels think, why would they intentionally exclude windows users?
This would not work for your ASUS example because those motherboards were legally imported.
And these watches weren't legally imported? I bet they were
The 9th's decision is based on their interpretation that they were not. However, upon a third reading, I think I'm angry again. You are correct in that court allows that these are legit watches. Copyright language is confusing as fuck. I read it as copy cannot be sold in a region it cannot be otherwise purchased. As in, if they aren't selling it in the States yet, you can't either; but if they are: it's fair game. I then assumed that since they were available here, via Omega, all that language about 'grey market' and 'undisclosed 3rd party' was meant to infer counterfeiting.
Since the only thing protected by copyright here is the little picture on the watch, the 9th's opinion seems to be that art cannot be resold in a country that it was not originally intended for. That's ludicrous.
Costco obtained watches bearing the copyrighted design from the "gray market"[1] in the following manner: Omega first sold the watches to authorized distributors overseas. Unidentified third parties eventually purchased the watches and sold them to ENE Limited, a New York company, which in turn sold them to Costco.
Omega claims that the copies of the design were not "lawfully made under [Title 17]" in these circumstances. 17 U.S.C. 109(a).
Costco bought the watches from a company who can't say where they got them. I believe Omega is using the US copyright on their 'Omega Globe' engraving to try and stop what they believe to be the resale of counterfeit/stolen watches. This would not work for your ASUS example because those motherboards were legally imported.
Since my view of the case hinges on the chain of custody between the rights holder and the distributor getting murky and Omega claiming they were unlawful copies; I'm curious how they would have ruled if Costco bought the watches overseas themselves, and resold them here. If I am understanding them, this should be permissible.
Second, the application of 109(a) after foreign sales would "`render 602 virtually meaningless'" as a tool against the unauthorized importation of nonpiratical copies because importation is almost always preceded by at least one lawful foreign sale that will have exhausted the distribution right on which 602(a) is premised. Id. at 319-20 (quoting Scorpio, 569 F.Supp. at 49).
The watches found their way to Costco via "unidentified third parties,"
Costco obtained watches bearing the copyrighted design from the "gray market"[1] in the following manner: Omega first sold the watches to authorized distributors overseas. Unidentified third parties eventually purchased the watches and sold them to ENE Limited, a New York company, which in turn sold them to Costco.
I am inferring from this that Costco could not prove that these were authorized replications of Omega's copyrighted material. By ruling in favor of Costco they set a precident which could allow me to sell pirate CDs I bought from 'an unspecified 3rd party' wholesaler in China and claiming 'First sale doctrine, bro; I'm just a reseller.' I get that, kind of, if were were talking about CDs, books, or movies.
Here is the part that is fucking retarded: Omega isn't talking about the watch, the watch isn't copyrighted. They are claiming infringement on their logo, the "Omega Globe Design," which just happens engraved on the watch, and which they hold a US copyright on. So by my read, Costco is free to file off the logo and sell them however they want.
In this version, the Titanic is kept afloat by prayer.
I'm not talking about "socialism", but about donating money in such a way that any given cause will not need future donations. In other words solving a problem instead of helping to manage the results.
Well that is far more difficult. Consider what you are asking, rather than giving a person a service they cannot afford; provide them the means to afford it. Help build their financial infrastructure so that it become more self sufficient.
Sounds great, but how do you do that? You could expand their disposable income so they can provide for themselves. If you set up your fund, lets say it makes 50m a year. Housing is a major drain on everyone's disposable income, do you take 4,000 people and buy them a house/pay off their mortgage each year? This would help me, certainly, but what's to prevent them from taking out a second mortgage on it and winding up in debt all over again? Does the foundation retain ownership of the house? Do you have to apply to them if you really need that second mortgage (ie: medical bills)? What happens when they want to sell it? How does the foundation ensure the house is maintained to not get hit with laws against being a bad landlord? Do they have to?
I think you could work out a system like that, but I think it could wind up feeling a little invasive because to ensure that it was actually effective, you would have to ensure people were being responsible. This could turn the program into a PR nightmare as the foundation starts getting painted as a corporate fiefdom by a few unhappy recipients and a journalist trying to make a name for themselves.
Their entire business model is making money by suing "infringers". In this case, the economic value to Righthaven is INCREASED by someone else posting it in its entirety.
Under that model the value of the work is defined by their profit from a lawsuit. So if they win and get a settlement, the value is increased; thus, on appeal, they will lose. But now they expended all these legal fees, and have taken a loss. Their license on the article now has a negative value; thus, on a second appeal, they will win.
The question we need to ask is how many appeals will land this in the Supreme Court? If it's an odd number, Righthaven will spiral into bankruptcy. If it is an even number, Righthaven's business model will make them an unstoppable profit machine.
According to that chart, Nokia is suing eight companies
Ethical Amorality
They give up their scruples so we can have more.
Great plan if you can manage; but I think that, in an effort to save us both, my subconscious would chew my mouse hand off while I slept.
20,000 hours over 5 years is 80 hours a week. Impressive. If we assume time and a half for overtime, that's 3 million for 25000 hours, or $120 an hour or ~$250,000 a year as a base salary. I don't know if that would be close to enough to make me put in hours like that, for 5 years straight.
if everybody on the planet each got a knife made out of recycled glass and used it carefully to murder a neighbour, then the whole problem would be halved over night.
If everybody went next door to murder a neighbor, no one would be next door to be a victim.
You assume one occupant per house, or one destination per household. If the average household has 2 people in it, and they went to different houses, then everyone would be in their neighbor's living room having a knife fight with their neighbor's neighbor, while their neighbors and their neighbors' neighbors' neighbors fought in their neighbors' neighbors' living rooms.
neighbor
' 2511(2)(d) requires that a communication be 17 intercepted for the purpose of a tortious or criminal act 18 that is independent of the intentional act of recording.
BTW, looking at the photos my first thought was "traditional pylons doesn't need chains to maintain verticallity"
Non-traditional, but is it unusual? I thought I'd seen transmission towers with guy wires, or at least some looked as though they should have guy wires (narrow base, tapering up and out).
When the topic of games based on earlier conflicts is brought up, like WWII games, she calls all surviving vets "not real people" and says that games like that are fine because of how they're not real people...
Jesus. I don't even know how to attack logic like that. It seems like it should have already attacked itself, and yet here it is.
If that's true (like you said, we don't know) then Fox News would be to blame here for opportunistically using her only in a story about war games portraying the other side, rather than in a piece about war games generally.
I would be shocked to learn this was the case. Shocked!
I can't watch the video, so this is based solely on the summary. It is entirely possible that the 'Gold Star Mom' (huh?) now objects to all depictions of war as entertainment. The summary doesn't say she thinks it's OK to play the US side, but not the side who killed her boy. It just says she objects to war being portrayed as a game.
This is not a viewpoint that I share, but she's welcome to it.
Genuinely surprised this isn't coming from Will Wright, this meta-gaming/user-content-generating stuff is right up his alley. I also thought The Sims already did something along these lines.
Secret classification is one step up from Sensitive (SSNs, addresses, phone numbers, etc...) and it isn't very well controlled.
False. "Sensitive" but Unclassified -> Confidential -> Secret -> TS/SCI
Secret can get people killed. That it clearance is handed out to degenerates is a failure of the investigators, not evidence that Secret material is harmless.