According to my state, the cost for a blood test is about $20 to $40 depending on where you go, with placards in the same room with the Intoxylyzer 5000. According to research.
Justice is usually within the price range of the accused, in most cases. The ones that we hear about are the outliers.
I offer you proof. Do you get your news from the court dockets daily, or from the lame-stream MSM media who self-select stories for their human interest potential? No need to answer, it was more rhetorical than anything.
Here's the popular wisdom. Financial guy A gets off with house arrest for stealing billions of dollars, because he can afford it, while normal guy B gets 5-10 for breaking and entering. Because B&E guy can't afford a good lawyer. Truth: white and blue collar crimes are handled very differently. Whether that is right or not is a different question, just pointing out that access to an expensive lawyer does not make the difference. Understanding context of the charges makes all the difference in the world.
Bernie Madoff stole a lot of money, I guess he got off with a slap on the wrist because he could afford good lawyers?
Hi, conjecture, this is fact speaking. Laws depend on the wording in your state, and enforcement depends on the officers and their training in your state, and how cases go depends on the local rulings and people selected for the jury.
In other words, you might as well shake the magic 8 ball as opposed to rely on your comment.
If the officer screwed up the test, you are not factually drunk. Once you are ruled guilty, it is a fact. If the conviction (or plea) is thrown into doubt, it is no longer a fact, and must be proven by the prosecution. If the only evidence they have is the Breathylazer result, and that is doubted by undocumented (or explicitly falsified) testing, you are no longer factually drunk. The prosecution must rely on other evidence, which will probably be presented, if it exists, at another trial.
Most juries will be instructed to evaluate the evidence presented, with the Breathalyzer results supressed. Given that, there is no way for you to say how they would likely rule it.
It could, using the alternative windowing subsystem (X11). And in fact that branch is used to compare Wine vs. ReactOS behavior in certain cases.
Accoding to http://windows.kde.org/ the Windows port of KDE is not functional - but a Windows port would mean that all of the underlying API calls implemented by ReactOS have to be implemented and correct, or the port won't run anyway.
Finally, the point of ReactOS is that Windows programs should run on it. There is no reason to introduce KDE, when you have to write things like explorer.exe and the whole shell that Windows programs expect to have. The "crap that they spend their time on" is making a binary-compatible Windows OS.
They were pissed about the downloading, but all they could make stick legally was the uploading (you do not have the right to make copies if you were not granted that right).
I used to have a reference to a decision which explicitly said downloading is illegal, but I can't find it now to see if it has been overturned or the law updated to say that explicitly. A lot of people think only the uploading is illegal, but that is no longer the case (take with a grain of salt as I lost my citation). As Skarecrow77 said, uploading is far easier to prosecute so they will go that route if possible.
The "making available" theory is nuanced. You can leave files open on an FTP server, and no crime has been committed. If your stash is discovered and a transfer takes place (usually to someone like MediaSentry which validates the content and records the IP address), you have uploaded a copy without authorization. "Making available" has generally been tossed out, but you can bet that if it is discovered by someone who does not want you to make it available, they will initiate a transfer and you're hosed. In legal theory, you're safe. In reality, assume you are not. Advertising it makes no difference, just makes it easier to find.
And as for your CDs, you have a license to listen to the physical copy. When someone takes them from you, even if you left them on the street corner, you lose both the license and the physical item. You are not making a copy, and you are not making an unauthorized distribution. Unauthorized by you, but the copyright holder does not care so no violation. Please do not confuse digital goods with tangible objects, there is very little overlap legally between them. The legal system is still arguing about whether digital goods can actually be stolen. Occasionally, a story like that pops up, but it is usually settled on a case by case basis, I'm not aware of any solid decision or law about virtual goods.
That is why we have the "copyright violation isn't stealing" argument pop up. While you are taking something without paying for it, the entire collection of IP laws were specifically set aside for instances where copying is involved. If copyright were the same as stealing, you could be accused of both at the same time. A very simple argument made by the simplest of lawyers would get one or the other charge thrown out, because they are mutually exclusive. There is no correlation between physical objects and copyright. (Unless you want to be pedantic and say that you are giving away or selling physical books or discs that you copied from an original, which is very clearly not stealing except in the moral sense, and very clearly copyright infringement).
A coworker said her daughter, in college, got the legal threats. I don't know if they were the same empty letters as AC above, or if they had legal backings. I provided as much information as I could, with links to NYCL and other resources. But they settled the old fashioned way, with a check, because it would be too expensive to fight, and "she probably did it".
Getting letters from your ISP is a completely different thing. It basically means the copyright holder complained to the ISP, and the ISP (implicitly) claimed something like "safe harbor" and sent the takedown notice to you ("Please stop uploading things so we don't get more complaints"). There is no legal backing to this, and at most your ISP can claim TOS violation and unsubscribe you.
Getting sued directly is also a completely different thing. That's when an actual lawsuit gets filed, naming a specific person or IP address. We know that Thomas and Tenenbaum did, and via NYCL we know of several other cases where MediaSentry was thrown out for acting like a private investigator without a license, and several where MediaSentry changed tactics and came back. So yeah, it happened to a lot of people.
It depends on your situation. A 2 hour commute (hour both ways) makes telecommuting a lot more attractive. And when you can spread out in a larger house in the 'burbs instead of being in a tiny place in the city. Have a dedicated office where you can close the door and put away the business phone.
Extended days is one of the well-known problems of working at home, the temptation to clear your inbox as long as you're taking a break. Some people say it's a self-discipline issue, but when you have both that and a feeling of responsibility, the two get in each others' way a lot. Turning on the work computer to get a personal mail from your corporate outbox can be quick or a two-hour issue response.
Especially, and this is where people who say "self-discipline" can be forgetful, if your job entails on-call work. A quick response now, while you have cycles to spare, could prevent a call early morning or middle of the night. And if you work internationally, late night turnaround means your India, China, or maybe UK team can get back to work instead of having a day lag.
The temptation to get a problem checked off the list varies with your situation, and the benefits likewise. I'm currently on a virtual team, and there are perks, but I miss being able to slap someone on the back of the head when they screw up. In a few years I'll be looking to work in a physical building with as many people located on site as possible. And then I'll wish I could work from home, I'm sure.
You get a 50% on this one. You have insight on the first half, then fall off a cliff.
No sane employer will want him within a mile of his systems. This is true. He showed blatant disregard for the law, leaked confidential information, and has international connections. While you are correct that taking away legal avenues leaves little other option, this does not in any way change the fact that no one will hire him for a lot of IT jobs. There is a small chance of getting on as a white hat, but this guy seems like a coordinator, not a skilled hacker type.
He can get hired, but not as someone who has direct access to systems. And then there is the stereotype of the unemployed. Know why people headhunt during an economic downturn instead of hiring the unemployed? Because if you had to trim your force, would you lay off your best people or your worst? This is a business practice, not a judgement on unemployed people, because entire divisions sometimes get riff'ed and the good workers get caught up. But if we were to take an objective view, without access to lots of private information, we can assume he was not a top notch worker, and shows more delegation skills than hands-on work. He would not do very well in a criminal meritocracy, statistically speaking. Well enough to have a very rough life, maybe.
The fact that he is cooperating demonstrates he can "play ball", and will most likely do whatever it takes to stay on the side of the law where he gets to keep his kids and out of jail. He got caught, he will be punished, and he will find work. This will be the moment he looks back on his life and decides either it made him a better person or ruined his life, depending on what *he* does with it. Society as a whole can't be blamed, only his local ecosystem. IF he has friends and family to keep him going, and can find a willing employer, he will come out okay. Social injustice won't come in to play here, I'm fairly certain of that.
Reading comprehension should be the next thing you learn about. They identified and arrested the guy and flipped him. The article even says that - he plead out and he became a confidential informant.
He turned his guys over to the feds in exchange for the lulz. No wait, not for the lulz, but for lesser punishment. As previously stated, anyone simply in it for the lulz is not to be trusted. We should expect them not to be trusted, and they should have expected themselves not to be trusted.
50% of Americans do not earn enough money to pay federal income taxes, but do pay a lot of other taxes such as state, payroll including social security, sales, property, or other various taxes. Those same people are generally not in a position to influence the position of the Senator(s) from their state and thus have little influence on where the money goes.
I'm pretty sure that's what you meant to say, although I credit you for including "income", where the typical Republican talking point is to assume that it is assumed.
The people who decide where the money goes tend to be senior members of the Senate, who get themselves appointed to the Committee on Appropriations by sucking up to the Majority/Minority leadership. So stubbornly re-electing the incumbent seems to be the way to get money for your state.
These are the same types of people who stubbornly go to the same church year after year, and vote Republican because their daddy did (or because they expect one day to be part of the financial elite they vote to protect), which explains why Republican states get money while Democrat states donate. That last bit is just my opinion, but fits the facts well enough.
You completely missed the point. Publishers no longer think tablets are the best platform because readers get distracted. That this happens is supported by quotes from actual readers who get distracted.
The crap part of the article is saying that this reflects on eBooks, instead of on the platforms.
If you decide to stop reading, that's one thing. If you look up a word and wind up going TV Tropes style clicking for an hour when you meant to be reading, that might be troublesome. Obviously you are not one of these people, and based on the analyst (who may be wrong) you are a statistical outlier.
Re:That's why I like the basic Kindle
on
The eBook Backlash
·
· Score: 1
You are in your mid-30's and can't understand why a 50-year-old Kindle Fire user would call it distracting.
You also don't get why the Forrester Research analyst who did the study, which asked publishers which platform was ideal for eBooks, said that publishers think some platforms are distracting.
You have not talked to Allison Kutz who says âoeIâ(TM)ve tried to sit down and read it in Starbucks or the apartment, but I end up on Facebook or Googling something she said, and then the next thing you know Iâ(TM)ve been surfing for 25 minutes,â
I have a Kindle 3, and it doesn't have distractions. I can see how tablets might be distracting. I can also see that people who don't have problems with distractions might not "get" people who do.
No one else in the world gets distracted by their tablet functionality because you don't? That's not a good perspective to have.
And the article here says eBooks are bad because tablets are distracting, which obviously makes no sense. You are arguing that eBooks are good, but your only argument that addresses the article's premise is that it doesn't happen to you. And plenty of people would rather have a physical item to hold, mark up, dog-ear a page or two, or swap between two far apart pages for reference, which is harder on most e-readers of any type.
I was going to mod you up, then felt the need to explain why instead.
Shumeet Baluja is the author of a forthcoming book. The patent was filed November 7, 2011, presumably having been worked on for a while. The book was published in 2011, apparently mid-year but I didn't find a definite date. Baluja is not an author, but a CompSci PHD who wrote a book. And is employed by the patent owner, Google. Previously, he worked in data mining.
The novel was not adapted to a patent - both were the obvious result of Baluja's research and interests. The author is one of the inventors. It's the same thing in two forms. This is no different from "The Soul of a New Machine" which, although non-fiction, nonetheless surely had some parts over-dramatized. Take something you are working on, add fictional characters, and show how it can be used (or abused).
In other words, a fictionalized memoir. Ergo, Worst. Submission. Ever. Not news, barely qualifies as trivia.
"Leave the market alone" implies long-term cause and effect. Nothing of note happens in the short term. The reason for government intervention is to cut out the number of people who suffer before revolting, and likewise to ensure that companies survive instead of shooting themselves in the foot.
It's good for both, but companies are so focused on short-term gains they don't see the long-term benefits of the government forcing them to stay viable.
And the CEO bit is way off topic. If you take any CEO and calculate the cost per unit that goes into their income, it is usually extremely low. They just happen to be in a high-volume business. I calculated the GM CEO to be making between $1 and $5 per car before the bailout, I don't remember exactly. Cutting his compensation to 0 would have affected car prices not at all. The whole C-suite would have saved $10 per vehicle.
Finally, the costs have nothing to do with the cost of providing. It's what people will pay. If it cost half as much to make an iPhone, it would sell for the same amount, because that's what enough people will pay. the only reason technology decreases in price is because the people who buy at that price have already bought. Reduce supply chain costs, reduce the price by a lot less than you save, and soon you have a high margin good that costs less but has a higher margin than when first released.
It takes time to educate people, for example, that text messaging is free to the carrier. The price has gone up instead of down, so consumers are losing that battle. But, with all of this throttling, I expect to see text messages completely free and tiered pricing for data usage. The SMS revenue stream goes away, but gets replaced by heavy data premiums. And it will work, because we are being conditioned that data costs money. In the long view, all of this will even out and we will be getting screwed by whatever the newest technology driver is. Because that's the one consumers know the least about.
Business regulation is the shortcut for consumer education. Note, I'm specifically not taking sides. Whether it is good or necessary depends on a lot of variables. But if consumers as a group understand the interplay between costs, profits, and regulation, they can usually either accept the screwing, or wait it out.
Before 3G speeds, it might have been plausible to run all data over SMS, assuming you had a gateway to use and embedded some sort of routing info. Now, although the option exists, very few people would find the response time acceptable. So they pay for 3G instead of unlimited texting. It's a choice, and most people opt for the high cost of convenience rather than undercutting the market. And, if SMS routing took off, you can bet the market would adapt, and then smart users would again react.
"Unlimited data" means all you can eat at that speed. Throttling explicitly undercuts the amount of data you are able to get in the billing cycle. It is false.
But let's investigate further, you dolt. If you start downloading on the first day of the plan, and continuously download via streaming movies or audio or whatever, and reach the 3GB or 5GB limit, you get throttled.
There is a maximum amount of data you can use at the throttled speed for the remainder of the month. Your usage is greatly impeded, since streaming audio or video will not come in fast enough. Certainly not anywhere near 3G speeds. Usage is affected, as the speed is affected.
If I got a 56k modem, I would expect the federally limited 53k transfer to be constant. I can calculate the number of bits I will transfer in a billing cycle. Anything less than that is limited. If AT&T advertises unlimited at a certain speed (3G, and in some areas 4G) you should be able to calculate the amount of data you will get with an unlimited plan.
Point is, you don't get what was promised. There is a limit on usage because of the throttling, the experience is not the same, and the amount of data does not match what was promised. Bring up the red herring about content providers not being able to provide the theoretical maximum speed, but AT&T is explicitly stating they are throttling, which excludes that argument.
Hope this doesn't bruise your ego, but everyone's brain is basically a giant pattern recognition device. Not everyone is tuned in to sound, though. I hear white noise (HVAC usually) as a rock band playing. Probably the distorted guitars and drums fit a similar spectrum. I have "transcribed" a few tunes, and they largely lack structure but don't match anything I or my friends recognize. Since I don't pay attention to lyrics in music, the vocals are usually nonsense syllables I can't make out.
An old episode of Radio Lab was investigating dreams, and one bit of info was that by having people play Tetris for a while before sleeping, they either thought about Tetris before sleeping, or reported dreaming about Tetris. The idea there was that it was part of the review/learning process.
I contest that and think that instead, since you were just doing Tetris pattern recognition, your brain is still in that mode while getting random input from your visual system. The first stage of sleep frequently being confused with being awake, it's hard to say for certain whether these people were actually dreaming, or awake and recognizing patterns, or really much of anything.
Mothers report being able to hear their child's cry in a crowded room - they are used to recognizing that pattern. Conclusion: stop listening to people, start listening to instrumental music, and you'll have a free radio in your head at all times.
False dichotomy. You don't tell someone it's impossible, you suggest what they might be better at. One of my peers in college was told she should change majors. Oh, how she was angry at that. But honestly, after two years no one was convinced she could continue an be any good. It was a valid suggestion.
The same person told me I should maybe look into computing. I scoffed at the idea, mainly because I was committed to graduating on time and had taken 22 hours each semester making that happen. Had I thought about it, that would have been the best choice I could have taken.
I have no formal education, I know what I know because I want to know how computers work. BASIC's peek/poke, disassembly, reverse engineering, cracking, polymorphism in C... I know a lot of stuff they don't teach in school because I have that fire to learn. Someone is going to crap on my post because I don't know the basics, but that's my point - I know the basics and more, I just wasn't taught formally. I read the same books, not because I had to, but because I wanted to.
The best thing to happen to me would have been to be told explicitly to change majors, that it would be impossible to be as successful where I used to be. There is no reason to struggle when an easier path is available.
You are vastly simplifying. I spent 4 years in a great college learning how to do something. I work in an entirely unrelated field now. I was very good at what I did, but I could not break over the wall to be great.
A person who can't play his way out of a paper hat is currently teaching, having all of the benefits of 4 years of a good college music program and a great teacher. He is, perhaps in theory, capable of playing better, but in reality that never happened. Even with someone showing him once a week how to hold the pencil.
I know what I would have had to do to be great. It would have taken every waking minute of my life to understand, do things wrong, do things other ways, talk to many different people, immerse myself in the art.
I did not do this because I do not have what it takes to be great. What does it take? The dedication to immerse yourself in it, completely. I spent 5 years being told what I was doing wrong and still couldn't get it right. When I turned to programming, it just made sense. No learning, no being taught, just absorbing everything and everything, and being able to do it. It came naturally. I have "what it takes" to be great.
Now, you can argue that everyone in theory has what it takes to be an author, a poet, an artist, an engineer, a mathematician. I argue that practically, very few people do, and almost nobody has what it takes to be all of the above.
You have to include personality and circumstance when you discuss ability. "What it takes" is going to be different for everyone, and you are not going to be able to pull that out of everyone. I m not capable of drawing because I don't have what it takes. Maybe that means someone to show me how to hold a pencil - I don't have that. I also don't have an instinctive desire to draw everything I see, or everything that flits into my mind. I do not have the foundation needed for being capable of drawing even to the point of winning a game of Pictionary. I will not be a professional artist or musician or engineer. I will not be fluent in 3 languages.
I am missing far more than just the "potential" to be anything but a programmer, unless unemployment heads my way and I find something else I'm more interested in, and can spend time on, and can immerse myself in. Your theories are nice until they hit the practical world with its inherent constraints and this little annoyance called reality.
Most average people do not have the confluence of interest, support, resources, and all of the other little things necessary to be able to do something, even if they super duper really want to be able to. Take anyone who can't draw, go back in time and raise them in a house of artists, inject a curiosity about drawing, and they *may* learn how to draw reasonably well. Enroll them in classes at an early age, and they may be one day good. But if they don't catch that spark, even all of those advantages will be lost.
"Everyone can do it" is theory, not reality, and that comes from 6 years of teaching, 7 years of actively observing, all with the opposite understanding. Reality ate into my optimism, and I left the profession. With boundless time, and a chance to reach every child like in "Stand and Deliver" and make that spark happen, maybe it's possible. But students are not going to find the spark on their own, even if they really want to.
You don't know enough to learn to code, but you probably do know enough to be taught to code.
You are missing this important distinction. I will rephrase my other post. If you want to *teach* programming, you will start out with something simple and common, and preferably useful. The intended audience already has a browser, there's very little GUI fiddling, and it's a lot like the C/C++/C# that everyone will see someday.
If you want to offer students an environment to *learn* programming, an entirely different approach is needed. Give them rope, let them hang themselves, let them make all of the nasty mistakes and learn *why* we do the things we do.
These are two entirely different situations, and Khan is only considering one.
A truly interesting perspective. I would caution that it depends on your intended outcome. If we want people to be aware of programming concepts and capable of applying them to real-world situations, training in proper technique with an explanation of why we do it that way would work.
If we want people to grow up as creative master coders who can solve a problem in multiple ways for multiple scenarios, they need exposure to the good *and* the bad.
For the purposes of Khan Academy, teaching through JavaScript works. And given the generous scoping of JavaScript variables, in a very BASIC like manner, the same mistakes can be experienced in nearly the same way. You could even thrown in some very JavaScript like C, read through it, and introduce the GOTO. If the students are sufficiently advanced, you could explain how the boolean logic checks are essentially the same as GOTO, just without the need for a GOTO.
Hell, identify everything within brackets as an anonymous function, and say that the brackets are essentially a local unnamed GOTO. Or could be implemented as a CALL to an unnamed function. You could BLOW THEIR TINY MINDS up if you wanted. But that's not what Khan wants to do, so I'd say you can offer advanced classes to these kids and teach them all the stuff they missed.
I have heard this many times, but you are not considering what our current export customers will do when they hear of American protectionism. International politics is a tricky business.
Just in general terms, USA seems to be exporting diesel, which is more popular in European transportation. And a lot of the crude being produced is not necessarily the right kind. Sour crude cannot be refined by sweet refineries, so it makes more sense to export it rather than build a sour refinery.
And there's more to it that I'm not even going to bother with typing. It's complicated stuff.
And if you read between the lines, you get what everyone else seems to have missed. Why on earth would you export, when you can sell locally instead?
Because people will pay more for it, including the cost of transporting it, elsewhere. There are also small things like which oil is best for making which type of petroleum product, but the overall conclusion is that gas prices are going up because we are participating in the world economy, where it is more expensive.
Why not sell it to your own countryfolk? Is there a moral obligation to do so? Some say yes, some say no. But it's worth it to export and drive up price.
Excellent example of taking things out of context, intentionally or not confusing two things. The kind of things Anon does, in the context of "starting the rebellion" from the gp post, they are far more trustworthy than the kinds of things the government does.
Government has a vested interest in retaining and expanding power, to ensure their own survival. Even after their peers go to jail, Anon keeps doing things. These people have very little to lose, compared with government employees and representatives. They also have very little recourse for hiding secrets or cronyism.
I trust Anon in the sense that they are explicit about their purpose, and hold to the line. I would not trust them to run a government. At the same time, I trust them to act as expected more than i trust government to act as expected.
Anon will stab me in the back, if I am a big enough target. I know that, and trust that. If I ever become a target and they *don't* stab me in the back, I will actually be disappointed. Does that make more sense?
Slashdot Mirror
According to my state, the cost for a blood test is about $20 to $40 depending on where you go, with placards in the same room with the Intoxylyzer 5000. According to research.
Justice is usually within the price range of the accused, in most cases. The ones that we hear about are the outliers.
I offer you proof. Do you get your news from the court dockets daily, or from the lame-stream MSM media who self-select stories for their human interest potential? No need to answer, it was more rhetorical than anything.
Here's the popular wisdom. Financial guy A gets off with house arrest for stealing billions of dollars, because he can afford it, while normal guy B gets 5-10 for breaking and entering. Because B&E guy can't afford a good lawyer. Truth: white and blue collar crimes are handled very differently. Whether that is right or not is a different question, just pointing out that access to an expensive lawyer does not make the difference. Understanding context of the charges makes all the difference in the world.
Bernie Madoff stole a lot of money, I guess he got off with a slap on the wrist because he could afford good lawyers?
Hi, conjecture, this is fact speaking. Laws depend on the wording in your state, and enforcement depends on the officers and their training in your state, and how cases go depends on the local rulings and people selected for the jury.
In other words, you might as well shake the magic 8 ball as opposed to rely on your comment.
If the officer screwed up the test, you are not factually drunk. Once you are ruled guilty, it is a fact. If the conviction (or plea) is thrown into doubt, it is no longer a fact, and must be proven by the prosecution. If the only evidence they have is the Breathylazer result, and that is doubted by undocumented (or explicitly falsified) testing, you are no longer factually drunk. The prosecution must rely on other evidence, which will probably be presented, if it exists, at another trial.
Most juries will be instructed to evaluate the evidence presented, with the Breathalyzer results supressed. Given that, there is no way for you to say how they would likely rule it.
I am attempting to get my penis to read this...
It could, using the alternative windowing subsystem (X11). And in fact that branch is used to compare Wine vs. ReactOS behavior in certain cases.
Accoding to http://windows.kde.org/ the Windows port of KDE is not functional - but a Windows port would mean that all of the underlying API calls implemented by ReactOS have to be implemented and correct, or the port won't run anyway.
Finally, the point of ReactOS is that Windows programs should run on it. There is no reason to introduce KDE, when you have to write things like explorer.exe and the whole shell that Windows programs expect to have. The "crap that they spend their time on" is making a binary-compatible Windows OS.
They were pissed about the downloading, but all they could make stick legally was the uploading (you do not have the right to make copies if you were not granted that right).
I used to have a reference to a decision which explicitly said downloading is illegal, but I can't find it now to see if it has been overturned or the law updated to say that explicitly. A lot of people think only the uploading is illegal, but that is no longer the case (take with a grain of salt as I lost my citation). As Skarecrow77 said, uploading is far easier to prosecute so they will go that route if possible.
The "making available" theory is nuanced. You can leave files open on an FTP server, and no crime has been committed. If your stash is discovered and a transfer takes place (usually to someone like MediaSentry which validates the content and records the IP address), you have uploaded a copy without authorization. "Making available" has generally been tossed out, but you can bet that if it is discovered by someone who does not want you to make it available, they will initiate a transfer and you're hosed. In legal theory, you're safe. In reality, assume you are not. Advertising it makes no difference, just makes it easier to find.
And as for your CDs, you have a license to listen to the physical copy. When someone takes them from you, even if you left them on the street corner, you lose both the license and the physical item. You are not making a copy, and you are not making an unauthorized distribution. Unauthorized by you, but the copyright holder does not care so no violation. Please do not confuse digital goods with tangible objects, there is very little overlap legally between them. The legal system is still arguing about whether digital goods can actually be stolen. Occasionally, a story like that pops up, but it is usually settled on a case by case basis, I'm not aware of any solid decision or law about virtual goods.
That is why we have the "copyright violation isn't stealing" argument pop up. While you are taking something without paying for it, the entire collection of IP laws were specifically set aside for instances where copying is involved. If copyright were the same as stealing, you could be accused of both at the same time. A very simple argument made by the simplest of lawyers would get one or the other charge thrown out, because they are mutually exclusive. There is no correlation between physical objects and copyright. (Unless you want to be pedantic and say that you are giving away or selling physical books or discs that you copied from an original, which is very clearly not stealing except in the moral sense, and very clearly copyright infringement).
A coworker said her daughter, in college, got the legal threats. I don't know if they were the same empty letters as AC above, or if they had legal backings. I provided as much information as I could, with links to NYCL and other resources. But they settled the old fashioned way, with a check, because it would be too expensive to fight, and "she probably did it".
Getting letters from your ISP is a completely different thing. It basically means the copyright holder complained to the ISP, and the ISP (implicitly) claimed something like "safe harbor" and sent the takedown notice to you ("Please stop uploading things so we don't get more complaints"). There is no legal backing to this, and at most your ISP can claim TOS violation and unsubscribe you.
Getting sued directly is also a completely different thing. That's when an actual lawsuit gets filed, naming a specific person or IP address. We know that Thomas and Tenenbaum did, and via NYCL we know of several other cases where MediaSentry was thrown out for acting like a private investigator without a license, and several where MediaSentry changed tactics and came back. So yeah, it happened to a lot of people.
I proposed a rewrite of Lovecraft not too long ago, maybe here. Funny that he made the same accusations I made about him!
It depends on your situation. A 2 hour commute (hour both ways) makes telecommuting a lot more attractive. And when you can spread out in a larger house in the 'burbs instead of being in a tiny place in the city. Have a dedicated office where you can close the door and put away the business phone.
Extended days is one of the well-known problems of working at home, the temptation to clear your inbox as long as you're taking a break. Some people say it's a self-discipline issue, but when you have both that and a feeling of responsibility, the two get in each others' way a lot. Turning on the work computer to get a personal mail from your corporate outbox can be quick or a two-hour issue response.
Especially, and this is where people who say "self-discipline" can be forgetful, if your job entails on-call work. A quick response now, while you have cycles to spare, could prevent a call early morning or middle of the night. And if you work internationally, late night turnaround means your India, China, or maybe UK team can get back to work instead of having a day lag.
The temptation to get a problem checked off the list varies with your situation, and the benefits likewise. I'm currently on a virtual team, and there are perks, but I miss being able to slap someone on the back of the head when they screw up. In a few years I'll be looking to work in a physical building with as many people located on site as possible. And then I'll wish I could work from home, I'm sure.
You get a 50% on this one. You have insight on the first half, then fall off a cliff.
No sane employer will want him within a mile of his systems. This is true. He showed blatant disregard for the law, leaked confidential information, and has international connections. While you are correct that taking away legal avenues leaves little other option, this does not in any way change the fact that no one will hire him for a lot of IT jobs. There is a small chance of getting on as a white hat, but this guy seems like a coordinator, not a skilled hacker type.
He can get hired, but not as someone who has direct access to systems. And then there is the stereotype of the unemployed. Know why people headhunt during an economic downturn instead of hiring the unemployed? Because if you had to trim your force, would you lay off your best people or your worst? This is a business practice, not a judgement on unemployed people, because entire divisions sometimes get riff'ed and the good workers get caught up. But if we were to take an objective view, without access to lots of private information, we can assume he was not a top notch worker, and shows more delegation skills than hands-on work. He would not do very well in a criminal meritocracy, statistically speaking. Well enough to have a very rough life, maybe.
The fact that he is cooperating demonstrates he can "play ball", and will most likely do whatever it takes to stay on the side of the law where he gets to keep his kids and out of jail. He got caught, he will be punished, and he will find work. This will be the moment he looks back on his life and decides either it made him a better person or ruined his life, depending on what *he* does with it. Society as a whole can't be blamed, only his local ecosystem. IF he has friends and family to keep him going, and can find a willing employer, he will come out okay. Social injustice won't come in to play here, I'm fairly certain of that.
Reading comprehension should be the next thing you learn about. They identified and arrested the guy and flipped him. The article even says that - he plead out and he became a confidential informant.
He turned his guys over to the feds in exchange for the lulz. No wait, not for the lulz, but for lesser punishment. As previously stated, anyone simply in it for the lulz is not to be trusted. We should expect them not to be trusted, and they should have expected themselves not to be trusted.
50% of Americans do not earn enough money to pay federal income taxes, but do pay a lot of other taxes such as state, payroll including social security, sales, property, or other various taxes. Those same people are generally not in a position to influence the position of the Senator(s) from their state and thus have little influence on where the money goes.
I'm pretty sure that's what you meant to say, although I credit you for including "income", where the typical Republican talking point is to assume that it is assumed.
The people who decide where the money goes tend to be senior members of the Senate, who get themselves appointed to the Committee on Appropriations by sucking up to the Majority/Minority leadership. So stubbornly re-electing the incumbent seems to be the way to get money for your state.
These are the same types of people who stubbornly go to the same church year after year, and vote Republican because their daddy did (or because they expect one day to be part of the financial elite they vote to protect), which explains why Republican states get money while Democrat states donate. That last bit is just my opinion, but fits the facts well enough.
http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2707959&cid=39250665
It is a vast oversimplification to say what you did, to say it politely, or gross ignorance if I were to be quite blunt.
You completely missed the point. Publishers no longer think tablets are the best platform because readers get distracted. That this happens is supported by quotes from actual readers who get distracted.
The crap part of the article is saying that this reflects on eBooks, instead of on the platforms.
If you decide to stop reading, that's one thing. If you look up a word and wind up going TV Tropes style clicking for an hour when you meant to be reading, that might be troublesome. Obviously you are not one of these people, and based on the analyst (who may be wrong) you are a statistical outlier.
You are in your mid-30's and can't understand why a 50-year-old Kindle Fire user would call it distracting.
You also don't get why the Forrester Research analyst who did the study, which asked publishers which platform was ideal for eBooks, said that publishers think some platforms are distracting.
You have not talked to Allison Kutz who says âoeIâ(TM)ve tried to sit down and read it in Starbucks or the apartment, but I end up on Facebook or Googling something she said, and then the next thing you know Iâ(TM)ve been surfing for 25 minutes,â
I have a Kindle 3, and it doesn't have distractions. I can see how tablets might be distracting. I can also see that people who don't have problems with distractions might not "get" people who do.
No one else in the world gets distracted by their tablet functionality because you don't? That's not a good perspective to have.
And the article here says eBooks are bad because tablets are distracting, which obviously makes no sense. You are arguing that eBooks are good, but your only argument that addresses the article's premise is that it doesn't happen to you. And plenty of people would rather have a physical item to hold, mark up, dog-ear a page or two, or swap between two far apart pages for reference, which is harder on most e-readers of any type.
So basically, you're different, and that's good.
I was going to mod you up, then felt the need to explain why instead.
Shumeet Baluja is the author of a forthcoming book. The patent was filed November 7, 2011, presumably having been worked on for a while. The book was published in 2011, apparently mid-year but I didn't find a definite date. Baluja is not an author, but a CompSci PHD who wrote a book. And is employed by the patent owner, Google. Previously, he worked in data mining.
The novel was not adapted to a patent - both were the obvious result of Baluja's research and interests. The author is one of the inventors. It's the same thing in two forms. This is no different from "The Soul of a New Machine" which, although non-fiction, nonetheless surely had some parts over-dramatized. Take something you are working on, add fictional characters, and show how it can be used (or abused).
In other words, a fictionalized memoir. Ergo, Worst. Submission. Ever. Not news, barely qualifies as trivia.
"Leave the market alone" implies long-term cause and effect. Nothing of note happens in the short term. The reason for government intervention is to cut out the number of people who suffer before revolting, and likewise to ensure that companies survive instead of shooting themselves in the foot.
It's good for both, but companies are so focused on short-term gains they don't see the long-term benefits of the government forcing them to stay viable.
And the CEO bit is way off topic. If you take any CEO and calculate the cost per unit that goes into their income, it is usually extremely low. They just happen to be in a high-volume business. I calculated the GM CEO to be making between $1 and $5 per car before the bailout, I don't remember exactly. Cutting his compensation to 0 would have affected car prices not at all. The whole C-suite would have saved $10 per vehicle.
Finally, the costs have nothing to do with the cost of providing. It's what people will pay. If it cost half as much to make an iPhone, it would sell for the same amount, because that's what enough people will pay. the only reason technology decreases in price is because the people who buy at that price have already bought. Reduce supply chain costs, reduce the price by a lot less than you save, and soon you have a high margin good that costs less but has a higher margin than when first released.
It takes time to educate people, for example, that text messaging is free to the carrier. The price has gone up instead of down, so consumers are losing that battle. But, with all of this throttling, I expect to see text messages completely free and tiered pricing for data usage. The SMS revenue stream goes away, but gets replaced by heavy data premiums. And it will work, because we are being conditioned that data costs money. In the long view, all of this will even out and we will be getting screwed by whatever the newest technology driver is. Because that's the one consumers know the least about.
Business regulation is the shortcut for consumer education. Note, I'm specifically not taking sides. Whether it is good or necessary depends on a lot of variables. But if consumers as a group understand the interplay between costs, profits, and regulation, they can usually either accept the screwing, or wait it out.
Before 3G speeds, it might have been plausible to run all data over SMS, assuming you had a gateway to use and embedded some sort of routing info. Now, although the option exists, very few people would find the response time acceptable. So they pay for 3G instead of unlimited texting. It's a choice, and most people opt for the high cost of convenience rather than undercutting the market. And, if SMS routing took off, you can bet the market would adapt, and then smart users would again react.
http://www.developer.nokia.com/Community/Wiki/Use_sms_as_data_bearer
"Unlimited data" means all you can eat at that speed. Throttling explicitly undercuts the amount of data you are able to get in the billing cycle. It is false.
But let's investigate further, you dolt. If you start downloading on the first day of the plan, and continuously download via streaming movies or audio or whatever, and reach the 3GB or 5GB limit, you get throttled.
There is a maximum amount of data you can use at the throttled speed for the remainder of the month. Your usage is greatly impeded, since streaming audio or video will not come in fast enough. Certainly not anywhere near 3G speeds. Usage is affected, as the speed is affected.
If I got a 56k modem, I would expect the federally limited 53k transfer to be constant. I can calculate the number of bits I will transfer in a billing cycle. Anything less than that is limited. If AT&T advertises unlimited at a certain speed (3G, and in some areas 4G) you should be able to calculate the amount of data you will get with an unlimited plan.
Point is, you don't get what was promised. There is a limit on usage because of the throttling, the experience is not the same, and the amount of data does not match what was promised. Bring up the red herring about content providers not being able to provide the theoretical maximum speed, but AT&T is explicitly stating they are throttling, which excludes that argument.
Hope this doesn't bruise your ego, but everyone's brain is basically a giant pattern recognition device. Not everyone is tuned in to sound, though. I hear white noise (HVAC usually) as a rock band playing. Probably the distorted guitars and drums fit a similar spectrum. I have "transcribed" a few tunes, and they largely lack structure but don't match anything I or my friends recognize. Since I don't pay attention to lyrics in music, the vocals are usually nonsense syllables I can't make out.
An old episode of Radio Lab was investigating dreams, and one bit of info was that by having people play Tetris for a while before sleeping, they either thought about Tetris before sleeping, or reported dreaming about Tetris. The idea there was that it was part of the review/learning process.
I contest that and think that instead, since you were just doing Tetris pattern recognition, your brain is still in that mode while getting random input from your visual system. The first stage of sleep frequently being confused with being awake, it's hard to say for certain whether these people were actually dreaming, or awake and recognizing patterns, or really much of anything.
Mothers report being able to hear their child's cry in a crowded room - they are used to recognizing that pattern. Conclusion: stop listening to people, start listening to instrumental music, and you'll have a free radio in your head at all times.
False dichotomy. You don't tell someone it's impossible, you suggest what they might be better at. One of my peers in college was told she should change majors. Oh, how she was angry at that. But honestly, after two years no one was convinced she could continue an be any good. It was a valid suggestion.
The same person told me I should maybe look into computing. I scoffed at the idea, mainly because I was committed to graduating on time and had taken 22 hours each semester making that happen. Had I thought about it, that would have been the best choice I could have taken.
I have no formal education, I know what I know because I want to know how computers work. BASIC's peek/poke, disassembly, reverse engineering, cracking, polymorphism in C... I know a lot of stuff they don't teach in school because I have that fire to learn. Someone is going to crap on my post because I don't know the basics, but that's my point - I know the basics and more, I just wasn't taught formally. I read the same books, not because I had to, but because I wanted to.
The best thing to happen to me would have been to be told explicitly to change majors, that it would be impossible to be as successful where I used to be. There is no reason to struggle when an easier path is available.
You are vastly simplifying. I spent 4 years in a great college learning how to do something. I work in an entirely unrelated field now. I was very good at what I did, but I could not break over the wall to be great.
A person who can't play his way out of a paper hat is currently teaching, having all of the benefits of 4 years of a good college music program and a great teacher. He is, perhaps in theory, capable of playing better, but in reality that never happened. Even with someone showing him once a week how to hold the pencil.
I know what I would have had to do to be great. It would have taken every waking minute of my life to understand, do things wrong, do things other ways, talk to many different people, immerse myself in the art.
I did not do this because I do not have what it takes to be great. What does it take? The dedication to immerse yourself in it, completely. I spent 5 years being told what I was doing wrong and still couldn't get it right. When I turned to programming, it just made sense. No learning, no being taught, just absorbing everything and everything, and being able to do it. It came naturally. I have "what it takes" to be great.
Now, you can argue that everyone in theory has what it takes to be an author, a poet, an artist, an engineer, a mathematician. I argue that practically, very few people do, and almost nobody has what it takes to be all of the above.
You have to include personality and circumstance when you discuss ability. "What it takes" is going to be different for everyone, and you are not going to be able to pull that out of everyone. I m not capable of drawing because I don't have what it takes. Maybe that means someone to show me how to hold a pencil - I don't have that. I also don't have an instinctive desire to draw everything I see, or everything that flits into my mind. I do not have the foundation needed for being capable of drawing even to the point of winning a game of Pictionary. I will not be a professional artist or musician or engineer. I will not be fluent in 3 languages.
I am missing far more than just the "potential" to be anything but a programmer, unless unemployment heads my way and I find something else I'm more interested in, and can spend time on, and can immerse myself in. Your theories are nice until they hit the practical world with its inherent constraints and this little annoyance called reality.
Most average people do not have the confluence of interest, support, resources, and all of the other little things necessary to be able to do something, even if they super duper really want to be able to. Take anyone who can't draw, go back in time and raise them in a house of artists, inject a curiosity about drawing, and they *may* learn how to draw reasonably well. Enroll them in classes at an early age, and they may be one day good. But if they don't catch that spark, even all of those advantages will be lost.
"Everyone can do it" is theory, not reality, and that comes from 6 years of teaching, 7 years of actively observing, all with the opposite understanding. Reality ate into my optimism, and I left the profession. With boundless time, and a chance to reach every child like in "Stand and Deliver" and make that spark happen, maybe it's possible. But students are not going to find the spark on their own, even if they really want to.
You don't know enough to learn to code, but you probably do know enough to be taught to code.
You are missing this important distinction. I will rephrase my other post. If you want to *teach* programming, you will start out with something simple and common, and preferably useful. The intended audience already has a browser, there's very little GUI fiddling, and it's a lot like the C/C++/C# that everyone will see someday.
If you want to offer students an environment to *learn* programming, an entirely different approach is needed. Give them rope, let them hang themselves, let them make all of the nasty mistakes and learn *why* we do the things we do.
These are two entirely different situations, and Khan is only considering one.
A truly interesting perspective. I would caution that it depends on your intended outcome. If we want people to be aware of programming concepts and capable of applying them to real-world situations, training in proper technique with an explanation of why we do it that way would work.
If we want people to grow up as creative master coders who can solve a problem in multiple ways for multiple scenarios, they need exposure to the good *and* the bad.
For the purposes of Khan Academy, teaching through JavaScript works. And given the generous scoping of JavaScript variables, in a very BASIC like manner, the same mistakes can be experienced in nearly the same way. You could even thrown in some very JavaScript like C, read through it, and introduce the GOTO. If the students are sufficiently advanced, you could explain how the boolean logic checks are essentially the same as GOTO, just without the need for a GOTO.
Hell, identify everything within brackets as an anonymous function, and say that the brackets are essentially a local unnamed GOTO. Or could be implemented as a CALL to an unnamed function. You could BLOW THEIR TINY MINDS up if you wanted. But that's not what Khan wants to do, so I'd say you can offer advanced classes to these kids and teach them all the stuff they missed.
I have heard this many times, but you are not considering what our current export customers will do when they hear of American protectionism. International politics is a tricky business.
Just in general terms, USA seems to be exporting diesel, which is more popular in European transportation. And a lot of the crude being produced is not necessarily the right kind. Sour crude cannot be refined by sweet refineries, so it makes more sense to export it rather than build a sour refinery.
And there's more to it that I'm not even going to bother with typing. It's complicated stuff.
And if you read between the lines, you get what everyone else seems to have missed. Why on earth would you export, when you can sell locally instead?
Because people will pay more for it, including the cost of transporting it, elsewhere. There are also small things like which oil is best for making which type of petroleum product, but the overall conclusion is that gas prices are going up because we are participating in the world economy, where it is more expensive.
Why not sell it to your own countryfolk? Is there a moral obligation to do so? Some say yes, some say no. But it's worth it to export and drive up price.
Excellent example of taking things out of context, intentionally or not confusing two things. The kind of things Anon does, in the context of "starting the rebellion" from the gp post, they are far more trustworthy than the kinds of things the government does.
Government has a vested interest in retaining and expanding power, to ensure their own survival. Even after their peers go to jail, Anon keeps doing things. These people have very little to lose, compared with government employees and representatives. They also have very little recourse for hiding secrets or cronyism.
I trust Anon in the sense that they are explicit about their purpose, and hold to the line. I would not trust them to run a government. At the same time, I trust them to act as expected more than i trust government to act as expected.
Anon will stab me in the back, if I am a big enough target. I know that, and trust that. If I ever become a target and they *don't* stab me in the back, I will actually be disappointed. Does that make more sense?