Unless it's public, "sensitive" information or not, it's a kangaroo court. We allow too much secrecy in the system.
Perhaps we do, but this isn't one of those cases. Private entities are entitled to their privacy. The notion that they should be forced to give up their privacy in order to protect it from being violated is utterly and completely asinine.
But it gets even worse, since the system you're advocating for (i.e. one with public disclosure of all case details) lends itself to trivial forms of abuse. Imagine if any lawsuit at all, regardless of its merit, was sufficient to compel the public disclosure of trade secrets. Never mind that Coca-Cola was in business selling their classic drink long before you were born, if you sued them in court, they'd apparently need to publicly disclose the formula according to you, otherwise it would just be a kangaroo court?
What about more personal civil matters? If your wife were to cite something that's considered grossly indecent as the reason she's filing for divorce, would you honestly suggest she should be compelled to air your dirty laundry in public? I'd wager you'd recognize the value of private proceedings fairly quickly, were something like that to happen.
The reasons we allow private individuals to have privacy don't suddenly disappear when one of them has a grievance against the other. There are situations where public disclosure is indeed the proper course of actions, but that's a matter that's best left up to the courts to decide on a case-by-case basis.
Indeed, we fundamentally interact differently with a 10-foot UI that's indirectly controlled via a remote than we do with a touchscreen that's directly controlled with our hands. The same goes for traditional computing environments that are indirectly controlled at a distance somewhere in between and VR environments that are...sort of a weird mix of all of those.
The notion of having a unified "design system" that can span all of them is a nice ideal to have, to be sure, but in practice neither Microsoft nor anyone else has gotten even remotely close to making that breakthrough yet. In much the same way that Microsoft was throwing anything they could think of at the wall to see what would stick with tablets and smartphones back before they were popular, but weren't able to execute until others showed them the way, they're thinking ahead here, but are delivering something that's worse than what we already have. And, as before, I suspect that until someone else figures it out (assuming it even can be figured out), they'll keep throwing UIs at the wall in the vain hope that one of them will stick.
Honestly, the only thing noteworthy about what Cable One is apparently doing is that they were stupid enough to screw their customer directly, rather than waiting for the regulations to be rescinded so that they could screw the content providers quietly without their customers noticing. The big companies are waiting to do it the latter way, that way when the content providers (e.g. Netflix) invariably have to raise rates to offset the fees being extorted from them by the ISPs, the customers don't realize that it's actually the ISPs who are causing their rates to go up.
Of course, now that I think of it, whenever that starts happening (again), is there anything stopping Netflix from calling attention to the situation by shaming the bad actors with a, say, "Comcast Access Fee" specifically targeted at their subscribers who are Comcast customers? If the ISPs can charge extra based on the source of the bits, can't sites charge extra based on the destination?
There are plenty of reasons not to fly, this is the second best one yet
Flying is the only practical option for most of us.
Using my own situation as an example, I live in Texas and will be taking a trip to Europe in a few months. Right now, it involves: - Home to airport: 2 hours - Airport to City 1: 13 hours - Meandering: N/A - City 2 to airport: 17 hours - Airport to Home: 2 hours
So, 34 hours in total, and that's with layovers and everything else taken into account. But what if I did it without any flights? I was bored, so I took the time to look everything up: - Home to New York: 25 hours by car (no breaks) OR 45 hours by bus + taxi OR 52 hours by train + taxi - New York to England: 7 days (cruise) - England to City 1: 15 hours (taxi + bus + train) - Meandering: N/A - City 2 to England: 19 hours (train + bus + taxi) - England to New York: 7 days (cruise) - New York to Home: 25 hours by car (no breaks) OR 45 hours by taxi + bus OR 52 hours by taxi + train
So, a bit more than 10x the travel time and at a much greater expense to boot. Granted, a lot of that would be because of the transatlantic crossings via cruise ship, but that whole "ocean" thing means that they're pretty much the only game in town if you rule out flights (to be fair, I also looked into booking passage on a freighter, which you can apparently do quite easily, but they were significantly slower, as you'd expect).
All of which is to say, this ban affects Americans returning home as well, many of whom don't have a choice when it comes to their means of travel. Unless I want to shell out thousands of additional dollars while spending weeks of additional time traveling, flights are my only choice.
Chalk this one up with the Fire Phone and, in the near future, the Echo Look as yet another Amazon hardware device destined to fail.
After I heard about the Echo Look, I presented the idea of it to my non-technical, "normal" wife in a positive light, trying to frame it as a good thing, just to see how she'd react. When she suggested without any prodding on my part that it could be a bit creepy, I gave her the Amazon talking points and kept moving along, hoping to gloss over those details, but to no avail. By the end of the description she was so creeped out by the very notion of the product that she made it clear she would never allow one in the house. To say the least, she was quite glad when I dropped the charade and made it clear I was on the same page as her.
I don't get why Amazon keeps making these things, given that both technical people and "normal people" find these sorts of products incredibly creepy.
You've conflated jurisdiction with authority. They have the jurisdiction. They lack the authority.
While the subsidiary is within the court's jurisdiction, the court's authority does not extend beyond their jurisdiction to cover what the parent organization does outside of Austria's borders. The court can order them to remove the content from servers in Austria, order them to hide it from display to Austrians, and may even be able to do the same across the EU*, but they most certainly do NOT have the authority to enforce those rules against Facebook globally.
Rulings like these effectively trample on the sovereignty of other nations where one country's laws may not be the ones they've chosen to follow. This sort of issue has been a constant struggle in recent years with the US, as it's been attempting to overstep its bounds in similar ways. It's something we need to push back on regardless of where it occurs if we want to have any hope of encouraging the US and others to be good neighbors by confining their rulings to their borders.
* I know there are some country-level courts that can make rulings that are binding across country borders within the EU, but, as an American, I don't really have an awareness of which courts those are or if this is one of them.
He may be dead within the author's story which doesn't make any pictures of him appearing outside of that story somehow magically not him.
Want a proof? Try printing and selling a comic book with that "completely unrelated creative work that shares the name and appearance of Pepe but which most certainly is not Pepe because Pepe is dead" and see how well your theory flies with the court when you get sued for copyright infringement on Pepe.
Copyright is intended to be used for securing for limited Times to Authors [...] the exclusive Right to their respective Writings. As such if it is Pepe, then it must be coming from the author or someone to whom he has granted a license. Anything else is a knock-off Pepe, which, depending on the degree to which it was knocked off, may or may not be an infringement of copyright.
By the logic you've proposed here, if you were to slap a Coca-Cola logo on the side of a bottle, you'd be getting sued for selling actual Coke, rather than for selling something other than Coke that can be confused for it. Granted, I chose a trademark example since it was more concrete, but the same would apply equally well to copyright. They're using Pepe's name and appearance with a derivative work that is insufficiently transformed from the original so as to distinguish it. As such, while it is something wholly different from the original Pepe, it is still similar enough to infringe on copyright.
The *very probable* explanation is that someone heard John Oliver's screed, realized that many people were going to post opinions to the FCC website, and DDOS'd the site to prevent these people from registering an opinion.
I'm guessing you missed the fact that in the middle of all of this, the FCC changed the content at the link Oliver's site was pointing to, causing tens of thousands of his followers to be linked to a page other than the correct one? Check the comments at the last Slashdot story and you'll see it mentioned that the link had changed Shortly after it all started. To say the least, I'm having a tough time believing the tale they're spinning right now, though I'll agree that we lack conclusive evidence either way.
Personally, I feel if you don't vote, you have no right to complaint and I would love that the govt (regardless of which party is in power) to strip the rights from you. Kinda like the purge.
So, effectively, you support stripping people of their First Amendment rights by compelling them to voice support for a candidate, any candidate, lest they be stripped of all their other rights?
To say the least, I heartily disagree. I don't recommend others abstain, nor do I take it lightly, nor do I consider it acceptable just because one is feeling lazy, but I reject the notion that anyone can compel me to voice support for something I don't support, and I'd advise you to do so as well.
You've apparently confused Pepe for an entirely unrelated creative work that shares the same name and appearance as Pepe, but which is mostly certainly not Pepe. Given that Pepe is wholly owned by his creator and that his creator just killed Pepe off, Pepe is dead. Suggesting otherwise would mean that Pepe is not wholly owned by his creator, in which case you've just stripped his creator of the rights afforded by copyright, which suggests you don't align very well with the side you appear to be espousing.
Either Pepe is dead or copyright is dead. I'd say it's your choice, but it isn't, since the law makes it pretty clear that Pepe's the one that's dead, and you're simply mistaken.
As for this site making you throw up, it sounds like you may be experiencing high levels of stress. Might I suggest not being so invested in your own viewpoints that hearing alternative ones bothers you so? I'm still registered as a Republican* last I checked, but nothing about this article leaves me queasy in the least, other than that this guy's work was illegally co-opted against his will for something he finds abhorrent.
*Disclaimer: I didn't vote in the last election. I decided that no matter which was the lesser of two evils, I could not, in good conscience, support either of the sides. Ditto for the third-parties, who all looked to be as crazy as a bag of nuts this last time around.
Yeah, when I made that previous post, I was operating under the assumptions that: A) The destruction of the impoverished is not a viable option B) Laws intended to impede technological progress will inevitably fail
Obviously, (A) may not hold, particularly if an armed uprising seems like a real possibility. As for (B), it will eventually work its way out, but, as you said, it may just come about through the progress being made elsewhere, leading to those countries outcompeting the ones that established the technology-impairing laws.
Nope, other than that something like this becomes a must in order to avoid the need-based uprising of the masses.
Thanks to automation, we're quickly reaching the point in many industries where employing people to do your work is a money-losing operation. Once it becomes unprofitable to employ people, those unemployed people will, by necessity, require some other way to supply their needs. If they don't have it, you'll have backed them into a corner, with a violent uprising being one of their few means for recourse.
So yes, it's a wealth transfer from the rich, to the poor. Given what it buys the rich (e.g. eager consumers in place of violent usurpers), I suspect they'll be amenable.
At the time he provided the video he didn't tell them it was a reenactment, but from the sounds of things no one has asked for his account either, so he may not have had much of an opportunity to say what it was. The proceedings moved to trial based on the "evidence", but before trial they followed up with him to get his account, and he explained how he found the contraband, placed it back where he had found it, got another officer, and then reenacted the discovery for the camera. They had no clue that was what had happened, so they weren't exactly raking him over the coals for a confession; he willingly volunteered it as soon as they asked for his account of what happened.
So, basically, he neither volunteered the information up front, nor withheld the information intentionally. If I had to guess, I'd imagine he didn't think twice about it and was probably confused when they thought it was a problem that he hadn't told them sooner. Not that that's okay, mind you.
While the courts may not care that you own the phone, most do care that it's your child. Because a minor isn't capable of providing consent on their own behalf, most courts recognize the notion of "vicarious consent", that is, that the parent can consent on behalf of the child to wiretap the child's phone call. This sort of stuff comes up in divorce cases where one parent wants to tape the calls between a child and another parent.
Are you surprised an ifanboy wouldn't understand the issue?
Why does it matter what platform he prefers? Does his choice offend you? Harm you? Threaten you?
Stick to the facts, correct his misconceptions, and move along. You'll find that the quality of your life improves significantly when you stop getting worked up about the preferences of others.
It's a web app, not a mobile app, and this is a social engineering attack, not a hack, so the device doesn't matter. As such, you can fall prey to this exact scam while using a Mac, a Surface tablet running Windows, or an Android phone with the latest security updates.
Sure, I'm quite aware of compound interest, but I'm not at all clear on why you're bringing it up. Interest in mortgages is calculated on a monthly basis and doesn't compound on itself. It's simply calculated as: principal * interest / 12
Let's use this amortization schedule as an example. This guy apparently took out a loan for $210,000 at 8.25% and is paying $1577.66 each month. Of that $1577.66, you'll see in the first month that $1443.75 is going to the bank as an interest payment, whereas only $133.91 is being applied towards reducing their principal.
After the first month, the bank will have received all of the interest due them up to that point (i.e. $210,000 * (8.25% / 12 months) = $1443.75), meaning that if the loan is paid off in full immediately, they'll have already received all of the interest they are due up to that time; i.e. there is $0 in outstanding interest on which compounding can occur. Likewise, if he decides to keep paying the loan month-to-month, the exact same will be true.
The only way the bank benefits from compounding is if they reinvest the payments they've received, which they should've been doing anyway.
Maybe I just don't understand what you're getting at, but I don't see how compound interest changes anything I've said.
Quite the contrary, that clause is the precise reason why the publishers had sweetheart deals with Apple.
As you suggested, a Most Favored Nation (MFN) clause generally isn't a problem. The problem comes from when you pair MFN with agency pricing (i.e. publishers set the prices while retailers take a cut), because it prevents retailers from competing on price for reasons that aren't obvious at a first glance. Rather than trying to explain it in abstract, let me just run through the Apple vs. Amazon situation from a few years back to demonstrate the issue:
1) Amazon had wholesale pricing, while Apple had MFN + agency pricing with publishers. So far, no obvious problem.
2) Because of Apple's MFN clause, the publishers were disallowed from listing their eBooks elsewhere for less, including via Amazon. As such, to prevent Amazon from listing below the price they used with Apple, the publishers were forced (not that they were complaining) to raise their wholesale prices to match the list prices at Apple, reducing Amazon's margin to 0% if Amazon merely matched Apple's list price. It's weird territory, but not out-and-out anticompetitive yet.
3) In order to have any margin at all, Amazon was forced to adopt agency pricing (again, not that the publishers were complaining).
4) At that point, competition became impossible. If Amazon encouraged lower prices from publishers by reducing its cut or offering kickbacks, the MFN ensured that Apple reaped those same rewards without any of the effort. Conversely, if Apple increased its cut and the publishers raised prices to match, the MFN ensured Amazon's prices would go up too, even though their cut hadn't changed.
All of which is to say, MFN + agency ensures no one can benefit from competing on price, thus ensuring that no one will even try.
That was fine for Apple, since they had the funds to tough it out until their service could sustain itself (which was bound to happen eventually, given that they had a decently large installed base already), but it didn't work so well for customers, since publishers saw Apple as a means to retake control over their own profits (Amazon was really turning the screws on them at that time), thus pushing prices up.
As for today's situation, I don't know all of the details, but if Amazon had agency pricing with MFN, then it would be impossible for an upstart company to undercut Amazon's prices, effectively locking in Amazon's dominance.
Imagination doesn't make chips, so no, they didn't sell Apple chips, and Imagination hasn't yet giving Apple permission to use their technology (going forward, that is, since Apple has said it won't be paying for it). Really, the whole situation bears no resemblance to the Qualcomm case in the slightest.
At play here is that Imagination has, up to now, licensed their technologies to Apple, which Apple has used in its custom-designed chips for a few years. Apple is now claiming that their custom designs no longer rely on Imagination's technology, so they're going to stop paying. Imagination is understandably asking how that's even possible, given that the new chips presumably work the same as the old ones, which means that they likely rely on Imagination's tech.
At no point did Imagination "sell" their technology to Apple, other than as part of a licensing agreement that was contingent on continued royalty payments. So, yes, they get to have a say in how Apple uses their technology, assuming, of course, that Apple is actually still using their technology.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless it's public, "sensitive" information or not, it's a kangaroo court. We allow too much secrecy in the system.
Perhaps we do, but this isn't one of those cases. Private entities are entitled to their privacy. The notion that they should be forced to give up their privacy in order to protect it from being violated is utterly and completely asinine.
But it gets even worse, since the system you're advocating for (i.e. one with public disclosure of all case details) lends itself to trivial forms of abuse. Imagine if any lawsuit at all, regardless of its merit, was sufficient to compel the public disclosure of trade secrets. Never mind that Coca-Cola was in business selling their classic drink long before you were born, if you sued them in court, they'd apparently need to publicly disclose the formula according to you, otherwise it would just be a kangaroo court?
What about more personal civil matters? If your wife were to cite something that's considered grossly indecent as the reason she's filing for divorce, would you honestly suggest she should be compelled to air your dirty laundry in public? I'd wager you'd recognize the value of private proceedings fairly quickly, were something like that to happen.
The reasons we allow private individuals to have privacy don't suddenly disappear when one of them has a grievance against the other. There are situations where public disclosure is indeed the proper course of actions, but that's a matter that's best left up to the courts to decide on a case-by-case basis.
Indeed, we fundamentally interact differently with a 10-foot UI that's indirectly controlled via a remote than we do with a touchscreen that's directly controlled with our hands. The same goes for traditional computing environments that are indirectly controlled at a distance somewhere in between and VR environments that are...sort of a weird mix of all of those.
The notion of having a unified "design system" that can span all of them is a nice ideal to have, to be sure, but in practice neither Microsoft nor anyone else has gotten even remotely close to making that breakthrough yet. In much the same way that Microsoft was throwing anything they could think of at the wall to see what would stick with tablets and smartphones back before they were popular, but weren't able to execute until others showed them the way, they're thinking ahead here, but are delivering something that's worse than what we already have. And, as before, I suspect that until someone else figures it out (assuming it even can be figured out), they'll keep throwing UIs at the wall in the vain hope that one of them will stick.
Indeed.
Honestly, the only thing noteworthy about what Cable One is apparently doing is that they were stupid enough to screw their customer directly, rather than waiting for the regulations to be rescinded so that they could screw the content providers quietly without their customers noticing. The big companies are waiting to do it the latter way, that way when the content providers (e.g. Netflix) invariably have to raise rates to offset the fees being extorted from them by the ISPs, the customers don't realize that it's actually the ISPs who are causing their rates to go up.
Of course, now that I think of it, whenever that starts happening (again), is there anything stopping Netflix from calling attention to the situation by shaming the bad actors with a, say, "Comcast Access Fee" specifically targeted at their subscribers who are Comcast customers? If the ISPs can charge extra based on the source of the bits, can't sites charge extra based on the destination?
There are plenty of reasons not to fly, this is the second best one yet
Flying is the only practical option for most of us.
Using my own situation as an example, I live in Texas and will be taking a trip to Europe in a few months. Right now, it involves:
- Home to airport: 2 hours
- Airport to City 1: 13 hours
- Meandering: N/A
- City 2 to airport: 17 hours
- Airport to Home: 2 hours
So, 34 hours in total, and that's with layovers and everything else taken into account. But what if I did it without any flights? I was bored, so I took the time to look everything up:
- Home to New York: 25 hours by car (no breaks) OR 45 hours by bus + taxi OR 52 hours by train + taxi
- New York to England: 7 days (cruise)
- England to City 1: 15 hours (taxi + bus + train)
- Meandering: N/A
- City 2 to England: 19 hours (train + bus + taxi)
- England to New York: 7 days (cruise)
- New York to Home: 25 hours by car (no breaks) OR 45 hours by taxi + bus OR 52 hours by taxi + train
So, a bit more than 10x the travel time and at a much greater expense to boot. Granted, a lot of that would be because of the transatlantic crossings via cruise ship, but that whole "ocean" thing means that they're pretty much the only game in town if you rule out flights (to be fair, I also looked into booking passage on a freighter, which you can apparently do quite easily, but they were significantly slower, as you'd expect).
All of which is to say, this ban affects Americans returning home as well, many of whom don't have a choice when it comes to their means of travel. Unless I want to shell out thousands of additional dollars while spending weeks of additional time traveling, flights are my only choice.
For a lot of people, the emotional benefit of being debt-free outweighs the financial benefit of investing that money elsewhere.
Congrats, you got a rise out of me.
You may well be right, I'm afraid.
Chalk this one up with the Fire Phone and, in the near future, the Echo Look as yet another Amazon hardware device destined to fail.
After I heard about the Echo Look, I presented the idea of it to my non-technical, "normal" wife in a positive light, trying to frame it as a good thing, just to see how she'd react. When she suggested without any prodding on my part that it could be a bit creepy, I gave her the Amazon talking points and kept moving along, hoping to gloss over those details, but to no avail. By the end of the description she was so creeped out by the very notion of the product that she made it clear she would never allow one in the house. To say the least, she was quite glad when I dropped the charade and made it clear I was on the same page as her.
I don't get why Amazon keeps making these things, given that both technical people and "normal people" find these sorts of products incredibly creepy.
You've conflated jurisdiction with authority. They have the jurisdiction. They lack the authority.
While the subsidiary is within the court's jurisdiction, the court's authority does not extend beyond their jurisdiction to cover what the parent organization does outside of Austria's borders. The court can order them to remove the content from servers in Austria, order them to hide it from display to Austrians, and may even be able to do the same across the EU*, but they most certainly do NOT have the authority to enforce those rules against Facebook globally.
Rulings like these effectively trample on the sovereignty of other nations where one country's laws may not be the ones they've chosen to follow. This sort of issue has been a constant struggle in recent years with the US, as it's been attempting to overstep its bounds in similar ways. It's something we need to push back on regardless of where it occurs if we want to have any hope of encouraging the US and others to be good neighbors by confining their rulings to their borders.
* I know there are some country-level courts that can make rulings that are binding across country borders within the EU, but, as an American, I don't really have an awareness of which courts those are or if this is one of them.
He may be dead within the author's story which doesn't make any pictures of him appearing outside of that story somehow magically not him.
Want a proof? Try printing and selling a comic book with that "completely unrelated creative work that shares the name and appearance of Pepe but which most certainly is not Pepe because Pepe is dead" and see how well your theory flies with the court when you get sued for copyright infringement on Pepe.
Copyright is intended to be used for securing for limited Times to Authors [...] the exclusive Right to their respective Writings. As such if it is Pepe, then it must be coming from the author or someone to whom he has granted a license. Anything else is a knock-off Pepe, which, depending on the degree to which it was knocked off, may or may not be an infringement of copyright.
By the logic you've proposed here, if you were to slap a Coca-Cola logo on the side of a bottle, you'd be getting sued for selling actual Coke, rather than for selling something other than Coke that can be confused for it. Granted, I chose a trademark example since it was more concrete, but the same would apply equally well to copyright. They're using Pepe's name and appearance with a derivative work that is insufficiently transformed from the original so as to distinguish it. As such, while it is something wholly different from the original Pepe, it is still similar enough to infringe on copyright.
Except an electronic voting booth?
The *very probable* explanation is that someone heard John Oliver's screed, realized that many people were going to post opinions to the FCC website, and DDOS'd the site to prevent these people from registering an opinion.
I'm guessing you missed the fact that in the middle of all of this, the FCC changed the content at the link Oliver's site was pointing to, causing tens of thousands of his followers to be linked to a page other than the correct one? Check the comments at the last Slashdot story and you'll see it mentioned that the link had changed Shortly after it all started. To say the least, I'm having a tough time believing the tale they're spinning right now, though I'll agree that we lack conclusive evidence either way.
Personally, I feel if you don't vote, you have no right to complaint and I would love that the govt (regardless of which party is in power) to strip the rights from you. Kinda like the purge.
So, effectively, you support stripping people of their First Amendment rights by compelling them to voice support for a candidate, any candidate, lest they be stripped of all their other rights?
To say the least, I heartily disagree. I don't recommend others abstain, nor do I take it lightly, nor do I consider it acceptable just because one is feeling lazy, but I reject the notion that anyone can compel me to voice support for something I don't support, and I'd advise you to do so as well.
He's more popular than ever.
You've apparently confused Pepe for an entirely unrelated creative work that shares the same name and appearance as Pepe, but which is mostly certainly not Pepe. Given that Pepe is wholly owned by his creator and that his creator just killed Pepe off, Pepe is dead. Suggesting otherwise would mean that Pepe is not wholly owned by his creator, in which case you've just stripped his creator of the rights afforded by copyright, which suggests you don't align very well with the side you appear to be espousing.
Either Pepe is dead or copyright is dead. I'd say it's your choice, but it isn't, since the law makes it pretty clear that Pepe's the one that's dead, and you're simply mistaken.
As for this site making you throw up, it sounds like you may be experiencing high levels of stress. Might I suggest not being so invested in your own viewpoints that hearing alternative ones bothers you so? I'm still registered as a Republican* last I checked, but nothing about this article leaves me queasy in the least, other than that this guy's work was illegally co-opted against his will for something he finds abhorrent.
*Disclaimer: I didn't vote in the last election. I decided that no matter which was the lesser of two evils, I could not, in good conscience, support either of the sides. Ditto for the third-parties, who all looked to be as crazy as a bag of nuts this last time around.
Yeah, when I made that previous post, I was operating under the assumptions that:
A) The destruction of the impoverished is not a viable option
B) Laws intended to impede technological progress will inevitably fail
Obviously, (A) may not hold, particularly if an armed uprising seems like a real possibility. As for (B), it will eventually work its way out, but, as you said, it may just come about through the progress being made elsewhere, leading to those countries outcompeting the ones that established the technology-impairing laws.
Satire has for quite some time been a useful tool to highlight institutional problems and call people to action.
Or am I missing something?
Nope, other than that something like this becomes a must in order to avoid the need-based uprising of the masses.
Thanks to automation, we're quickly reaching the point in many industries where employing people to do your work is a money-losing operation. Once it becomes unprofitable to employ people, those unemployed people will, by necessity, require some other way to supply their needs. If they don't have it, you'll have backed them into a corner, with a violent uprising being one of their few means for recourse.
So yes, it's a wealth transfer from the rich, to the poor. Given what it buys the rich (e.g. eager consumers in place of violent usurpers), I suspect they'll be amenable.
At the time he provided the video he didn't tell them it was a reenactment, but from the sounds of things no one has asked for his account either, so he may not have had much of an opportunity to say what it was. The proceedings moved to trial based on the "evidence", but before trial they followed up with him to get his account, and he explained how he found the contraband, placed it back where he had found it, got another officer, and then reenacted the discovery for the camera. They had no clue that was what had happened, so they weren't exactly raking him over the coals for a confession; he willingly volunteered it as soon as they asked for his account of what happened.
So, basically, he neither volunteered the information up front, nor withheld the information intentionally. If I had to guess, I'd imagine he didn't think twice about it and was probably confused when they thought it was a problem that he hadn't told them sooner. Not that that's okay, mind you.
While the courts may not care that you own the phone, most do care that it's your child. Because a minor isn't capable of providing consent on their own behalf, most courts recognize the notion of "vicarious consent", that is, that the parent can consent on behalf of the child to wiretap the child's phone call. This sort of stuff comes up in divorce cases where one parent wants to tape the calls between a child and another parent.
There's some additional information here: http://scholarship.law.edu/cgi...
Usual disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, I merely play the part of an armchair lawyer when online.
Are you surprised an ifanboy wouldn't understand the issue?
Why does it matter what platform he prefers? Does his choice offend you? Harm you? Threaten you?
Stick to the facts, correct his misconceptions, and move along. You'll find that the quality of your life improves significantly when you stop getting worked up about the preferences of others.
I wasn't talking about Gmail. I was talking about the rogue app.
It's a web app, not a mobile app, and this is a social engineering attack, not a hack, so the device doesn't matter. As such, you can fall prey to this exact scam while using a Mac, a Surface tablet running Windows, or an Android phone with the latest security updates.
Sure, I'm quite aware of compound interest, but I'm not at all clear on why you're bringing it up. Interest in mortgages is calculated on a monthly basis and doesn't compound on itself. It's simply calculated as:
principal * interest / 12
Let's use this amortization schedule as an example. This guy apparently took out a loan for $210,000 at 8.25% and is paying $1577.66 each month. Of that $1577.66, you'll see in the first month that $1443.75 is going to the bank as an interest payment, whereas only $133.91 is being applied towards reducing their principal.
After the first month, the bank will have received all of the interest due them up to that point (i.e. $210,000 * (8.25% / 12 months) = $1443.75), meaning that if the loan is paid off in full immediately, they'll have already received all of the interest they are due up to that time; i.e. there is $0 in outstanding interest on which compounding can occur. Likewise, if he decides to keep paying the loan month-to-month, the exact same will be true.
The only way the bank benefits from compounding is if they reinvest the payments they've received, which they should've been doing anyway.
Maybe I just don't understand what you're getting at, but I don't see how compound interest changes anything I've said.
Quite the contrary, that clause is the precise reason why the publishers had sweetheart deals with Apple.
As you suggested, a Most Favored Nation (MFN) clause generally isn't a problem. The problem comes from when you pair MFN with agency pricing (i.e. publishers set the prices while retailers take a cut), because it prevents retailers from competing on price for reasons that aren't obvious at a first glance. Rather than trying to explain it in abstract, let me just run through the Apple vs. Amazon situation from a few years back to demonstrate the issue:
1) Amazon had wholesale pricing, while Apple had MFN + agency pricing with publishers. So far, no obvious problem.
2) Because of Apple's MFN clause, the publishers were disallowed from listing their eBooks elsewhere for less, including via Amazon. As such, to prevent Amazon from listing below the price they used with Apple, the publishers were forced (not that they were complaining) to raise their wholesale prices to match the list prices at Apple, reducing Amazon's margin to 0% if Amazon merely matched Apple's list price. It's weird territory, but not out-and-out anticompetitive yet.
3) In order to have any margin at all, Amazon was forced to adopt agency pricing (again, not that the publishers were complaining).
4) At that point, competition became impossible. If Amazon encouraged lower prices from publishers by reducing its cut or offering kickbacks, the MFN ensured that Apple reaped those same rewards without any of the effort. Conversely, if Apple increased its cut and the publishers raised prices to match, the MFN ensured Amazon's prices would go up too, even though their cut hadn't changed.
All of which is to say, MFN + agency ensures no one can benefit from competing on price, thus ensuring that no one will even try.
That was fine for Apple, since they had the funds to tough it out until their service could sustain itself (which was bound to happen eventually, given that they had a decently large installed base already), but it didn't work so well for customers, since publishers saw Apple as a means to retake control over their own profits (Amazon was really turning the screws on them at that time), thus pushing prices up.
As for today's situation, I don't know all of the details, but if Amazon had agency pricing with MFN, then it would be impossible for an upstart company to undercut Amazon's prices, effectively locking in Amazon's dominance.
Imagination doesn't make chips, so no, they didn't sell Apple chips, and Imagination hasn't yet giving Apple permission to use their technology (going forward, that is, since Apple has said it won't be paying for it). Really, the whole situation bears no resemblance to the Qualcomm case in the slightest.
At play here is that Imagination has, up to now, licensed their technologies to Apple, which Apple has used in its custom-designed chips for a few years. Apple is now claiming that their custom designs no longer rely on Imagination's technology, so they're going to stop paying. Imagination is understandably asking how that's even possible, given that the new chips presumably work the same as the old ones, which means that they likely rely on Imagination's tech.
At no point did Imagination "sell" their technology to Apple, other than as part of a licensing agreement that was contingent on continued royalty payments. So, yes, they get to have a say in how Apple uses their technology, assuming, of course, that Apple is actually still using their technology.