And why do it at all, and not just leave these people be? Ooh, I don't know, because they're shitting in buckets? God knows what other unhealthy things are happening there.
Bear in mind that the reason the conditions are unsanitary is that they won't allow portable bathrooms to be brought in. (Hell, anyone want to claim that the overtime they just paid to all those police is cheaper than dropping off a half dozen port-a-johns to solve any hygiene problem).
: Protesters can return after the park is cleared.
I would put far more faith in that claim if (a) they hadn't "cleared" the park in the dead of night, (b) they hadn't bulldozed and otherwise disposed of the tents and supplies, (c) if they hadn't blacked out the media in a stupid attempt to prevent reportage, and (d) if they weren't searching people as they return to the park.
Also, a "protester" is just a citizen with a sign, and shouldn't have any less rights for it.
That only applies to federal laws. Individual states do whatever they like with regards to copyrighting their laws.
Out of curiousity, has this been tested in courts? I would suspect that some judges would look favorably upon a defense of "It's illegal for me to read this law". (If memory serves, isn't there a restriction along the lines of "if you can't help but break the law no matter what you do, one of those laws must be invalid?")
Yeah, I could live with it being just GQ. Even Geek EQ, I suppose. It's just "IQ" that seems horribly misused IMHO.
Of course, that quiz needs to be a *lot* larger if they're going to claim a general "geek score".
Take the Bozeman question, for instance - as written, 5% of your mark boils down to "are you a Next Gen Trek geek?". (I happen to be one, but such is.). You could easily be a SW fan. Or BSG or Firefly or B5. Heck, you might be a Trek fan and prefer DS9. (Or be young enough to grow up with Voyager and not know how badly you have it).
If you're not detailed up to at least "geek code" standards, I'd say you're not trying hard enough.
But it gets worse. Consider the implications of the rationale behind the invoice they sent: "We don't even know whether any of the artists we represent played, so we can't possibly pay the money to the right people, but you'd better give it to us anyway".
It's actually better - they're saying "well, we don't know some of these names, but they might be one of our artists playing under a pseudonym, so we're going to have to charge you anyway."
The root problem, of course, is a law that says "you have to pay unless you prove they're NOT on the list".
For myself, I almost never used apt - you go to the software manager, check some boxes, and let the machine do all the hard parts for you.
To my mind, that's what Ubuntu's core strength is - it's the simple and easy Linux. My mom can use it. I can use it without having to refresh on all the arcane mysteries of the Unix (sadly, as I get older I have less time for such things).
It strikes me as just fine that the hardcore are moving away from Ubuntu - if you have the knowhow, you probably want something that's more customizable. Ubuntu isn't targeting that audience - they're going after the "I plugged in this USB stick and wow, my computer works!" crowd.
No, I don't think prices will come down enough to completely cover the cost of the FairTax as the authors suggest (although I do believe prices will drop when embedded taxes are removed).
I'd be very skeptical of this point - if the tax is hidden in the price of the product (as opposed to a sales tax that's added on at the till), the temptation for manufacturers and retailers to pocket that extra money as additional margin would be near-impossible to resist. (I'll concede that market pressures should eventually squeeze that money out, but that's over the long term).
Stocks have tangible value, my copy of Windows XP isn't worth the CD it's printed on.
Actually, I'd say the both have very similar value - your stock is worth exactly what the consensus of everyone (aka "the market") believes it's worth. Not a penny more or less. If the market decides your stock is worth half as much today as it did yesterday, that's what it's worth now. If it decides it's entirely worthless, it is.
I'd say that the software actually has *more* tangible value - no matter what anyone says, it's still a CD that lets you install XP.
If you were in front of the US Supreme Court and they asked you how this is fundamentally different than tracking your car through traditional police surveillance, how would you answer?
A couple points I could make:
This is something that I am being held responsible for against my will (note how they tend to be very aggressive in retrieving these devices). It would be considered improper to force someone to document their whereabouts 24/7, and this does the same thing by automated means.
Further to this, it's modifying my property without my consent - if it's illegal for me to attach one of these to another vehicle, it should also be illegal for the police to do so without a warrant.
Traditional police surveillance cannot follow you onto private property, whereas GPS tracking can.
GPS tracking is, in the end, a technological device, which can (and will) be defeated, spoofed, or just plain destroyed - it can't and shouldn't be considered as reliable a substitute for eyeball tracking. It's a safe bet that once it's widely known that these devices exist (and how to identify them) people will crack the case and either start sending false data back (or just reattach it to a Greyhound and leave it at that).
Why? That narrative about it being humankind's destiny to expand and live forever just doesn't hold any more. Plenty of thinkers have speculated that the human race has other possible futures, such as voluntary extinction (declining birthrates in the wake of robots doing almost everything, for example), replacement by a new AI species, living on Earth inside a virtual reality instead of expanding outward, etc.
In the off chance this isn't trolling, these are considered *better* outcomes than exploring the galaxy? Are we expecting that we'll evolve until we lose the basic survival instinct?
And, if men are sent, they'll probably want women to be sent. And, if women are sent, you can expect some little people soon enough.
Yeah the ISS is swarming with babies now...
I would suspect that's more due to a combination of constant surveillance (both in-person and remotely from mission control) and the short time frames in orbit (most ISS staff aren't up there long enough to carry to term). And even then I would be amazed if there hasn't been at least one "one night float".
Obligatory conspiracy theory moment: if someone did get pregnant in orbit, but gave birth after returning to Earth, do you really think NASA is going to talk about it?
I think the distinction is that once you "park" your space station, it's not moving again under it's own power. Think the difference between a truck and a trailer.
The only way this would work if it was ubiquitous and mandatory. "No pictures here" signal in public bathrooms, changing rooms etc would be grand.
I don't see how this is related to "sexting", though.
It's related in the "this is a buzzword that will get us in the newspapers". See "protect the children".
More important than the marketing is the distribution channels.
You can write a book without a publisher. You can get it edited (and a lot of author groups will edit each others' work to save on costs). Getting it to look pretty isn't that expensive anymore either with digital publishing. Getting it printed ain't bad either.
None of that counts for squat unless you can get stores to actually carry it. And that's where the big publishers shine - they have the ins with B&N and Chapters and Indigo and Coles, so they can get your book in hundreds of stores across the country. Smaller publishers have problems getting a store to pick up the phone.
And considering she has a lawyer involved, it's a safe bet that the contract doesn't say anything of the sort - it's one of the basic gotchas of publishing.
This drug is going to cost a *fortune*. Regardless if they're mixing this stuff in their bathtubs.
Why? Because old rich people will pay whatever it takes to get their hands on this, and unless these are the dumbest scientists in history, they will peg the price at the highest the market will bear.
It's not really your "privacy" though. You sacrificed that the moment you got a mobile phone
Actually, you sacrificed it as soon as you showed your face. In a small community where everybody knew everybody else a storekeeper could already see who was coming into their store, who bought what and who walked past and when. As communities got larger and more anonymous that was temporarily lost, but now with technology like this (and it probably won't be long until they are doing it with CCTV and face recognition) it's coming back.
Except now Grocer Bob checks in with Grocers Ted, Frank, and Joe in neighboring towns to cross-reference when you were in each of their stores, and what you bought and when. Not to mention keeping it all in a centralized, and easily accessible and subpoena-able database.
This isn't really that new, just a new approach to more targeted marketing. Retailers have been counting you as you walk through the door, collecting your name, address, and purchasing habits for years. Some customers even volunteer their information by signing up for club cards and rewards cards.
This is different, in that the shopper isn't given the option of *not* giving up those details. And at least for club/reward cards, there is some benefit to the consumer in exchange for selling their info. (And even then you have the option of giving bogus details - there's a reason 867-5309 will work in any store that will look you up via phone number).
The only upside I can see about all this is possibly giving cover to citizens using similar tech to follow government officials and cops. (If you can track the unique signature, someone will build an app that will crowdsource the latest radio sightings of car 54...
It's like PS 3 users getting sued becasue Sony violated a patent in makes the PS3.
This. Notice the specific mention that the settlement demands are (even by patent troll standards) extremely low. The whole point is to get some cheap cash from corporations and mid-sized businesses who either can't afford to do the full court routine, or just don't want to bother with expensive litigation in a field they could care less about (Best Western and the Marriott aren't going to champion patent rights involving wireless comm. They're going to cut a check for a few grand, add it to their expense line, and call it a day).
There really needs to be an express lane for courts, where you can go to a judge (or better yet, a six-year-old), say "this guy is suing me for a box I bought from Best Buy", and they can say "that's f*in bull". And then we all get to beat on the troll with lead pipes.
Slashdot Mirror
And why do it at all, and not just leave these people be? Ooh, I don't know, because they're shitting in buckets? God knows what other unhealthy things are happening there.
Bear in mind that the reason the conditions are unsanitary is that they won't allow portable bathrooms to be brought in. (Hell, anyone want to claim that the overtime they just paid to all those police is cheaper than dropping off a half dozen port-a-johns to solve any hygiene problem).
: Protesters can return after the park is cleared.
I would put far more faith in that claim if (a) they hadn't "cleared" the park in the dead of night, (b) they hadn't bulldozed and otherwise disposed of the tents and supplies, (c) if they hadn't blacked out the media in a stupid attempt to prevent reportage, and (d) if they weren't searching people as they return to the park.
Also, a "protester" is just a citizen with a sign, and shouldn't have any less rights for it.
That only applies to federal laws. Individual states do whatever they like with regards to copyrighting their laws.
Out of curiousity, has this been tested in courts? I would suspect that some judges would look favorably upon a defense of "It's illegal for me to read this law". (If memory serves, isn't there a restriction along the lines of "if you can't help but break the law no matter what you do, one of those laws must be invalid?")
Yeah, I could live with it being just GQ. Even Geek EQ, I suppose. It's just "IQ" that seems horribly misused IMHO.
Of course, that quiz needs to be a *lot* larger if they're going to claim a general "geek score".
Take the Bozeman question, for instance - as written, 5% of your mark boils down to "are you a Next Gen Trek geek?". (I happen to be one, but such is.). You could easily be a SW fan. Or BSG or Firefly or B5. Heck, you might be a Trek fan and prefer DS9. (Or be young enough to grow up with Voyager and not know how badly you have it).
If you're not detailed up to at least "geek code" standards, I'd say you're not trying hard enough.
But it gets worse. Consider the implications of the rationale behind the invoice they sent: "We don't even know whether any of the artists we represent played, so we can't possibly pay the money to the right people, but you'd better give it to us anyway".
It's actually better - they're saying "well, we don't know some of these names, but they might be one of our artists playing under a pseudonym, so we're going to have to charge you anyway."
The root problem, of course, is a law that says "you have to pay unless you prove they're NOT on the list".
For myself, I almost never used apt - you go to the software manager, check some boxes, and let the machine do all the hard parts for you.
To my mind, that's what Ubuntu's core strength is - it's the simple and easy Linux. My mom can use it. I can use it without having to refresh on all the arcane mysteries of the Unix (sadly, as I get older I have less time for such things).
It strikes me as just fine that the hardcore are moving away from Ubuntu - if you have the knowhow, you probably want something that's more customizable. Ubuntu isn't targeting that audience - they're going after the "I plugged in this USB stick and wow, my computer works!" crowd.
No, I don't think prices will come down enough to completely cover the cost of the FairTax as the authors suggest (although I do believe prices will drop when embedded taxes are removed).
I'd be very skeptical of this point - if the tax is hidden in the price of the product (as opposed to a sales tax that's added on at the till), the temptation for manufacturers and retailers to pocket that extra money as additional margin would be near-impossible to resist. (I'll concede that market pressures should eventually squeeze that money out, but that's over the long term).
Stocks have tangible value, my copy of Windows XP isn't worth the CD it's printed on.
Actually, I'd say the both have very similar value - your stock is worth exactly what the consensus of everyone (aka "the market") believes it's worth. Not a penny more or less. If the market decides your stock is worth half as much today as it did yesterday, that's what it's worth now. If it decides it's entirely worthless, it is.
I'd say that the software actually has *more* tangible value - no matter what anyone says, it's still a CD that lets you install XP.
If you were in front of the US Supreme Court and they asked you how this is fundamentally different than tracking your car through traditional police surveillance, how would you answer?
A couple points I could make:
Why? That narrative about it being humankind's destiny to expand and live forever just doesn't hold any more. Plenty of thinkers have speculated that the human race has other possible futures, such as voluntary extinction (declining birthrates in the wake of robots doing almost everything, for example), replacement by a new AI species, living on Earth inside a virtual reality instead of expanding outward, etc.
And, if men are sent, they'll probably want women to be sent. And, if women are sent, you can expect some little people soon enough.
Yeah the ISS is swarming with babies now...
I would suspect that's more due to a combination of constant surveillance (both in-person and remotely from mission control) and the short time frames in orbit (most ISS staff aren't up there long enough to carry to term). And even then I would be amazed if there hasn't been at least one "one night float".
Obligatory conspiracy theory moment: if someone did get pregnant in orbit, but gave birth after returning to Earth, do you really think NASA is going to talk about it?
I think the distinction is that once you "park" your space station, it's not moving again under it's own power. Think the difference between a truck and a trailer.
Exactly.
Same reason why people build batmobiles or tron lightcycles - not because it's cost-effective, but because of the sheer cool-factor.
And of course, today is the day I don't have mod points.
The only way this would work if it was ubiquitous and mandatory. "No pictures here" signal in public bathrooms, changing rooms etc would be grand. I don't see how this is related to "sexting", though.
It's related in the "this is a buzzword that will get us in the newspapers". See "protect the children".
Ah, another engineer who thinks they can outsmart the combined hormones of every high school student in America.
More important than the marketing is the distribution channels.
You can write a book without a publisher. You can get it edited (and a lot of author groups will edit each others' work to save on costs). Getting it to look pretty isn't that expensive anymore either with digital publishing. Getting it printed ain't bad either.
None of that counts for squat unless you can get stores to actually carry it. And that's where the big publishers shine - they have the ins with B&N and Chapters and Indigo and Coles, so they can get your book in hundreds of stores across the country. Smaller publishers have problems getting a store to pick up the phone.
And considering she has a lawyer involved, it's a safe bet that the contract doesn't say anything of the sort - it's one of the basic gotchas of publishing.
This drug is going to cost a *fortune*. Regardless if they're mixing this stuff in their bathtubs.
Why? Because old rich people will pay whatever it takes to get their hands on this, and unless these are the dumbest scientists in history, they will peg the price at the highest the market will bear.
It's not really your "privacy" though. You sacrificed that the moment you got a mobile phone
Actually, you sacrificed it as soon as you showed your face. In a small community where everybody knew everybody else a storekeeper could already see who was coming into their store, who bought what and who walked past and when. As communities got larger and more anonymous that was temporarily lost, but now with technology like this (and it probably won't be long until they are doing it with CCTV and face recognition) it's coming back.
Except now Grocer Bob checks in with Grocers Ted, Frank, and Joe in neighboring towns to cross-reference when you were in each of their stores, and what you bought and when. Not to mention keeping it all in a centralized, and easily accessible and subpoena-able database.
This isn't really that new, just a new approach to more targeted marketing. Retailers have been counting you as you walk through the door, collecting your name, address, and purchasing habits for years. Some customers even volunteer their information by signing up for club cards and rewards cards.
This is different, in that the shopper isn't given the option of *not* giving up those details. And at least for club/reward cards, there is some benefit to the consumer in exchange for selling their info. (And even then you have the option of giving bogus details - there's a reason 867-5309 will work in any store that will look you up via phone number).
The only upside I can see about all this is possibly giving cover to citizens using similar tech to follow government officials and cops. (If you can track the unique signature, someone will build an app that will crowdsource the latest radio sightings of car 54...
There's no mention in the articles about any new law, just that the previous one has been "temporarily repealed". Link?
Amazon will still have to collect sales tax in California in 2013 unless Congress intevenes before then.
Or.. Amazon will happily make their sales tax-free profits until 2013, and then pull out of California again.
Struck me as a follower of Crom, myself: "To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women."
It's like PS 3 users getting sued becasue Sony violated a patent in makes the PS3.
This. Notice the specific mention that the settlement demands are (even by patent troll standards) extremely low. The whole point is to get some cheap cash from corporations and mid-sized businesses who either can't afford to do the full court routine, or just don't want to bother with expensive litigation in a field they could care less about (Best Western and the Marriott aren't going to champion patent rights involving wireless comm. They're going to cut a check for a few grand, add it to their expense line, and call it a day).
There really needs to be an express lane for courts, where you can go to a judge (or better yet, a six-year-old), say "this guy is suing me for a box I bought from Best Buy", and they can say "that's f*in bull". And then we all get to beat on the troll with lead pipes.