You're mixing two different things. Either the fine should be based on income in order to make the punishment be of similar "pain", in which case that it can make "serious money" is irrelevant. Or the fine should be based on how much money can be made by breaking the rules, in which case the income of the rule breaker is irrelevant. Or some combination (just you can have both a compensatory and a punitive damages award) of course, but arguing for the former based on the later makes no sense.
If breaking the rules would be expected to make google $10 million then a $22.5 million fine might well act as a significant deterrent (depends on the chance of being caught and fined) - that doesn't change if google's revenues are $100 million or $100 billion.
Surely dev occassionally need a copy of the production DB to replicate bugs and so on? You clean out the passwords and emails and so, but probably on the dev server so at some point there's a copy of the production DB in the dev environment.
If you have remote workers then your dev environment needs to be accessible over a VPN or something (and so is touching the outside) - Indian workers are cheap after all.
If you aren't an idiot you would assume you are being snooped on.
Hence encryption is enabled on VPNs, ssh is used instead of telnet, https instead of http for anything that matters, SSL/TLS is used for imap and smtp, etc, etc.
Re:Let them talk forever, it's what the EU is for
on
Bye ACTA, Hello CETA
·
· Score: 1
I didn't call it a failure. I said it is a failed state - it no longer acts as a state, in this case because it simply doesn't exist anymore.
Re:Let them talk forever, it's what the EU is for
on
Bye ACTA, Hello CETA
·
· Score: 1
I'll be a non-existing, non-person. We don't use the term "failed human" for that though, just "dead" which I agree I will be.
You are right, taking the advice of the organization who wrote the license would be even more stupid than taking that of a random slashdot post (like this one).
Or do you also take the RIAA advice on whether the latest bill they authored for Congress would be good for the nation to pass at face value?
State the overall conclusion - which category it fits into, in this case external causes. If you came up with additional conclusions state them as well.
And how many of those wars do both sides have nukes. Oh yeah, none of them. That's the entire point. Feel free to disagree with the conclusion drawn, but the simple fact is that nuclear armed nations have not got into shooting wars directly with each other. Of course if they did there'd be no wikipedia to keep score...
There were no tigers before the rock, compared with WW1 and WW2 before nuclear weapons.
Sure we don't have a parallel universe with which to run controlled experiments. However, if A did occur before B and A has not occured after B there is more evidence that B had some influence than if A did not occur before B and also did not occur after B.
If you take a hostage the police can shoot you and the hostage without all the police dieing as well.
Nukes are the "everybody dies" option, a hostage is not.
So currently religious belief is the flaw - if one side thinks they can win even though everyone dies the game is up. In the future there might be other flaws - if one side thinks that can survive in space or underground while they clean up the mess, etc - those can all remove the mutual part...
And yet you have way more people in prison than the rest of the world. Indicating either that your crime rate isn't low or the rest of the world is really bad at catching criminals.
Or maybe you mean low crime rates for a certain class of crimes, in which case you should restrict the claim.
The side trying to take the resources from someone else would have to think they can win (well baring insanity of course). But the side defending its resources might know it can't win but figure fighting is better than handing them over. Or maybe the leadership sees fighting in order to secure better terms of surrender or a chance to escape as worth it?
See the US invasion of Iraq - Iraq fought even though it had zero chance of winning.
They could choose to take an analogy in a random slashdot post or they could take the advice of a lawyer specialised in the field of software licensing.
Food production is far more important than pharma. Those evil farmers profiting from others' hunger is so WRONG. Not to mention those evil super markets profiting from simple arbitrage on food. Quick nationalize all food production and distribution - worked well for Zimbabwe after all.
And of course his "refusal" to patent his polio vaccine had nothing to do with the lawyers at the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis saying that prior art made it not patentable - they did the legal research into that just for fun with no intention of actually patenting it if it was likely to succeed.
No, if spending on marketing generates more revenue than spending on R&D then of course they should be doing that. And in an industry with high fixed costs and low variable costs you should expect marketing to get more funding - that's simple math.
Of course a significant portion of that evil marketing and advertising budget is actually subsidizing medication costs for poor people (which shouldn't be necessary of course, but the US health system is broken):
Free samples given to physicians totaled $6.6 billion of retail value, representing 51.9 percent of the drug promotion expenditures.
I certainly was given samples by a doctor back when I had no job and no medical insurance. I seriously doubt I was in a unique position, or that doctors could find many other uses for such samples.
Note, given that the marginal cost of creating a unit of product is a fraction of the retail value a unit of product (fixed and variable costs again) there's likely some tax advantages to such spending (I'm not an accountant and hence I could be wrong of course) in which case you would expect a high spend in that area and reducing spending in that area wouldn't increase spending in other areas which do not have a tax incentive.
Slashdot Mirror
They haven't forced stupid policies on us?
You're mixing two different things. Either the fine should be based on income in order to make the punishment be of similar "pain", in which case that it can make "serious money" is irrelevant. Or the fine should be based on how much money can be made by breaking the rules, in which case the income of the rule breaker is irrelevant. Or some combination (just you can have both a compensatory and a punitive damages award) of course, but arguing for the former based on the later makes no sense.
If breaking the rules would be expected to make google $10 million then a $22.5 million fine might well act as a significant deterrent (depends on the chance of being caught and fined) - that doesn't change if google's revenues are $100 million or $100 billion.
Surely dev occassionally need a copy of the production DB to replicate bugs and so on? You clean out the passwords and emails and so, but probably on the dev server so at some point there's a copy of the production DB in the dev environment.
If you have remote workers then your dev environment needs to be accessible over a VPN or something (and so is touching the outside) - Indian workers are cheap after all.
If you aren't an idiot you would assume you are being snooped on.
Hence encryption is enabled on VPNs, ssh is used instead of telnet, https instead of http for anything that matters, SSL/TLS is used for imap and smtp, etc, etc.
I didn't call it a failure. I said it is a failed state - it no longer acts as a state, in this case because it simply doesn't exist anymore.
I'll be a non-existing, non-person. We don't use the term "failed human" for that though, just "dead" which I agree I will be.
And journalists are morons.
Does it exist now? No. Then it's a failed state.
It doesn't matter how long it was a state for, or how powerful/successful/whatever it was in that time.
Why current? He's been dead for almost 20 years after all.
Anyway: Feynman, Dyson, Penrose, Hawking, Preskill.
Or do they all need to be American, in which case remove those English pretenders and add Thorne and Guth
If dead doesn't count, then I don't care Feynman stays because he can't not be on any such list.
If dead does count then make some room for Fermi, Oppenheimer, and Einstein.
You are right, taking the advice of the organization who wrote the license would be even more stupid than taking that of a random slashdot post (like this one).
Or do you also take the RIAA advice on whether the latest bill they authored for Congress would be good for the nation to pass at face value?
Seems completely normal to me.
State the overall conclusion - which category it fits into, in this case external causes. If you came up with additional conclusions state them as well.
And how many of those wars do both sides have nukes. Oh yeah, none of them. That's the entire point. Feel free to disagree with the conclusion drawn, but the simple fact is that nuclear armed nations have not got into shooting wars directly with each other. Of course if they did there'd be no wikipedia to keep score...
There were no tigers before the rock, compared with WW1 and WW2 before nuclear weapons.
Sure we don't have a parallel universe with which to run controlled experiments. However, if A did occur before B and A has not occured after B there is more evidence that B had some influence than if A did not occur before B and also did not occur after B.
No they don't.
If you take a hostage the police can shoot you and the hostage without all the police dieing as well.
Nukes are the "everybody dies" option, a hostage is not.
So currently religious belief is the flaw - if one side thinks they can win even though everyone dies the game is up. In the future there might be other flaws - if one side thinks that can survive in space or underground while they clean up the mess, etc - those can all remove the mutual part...
And yet you have way more people in prison than the rest of the world. Indicating either that your crime rate isn't low or the rest of the world is really bad at catching criminals.
Or maybe you mean low crime rates for a certain class of crimes, in which case you should restrict the claim.
Both sides don't have to think they can win.
The side trying to take the resources from someone else would have to think they can win (well baring insanity of course). But the side defending its resources might know it can't win but figure fighting is better than handing them over. Or maybe the leadership sees fighting in order to secure better terms of surrender or a chance to escape as worth it?
See the US invasion of Iraq - Iraq fought even though it had zero chance of winning.
They nationalized food distribution, which you may note was part of the evil profiteering.
That's the advice they have.
They could choose to take an analogy in a random slashdot post or they could take the advice of a lawyer specialised in the field of software licensing.
Decisions, decisions...
On noes! Instead of editing /boot/grub/grub.cfg I edit /etc/grub.d/X. The world is ending I say!
Of course you could just edit the file anyway and not run the generator script ever again, but that would be too complicated I guess....
Not at all, but go ahead a leap to conclusions like the fucktard you are.
Food production is far more important than pharma. Those evil farmers profiting from others' hunger is so WRONG. Not to mention those evil super markets profiting from simple arbitrage on food. Quick nationalize all food production and distribution - worked well for Zimbabwe after all.
And yet he patented Remune.
And of course his "refusal" to patent his polio vaccine had nothing to do with the lawyers at the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis saying that prior art made it not patentable - they did the legal research into that just for fun with no intention of actually patenting it if it was likely to succeed.
No, if spending on marketing generates more revenue than spending on R&D then of course they should be doing that. And in an industry with high fixed costs and low variable costs you should expect marketing to get more funding - that's simple math.
Of course a significant portion of that evil marketing and advertising budget is actually subsidizing medication costs for poor people (which shouldn't be necessary of course, but the US health system is broken):
- http://med.stanford.edu/news_releases/2003/may/Pharmaceutical.html
I certainly was given samples by a doctor back when I had no job and no medical insurance. I seriously doubt I was in a unique position, or that doctors could find many other uses for such samples.
Note, given that the marginal cost of creating a unit of product is a fraction of the retail value a unit of product (fixed and variable costs again) there's likely some tax advantages to such spending (I'm not an accountant and hence I could be wrong of course) in which case you would expect a high spend in that area and reducing spending in that area wouldn't increase spending in other areas which do not have a tax incentive.
Which didn't put squiggly lines under misspelled words and hence is completely irrelevant.
Making stickers in the USA, that have "Made in the USA" printed on them....