Was wondering if you could clarify what you mean by "equivalent incandescent". Equivalent in wattage, or light output? Because all of my 13W CFLs (which are equivalent to a 60W incandescent in terms of light output) I can touch with my bare hand, while if I'd tried that with a 60W incandescent, it'd melt my skin.
Though I suppose I might have just not had the CFLs on for long enough.
If they crash into a bus full of nuns because you neglegently failed to have the brakes regularly inspected and they catastrophically failed, you are liable then.
While I find that rather suspect that that could be the case, what if you did have them regularly inspected, but your mechanic improperly installed new brakes just before your car was stolen? Because that's pretty much exactly what Verizon is doing with new FIOS installs. The routers are pre-configured to use 64-bit WEP because all they do is put the router right where the wire comes into your house, and then put USB dongles on all your computers.
Interesting, but shouldn't the government be required to prove that the person was on your network with your permission? I suppose one could argue that "it's the subscriber's own fault for using weak-ass security", but consider this. When Verizon installs FIOS, they will not run any more wire than necessary, and will not run any wire through walls. Instead, they put the router (which is pre-configured to 64-bit WEP) right where the cable comes into the house, and then put USB dongles on all your computers.
One might be able to make the case of "well, you still shoulda known better", but if I get into a car accident because my mechanic improperly installed my new brakes, how at fault am I for that car accident?
Maybe you mean something different by "real books", but when I think of reading a "real book" to a 3 year old, I think something like The Berenstain Bears, or a Dr Seuss book, or something from Little Golden Books, which aren't all that different from being a comic book.
Clearly you're not following the thread. We were discussing People who download TV shows off piratebay and other sites.
We were? So when you used "I don't get residuals every time my schematic is dusted-off and used to build a circuit card" as an example of why writers shouldn't get residuals, you were actually talking about unsanctioned uses of your schematic? Because otherwise it sounds like you are saying "I don't care what your employment contract says, I don't get residuals for sanctioned uses of my work, so neither should you". Either that, or you're trying to compare the sanctioned use of your work against the unsanctioned use of another's (which, IMO, doesn't really work in this conversation).
It is not the corporation's responsibility to pay "residuals" to the writer for those views, because they did not sanction the act.
Now that I can agree with. But then the same can be said of any unsanctioned use of another's work. And given your example, I found it hard to imagine that we were talking about unsanctioned uses.
It isn't the corporation violating the contract via nonpayment
Yes it is. My employment contract with the corporation stipulates that the corporation will pay me 10 cents every time an episode I worked on airs.
it's the People of this country
What?
and they didn't sign anything. They never made a promise that you will get paid "residuals" every time a show is watched. They are not bound by your silly piece of paper.
Ok, where the hell did you pull this out of? Of course "the people" are not required to pay me, to honor a contract that they did not sign. But my boss is. Why are you trying to give corporations a free pass to violate employment contracts?
But I wasn't promised money, I was promised 10,000 shares of stock, regardless of future market value. And 10,000 shares of stock I did receive. Some people might be upset by that if the shares dropped in value, but you can hardly say that the corporation is violating the contract. And no, they aren't just gonna split the stock until 1 share is worth 1 cent or some ridiculously low amount. That would end up hurting them far more than if they just gave me 10,000 shares at current market value (and would probably violate a few laws depending on jurisdiction). Though they might be able to get away with a single split. Likely wouldn't violate the contract, but definitely would be a shitty move.
Meanwhile, if the contract says that I shall receive 10 cents every time a show that I worked on airs, then I was promised money. And if I'm not receiving that money, then the corporation is violating the contract.
If you somehow managed to interpret what I said to mean "I think that the concept of copyright originated with the birth of the USA", well, that wasn't what I meant to express at all.
You made a rather sweeping claim, that copyright has always been about securing income for certain groups of people. I provided a counter-claim, that in this one instance, maybe it wasn't. I am no more being US-centric than I'd be Canadian-centric if I used Canada as an example of universal healthcare done right in a reply to a post saying that universal healthcare always fails horribly. Now granted I don't know if Canada actually does do its universal healthcare right, but that's beside the point of this comparison.
The US constitution's one liner, was pretty much an after thought
Now that I did not know. I will admit that I did not bother checking your link, as the conversation at hand made it sound like it was talking about the origins of copyright, and not how it has changed over the years since then.
This tax is ALREADY owed by the citizens. It's called a "use" tax and is applied to out-of-state purchases.
Correct.
Nothing's really changed except that Texas is now forcing delinquent citizens to pay-up.
Incorrect. What they are actually doing is getting Amazon, an out of state business, to collect sales tax on their behalf. Kind of curious what Texas would do if Amazon had just said no. Would they raid the USPS, UPS, FedEx, etc and destroy any packages coming in to Texas from Amazon?
While I agree that if it can be reasonably assumed that the account holder should have known something was wrong, it is their fault and theirs alone, and the bank should not be held liable. But your statement doesn't really address the situations that L4t3r4lu5 brought up. Namely, DNS hijacking. You could have clicked your bankofamerica.com bookmark like you always do, and be totally unaware of the fact that you are actually visiting istealyourcash.com. And with the stories about SSL certs being fraudulently issued by some providers, you might not even see any sort of phishing warning.
Now I still agree that in such a scenario, it would not be the bank's fault, but might they still be liable for correcting it? I mean, L4t3r4lu5 also talked about card skimming, which I don't know if it's a law thing or if banks simply provide it to attract customers, but generally I thought that the account holder was not liable for ATM and credit card transactions that they did not approve. So why wouldn't the same policy apply to the above scenario?
Not quite sure what you were getting at with comparing putting $5 of gas in a mostly empty tank vs a mostly full tank, but I'm not sure you'd actually get the same travel distance from both scenarios.
A 10 gallon tank of gas weighs more than a 1 gallon tank of gas. Therefore, it will require more fuel to move a car with 10 gallons of gas vs a car with only 1 gallon of gas in the tank.
However, as the tank empties, there may be a tendency for the gas in the tank to slosh around more, which may have the potential to increase fuel usage under certain conditions. For example, you have two identical cars, 1 with a 5 gallon tank that is completely filled, and 1 with a 10 gallon tank that is half-filled, so both cars have 5 gallons in their tanks. Under certain driving conditions, the car with the half-filled 10 gallon tank may burn more fuel than the car with the completely full 5 gallon tank.
So it seems probable that one method of filling up would give you more MPG. However, I am not knowledgeable enough to say which, or if it'd be worth it, or even if it be a wash (the efficiency gained from the car becoming lighter as you burn off fuel being equally offset by any inefficiencies introduced from gas sloshing in the tank).
Restricts choices? Sounds more like a natural progression than a deliberate implementation. People buy electric cars == demand for gas stations goes down == fewer gas stations. I'm not seeing anything in 140Mandak262Jamuna's post to indicate a malicious forced closure of gas stations.
Would you also say that, when buggy whip manufacturers started going out of business because people were buying cars, that the people buying cars were "restricting choices" for everyone else?
Bleh... that should have read "<=10% would be insignificant, >10% would be not insignificant, but it wouldn't be significant until it reached >=90%". Though thankfully it looks like the intent still got across.
Maybe it's just me, but I would not call "not insignificant" the same as "significant". For example, using some numbers pulled out of no where, 10% would be not insignificant, but it wouldn't be significant until it reached >=90%.
The problem with your analogy is that while there may be hundreds of competing products for any given cable produced by monster cable, some flavors are only produced by Ben & Jerry's. I personally only buy it when there is a substantial discount, and even then only if it's a flavor I've not tried before, but it's not hard to imagine people regularly picking up such unique flavors.
About 50% of all water used is used for power generation.
Question, did that include non-drinkable water?
More than half of what's left is used in agriculture.
Same question.
About half of what's used outside of industry if user for irrigation (watering your lawn).
Same question.
I'm not arguing a particular side, I'm just curious. I do, however, find it hard to be outraged over toilets that both use less water _and_ flush just as well, if not better, than toilets 20 years ago. Maybe if the toilets didn't flush as well... but at least from personal experience, that does not seem to be the case.
When you change jurisdictions, it is your responsibility to learn the laws and customs of where you're going.
So you are saying that mailing a letter to Thailand asking a relative to mail back a textbook is the same thing as physically traveling to Thailand? Or... wait, did you mean that it was the responsibility of the student who was originally from Thailand to learn the laws of the US before doing any of this?
While I agree with you in principle, saying "why are you favoring women/blacks/gays/etc? What about men/whites/heterosexuals/etc?" I feel is a bad way to express what is wrong with things like this.
Instead, we should be offering the following question to others. If people should be judged by the content of their character rather than their gender/race/sexual-orientation/etc, how does having special months set aside for groups of people, and special scholarships set aside for groups of people, and other such special benefits advance that position?
In the end, whether it's a new card or a new PIN, it's all just numbers you're changing around. The only difference is the number of numbers. So maybe if PINs were 16 digits long instead of 4...
Ah.. I see. I didn't even bother clicking the results to read TFSs, thinking they were all about building your own. That may have been the story I was remembering.
That'll teach me to just gloss over search results.:P
Slashdot Mirror
Was wondering if you could clarify what you mean by "equivalent incandescent". Equivalent in wattage, or light output? Because all of my 13W CFLs (which are equivalent to a 60W incandescent in terms of light output) I can touch with my bare hand, while if I'd tried that with a 60W incandescent, it'd melt my skin.
Though I suppose I might have just not had the CFLs on for long enough.
If they crash into a bus full of nuns because you neglegently failed to have the brakes regularly inspected and they catastrophically failed, you are liable then.
While I find that rather suspect that that could be the case, what if you did have them regularly inspected, but your mechanic improperly installed new brakes just before your car was stolen? Because that's pretty much exactly what Verizon is doing with new FIOS installs. The routers are pre-configured to use 64-bit WEP because all they do is put the router right where the wire comes into your house, and then put USB dongles on all your computers.
Interesting, but shouldn't the government be required to prove that the person was on your network with your permission? I suppose one could argue that "it's the subscriber's own fault for using weak-ass security", but consider this. When Verizon installs FIOS, they will not run any more wire than necessary, and will not run any wire through walls. Instead, they put the router (which is pre-configured to 64-bit WEP) right where the cable comes into the house, and then put USB dongles on all your computers.
One might be able to make the case of "well, you still shoulda known better", but if I get into a car accident because my mechanic improperly installed my new brakes, how at fault am I for that car accident?
Ditto. GP was a split-second away from owing me some new monitors.
Read real books with him.
Maybe you mean something different by "real books", but when I think of reading a "real book" to a 3 year old, I think something like The Berenstain Bears, or a Dr Seuss book, or something from Little Golden Books, which aren't all that different from being a comic book.
Clearly you're not following the thread. We were discussing People who download TV shows off piratebay and other sites.
We were? So when you used "I don't get residuals every time my schematic is dusted-off and used to build a circuit card" as an example of why writers shouldn't get residuals, you were actually talking about unsanctioned uses of your schematic? Because otherwise it sounds like you are saying "I don't care what your employment contract says, I don't get residuals for sanctioned uses of my work, so neither should you". Either that, or you're trying to compare the sanctioned use of your work against the unsanctioned use of another's (which, IMO, doesn't really work in this conversation).
It is not the corporation's responsibility to pay "residuals" to the writer for those views, because they did not sanction the act.
Now that I can agree with. But then the same can be said of any unsanctioned use of another's work. And given your example, I found it hard to imagine that we were talking about unsanctioned uses.
It isn't the corporation violating the contract via nonpayment
Yes it is. My employment contract with the corporation stipulates that the corporation will pay me 10 cents every time an episode I worked on airs.
it's the People of this country
What?
and they didn't sign anything. They never made a promise that you will get paid "residuals" every time a show is watched. They are not bound by your silly piece of paper.
Ok, where the hell did you pull this out of? Of course "the people" are not required to pay me, to honor a contract that they did not sign. But my boss is. Why are you trying to give corporations a free pass to violate employment contracts?
But I wasn't promised money, I was promised 10,000 shares of stock, regardless of future market value. And 10,000 shares of stock I did receive. Some people might be upset by that if the shares dropped in value, but you can hardly say that the corporation is violating the contract. And no, they aren't just gonna split the stock until 1 share is worth 1 cent or some ridiculously low amount. That would end up hurting them far more than if they just gave me 10,000 shares at current market value (and would probably violate a few laws depending on jurisdiction). Though they might be able to get away with a single split. Likely wouldn't violate the contract, but definitely would be a shitty move.
Meanwhile, if the contract says that I shall receive 10 cents every time a show that I worked on airs, then I was promised money. And if I'm not receiving that money, then the corporation is violating the contract.
You made a rather sweeping claim, that copyright has always been about securing income for certain groups of people. I provided a counter-claim, that in this one instance, maybe it wasn't. I am no more being US-centric than I'd be Canadian-centric if I used Canada as an example of universal healthcare done right in a reply to a post saying that universal healthcare always fails horribly. Now granted I don't know if Canada actually does do its universal healthcare right, but that's beside the point of this comparison.
The US constitution's one liner, was pretty much an after thought
Now that I did not know. I will admit that I did not bother checking your link, as the conversation at hand made it sound like it was talking about the origins of copyright, and not how it has changed over the years since then.
There was never even a pretense of benefit to society.
So that whole to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts line actually means... what exactly?
Maybe copyright started out as securing income to certain groups of people, but your claim that it has always been about that seems shakey.
This tax is ALREADY owed by the citizens. It's called a "use" tax and is applied to out-of-state purchases.
Correct.
Nothing's really changed except that Texas is now forcing delinquent citizens to pay-up.
Incorrect. What they are actually doing is getting Amazon, an out of state business, to collect sales tax on their behalf. Kind of curious what Texas would do if Amazon had just said no. Would they raid the USPS, UPS, FedEx, etc and destroy any packages coming in to Texas from Amazon?
While I agree that if it can be reasonably assumed that the account holder should have known something was wrong, it is their fault and theirs alone, and the bank should not be held liable. But your statement doesn't really address the situations that L4t3r4lu5 brought up. Namely, DNS hijacking. You could have clicked your bankofamerica.com bookmark like you always do, and be totally unaware of the fact that you are actually visiting istealyourcash.com. And with the stories about SSL certs being fraudulently issued by some providers, you might not even see any sort of phishing warning.
Now I still agree that in such a scenario, it would not be the bank's fault, but might they still be liable for correcting it? I mean, L4t3r4lu5 also talked about card skimming, which I don't know if it's a law thing or if banks simply provide it to attract customers, but generally I thought that the account holder was not liable for ATM and credit card transactions that they did not approve. So why wouldn't the same policy apply to the above scenario?
Not quite sure what you were getting at with comparing putting $5 of gas in a mostly empty tank vs a mostly full tank, but I'm not sure you'd actually get the same travel distance from both scenarios.
A 10 gallon tank of gas weighs more than a 1 gallon tank of gas. Therefore, it will require more fuel to move a car with 10 gallons of gas vs a car with only 1 gallon of gas in the tank.
However, as the tank empties, there may be a tendency for the gas in the tank to slosh around more, which may have the potential to increase fuel usage under certain conditions. For example, you have two identical cars, 1 with a 5 gallon tank that is completely filled, and 1 with a 10 gallon tank that is half-filled, so both cars have 5 gallons in their tanks. Under certain driving conditions, the car with the half-filled 10 gallon tank may burn more fuel than the car with the completely full 5 gallon tank.
So it seems probable that one method of filling up would give you more MPG. However, I am not knowledgeable enough to say which, or if it'd be worth it, or even if it be a wash (the efficiency gained from the car becoming lighter as you burn off fuel being equally offset by any inefficiencies introduced from gas sloshing in the tank).
Restricts choices? Sounds more like a natural progression than a deliberate implementation. People buy electric cars == demand for gas stations goes down == fewer gas stations. I'm not seeing anything in 140Mandak262Jamuna's post to indicate a malicious forced closure of gas stations.
Would you also say that, when buggy whip manufacturers started going out of business because people were buying cars, that the people buying cars were "restricting choices" for everyone else?
Bleh... that should have read "<=10% would be insignificant, >10% would be not insignificant, but it wouldn't be significant until it reached >=90%". Though thankfully it looks like the intent still got across.
Maybe it's just me, but I would not call "not insignificant" the same as "significant". For example, using some numbers pulled out of no where, 10% would be not insignificant, but it wouldn't be significant until it reached >=90%.
Not if a third, much much higher law says that the first law was not violated.
The problem with your analogy is that while there may be hundreds of competing products for any given cable produced by monster cable, some flavors are only produced by Ben & Jerry's. I personally only buy it when there is a substantial discount, and even then only if it's a flavor I've not tried before, but it's not hard to imagine people regularly picking up such unique flavors.
About 50% of all water used is used for power generation.
Question, did that include non-drinkable water?
More than half of what's left is used in agriculture.
Same question.
About half of what's used outside of industry if user for irrigation (watering your lawn).
Same question.
I'm not arguing a particular side, I'm just curious. I do, however, find it hard to be outraged over toilets that both use less water _and_ flush just as well, if not better, than toilets 20 years ago. Maybe if the toilets didn't flush as well... but at least from personal experience, that does not seem to be the case.
When you change jurisdictions, it is your responsibility to learn the laws and customs of where you're going.
So you are saying that mailing a letter to Thailand asking a relative to mail back a textbook is the same thing as physically traveling to Thailand? Or... wait, did you mean that it was the responsibility of the student who was originally from Thailand to learn the laws of the US before doing any of this?
Thanks, I thought they were trying to do one of those "AW#%!$# NO CARRIER" things.
While I agree with you in principle, saying "why are you favoring women/blacks/gays/etc? What about men/whites/heterosexuals/etc?" I feel is a bad way to express what is wrong with things like this.
Instead, we should be offering the following question to others. If people should be judged by the content of their character rather than their gender/race/sexual-orientation/etc, how does having special months set aside for groups of people, and special scholarships set aside for groups of people, and other such special benefits advance that position?
In the end, whether it's a new card or a new PIN, it's all just numbers you're changing around. The only difference is the number of numbers. So maybe if PINs were 16 digits long instead of 4...
I know you can already get these
Ah.. I see. I didn't even bother clicking the results to read TFSs, thinking they were all about building your own. That may have been the story I was remembering.
:P
That'll teach me to just gloss over search results.
That isn't...
.....nevermind.
*thinks about all those "with a computer" and "on the internet" patents*