So what you are saying is that as a meeting convener you would not see the need to use an email blocker for a meeting. What about people who might see the need to do this... in the face of bosses, laterals and/or subordinates who don't know how to behave?
My point is that I have experienced situations where an email blocker would have been a very helpful.
It probably goes like this. 1) School officer has no legal authority to "frisk" students without their conent. (If they try, they risk a law suit), 2) Student refuses to consent to frisking, and refuses to cooperate. 3) Police are called, at which point school has no more say in the matter 4) Police are pissed off at having been called, and decide to charge student with disorderly conduct and being a pain in the ass.
At step 2), we don't know why the school couldn't handle this internally. I'm sure that they would have if they could have. No school principal / board wants this kind of publicity if they can avoid it!
We don't know this, but I suspect that this girl has a long history of being disruptive and uncooperative at school. The school has probably tried all sorts of other things in the past, to no avail. The principal probably (very bravely IMO) figured that calling the police might actually get through this girl's thick skull that being a disruptive pain in the ass is a REALLY BAD IDEA. And it might get her parents' attention as well.
They wouldn't have been paid "star" salaries for the original BBC TV shows, and the movies weren't very profitable for them personally. Certainly, it is clear from the linked article that they thought that they had been ripped off... and that is a large part of why they released everything on YouTube.
The point that the article is making is precisely that while artists do not get a cent from YouTube directly, indirectly it is driving sales. It is also probably true that the artist are getting more of the money than they would if the companies promoted the DVDs in the traditional way.
The RIAA's legal theory is in the context of copyrights and illegal copying. It simply does not apply here. Microsoft own the copyright on their stuff, so they are free to make it available.
Another possible outcome is that companies cave in to the trolls and enter into licensing arrangements for products sold in the US. Multiply by a factor of 100 or so for each of the patents for so-called "inventions" that might be infringed by any given product.
The costs will then be passed on to the US consumer. The end result is a private taxation system where every consumer and every business effectively pays a "high tech" tax on every high tech device purchased and every service used. And the money just disappears into the pockets of the patent speculators... with no net return to businesses, consumers, or even to the people who created the inventions in the first place.
You will never decrease your tax liability by making less enough to compensate for making less, all other things being equal, even under a system as complex as the US tax code.
Yes you can, but first you will need two SSNs...:-)
But that makes the spokescritter's point re: finding pieces moot and the comment mostly FUD. Any pieces will be chunks of metal, possibly with sharp edges but most likely rounded by reentry heat.
What happens if it lands somewhere in the United States, and some "little johnie" picks it up and burns his fingers on a chunk of still hot metal. Think of the emotional trauma. Think of the billion dollar lawsuit:-).
This situation is more akin to the way that an open source license grants permission to use copyrighted material subject to certain restrictions on your behaviour. If you don't meet the restrictions, your permission to use the material is cancelled.
In addition, if he violates the TOS, this may actually invalidate any implied permission he has to download a literal copy of the web pages... making him liable for breach of copyright.
Clearly, this is monumentally bad customer relations, and some people are going to say "they did it because they don't care". But there must be some business / technical explanation. Does anyone know what they are trying to achieve by reseting the profiles? Is this a necessary fallout from some change in their profile infrastructure? Or did they just plain screw up?
I predict that the "no guarantees" commodity Cloud Computing service providers will get lots customers anyway; plenty to run a business on. The cost of supporting customers with strong guarantees of service is significant, and it will be passed on to the customers. Most customers will not be willing or able to pay for this.
Slashdot Mirror
But don't forget to wrap the container in cling-film before you drop it into the shark tank.
... wearing Techno-Trousers. :-)
So what is your definition of a "more powerful" OS? One that restricts you from doing more things? :-)
So what you are saying is that as a meeting convener you would not see the need to use an email blocker for a meeting. What about people who might see the need to do this ... in the face of bosses, laterals and/or subordinates who don't know how to behave?
My point is that I have experienced situations where an email blocker would have been a very helpful.
What happens if it is your boss who is not paying attention? Do you report him to HR?
What if an attendee is not actually goofing off, but being distracted by email from his boss or subordinates who are not actually in the meeting?
On the other hand, he might just be a mark. Let me see:
"Hey Auric, I heard a rumor that shares in SCO are going to go through the roof any day now. Do you want to buy some of mine?"
It probably goes like this. 1) School officer has no legal authority to "frisk" students without their conent. (If they try, they risk a law suit), 2) Student refuses to consent to frisking, and refuses to cooperate. 3) Police are called, at which point school has no more say in the matter 4) Police are pissed off at having been called, and decide to charge student with disorderly conduct and being a pain in the ass.
At step 2), we don't know why the school couldn't handle this internally. I'm sure that they would have if they could have. No school principal / board wants this kind of publicity if they can avoid it!
We don't know this, but I suspect that this girl has a long history of being disruptive and uncooperative at school. The school has probably tried all sorts of other things in the past, to no avail. The principal probably (very bravely IMO) figured that calling the police might actually get through this girl's thick skull that being a disruptive pain in the ass is a REALLY BAD IDEA. And it might get her parents' attention as well.
No, I'm saying conspicuous consumers should cut down a little.
Hey, you are starting to sound like a communist. The whole point of wealth is so that you can show it off. :-)
I was trying to be "inclusive" ... :-)
... it is a compact electric (gonad) cooker. :-)
They wouldn't have been paid "star" salaries for the original BBC TV shows, and the movies weren't very profitable for them personally. Certainly, it is clear from the linked article that they thought that they had been ripped off ... and that is a large part of why they released everything on YouTube.
The point that the article is making is precisely that while artists do not get a cent from YouTube directly, indirectly it is driving sales. It is also probably true that the artist are getting more of the money than they would if the companies promoted the DVDs in the traditional way.
OK.
The RIAA's legal theory is in the context of copyrights and illegal copying. It simply does not apply here. Microsoft own the copyright on their stuff, so they are free to make it available.
This is a problem that needs to fixed by changing the law.
The costs will then be passed on to the US consumer. The end result is a private taxation system where every consumer and every business effectively pays a "high tech" tax on every high tech device purchased and every service used. And the money just disappears into the pockets of the patent speculators ... with no net return to businesses, consumers, or even to the people who created the inventions in the first place.
Yes you can, but first you will need two SSNs ... :-)
And check out CAP, developed at Univ of Cambridge in the late 1970's.
In my generation, people used TeX and troff and thanked their lucky stars that they didn't have to type their PhD dissertations on a type-writer.
My honors project report was submitted in long-hand.
98.4% of plane crashes occur while the planes are flying.
Happy now?
But that makes the spokescritter's point re: finding pieces moot and the comment mostly FUD. Any pieces will be chunks of metal, possibly with sharp edges but most likely rounded by reentry heat.
What happens if it lands somewhere in the United States, and some "little johnie" picks it up and burns his fingers on a chunk of still hot metal. Think of the emotional trauma. Think of the billion dollar lawsuit :-).
LIUOW :-)
This situation is more akin to the way that an open source license grants permission to use copyrighted material subject to certain restrictions on your behaviour. If you don't meet the restrictions, your permission to use the material is cancelled.
He / his boss needs to talk to an IP lawyer!!!
Clearly, this is monumentally bad customer relations, and some people are going to say "they did it because they don't care". But there must be some business / technical explanation. Does anyone know what they are trying to achieve by reseting the profiles? Is this a necessary fallout from some change in their profile infrastructure? Or did they just plain screw up?
The kind that Google and Amazon are aiming to support :-)
I predict that the "no guarantees" commodity Cloud Computing service providers will get lots customers anyway; plenty to run a business on. The cost of supporting customers with strong guarantees of service is significant, and it will be passed on to the customers. Most customers will not be willing or able to pay for this.