Because corporations don't get wages or salary. Their income is derived from cash outlays, which is much more analogous to capital gains at the individual level, for which we DO tax the net income.
Maybe to the average nerd on/., but not to anyone who understands Maemo at all.
Maemo was Debian-based in the same way that Microsoft is standards-based: buried at some pointless level and entirely irrelevant to users and developers alike. The API and SDK are of far greater consequence.
You've got the details right, but don't think it doesn't affect the US. The legislative battle over compulsory licensing can always be reopened and I'm sure Warner is posturing themselves to be ready just in case.
The thing that always gets misunderstood about compulsory licensing is it was meant to be a boon to consumers. It's an *exception* to copyright, compulsory on the part of the rightsholder. You can play by copyright, get permission, pay the rightsholder directly, *or* you can go through SoundExchange. Since it's insanely burdensome to get permission for everything you want (which might not always be granted or at prohibitive prices) you have some extra flexibility. This is EXACTLY why Warner et al want these prices higher. They want everyone to have to go through the RIAA for their music, a process in which neither indie producers nor broadcasters get a seat at the table.
I like this line..."Bronfman contended that this revenue comes nowhere near what they need in compensation for each individual's enjoyment of each work" - it's a complete summary of the way the labels are thinking. Each time you do something - anything - that resembles enjoyment, their feeling is that somebody - somewhere - should be getting money from you.
It's a very economist way of thinking, and not necessarily wrong. You maximize overall surplus when price is commensurate with value. Consider a world where producers had an incentive to make products we would actually enjoy and use, rather than just flashy enough to make an initial sale.
The big roadblock though is that such a model doesn't work in the real world. It necessitates DRM, which is a dealbreaker for me and I imagine most of us.
The Director of NIST is a Senate-confirmed position. He's responsible to the Secretary of Commerce, and then the President, who is in turn responsible to the electorate (America is not a direct democracy, remember).
A lot of business is done at the Cabinet level and below, even internationally (we have the State Department, remember, and the Office of the US Trade Representative). Treaties that require more than existing Executive power still have to be implemented with legislation.
I would agree almost in entirety, but how does instant messaging work in such an environment? Can I get notified of an incoming GTalk message while browsing the web? What about new emails? Surely you need background processes to provide those.
Because the likeness of the stadiums are trademarked and in fact actively used in the trade of tickets and merchandise? And your house isn't? Sounds like the system working to protect things that make sense.
And where is it written that only web browsers can use HTTP? SOAP is based on HTTP.
That's not what I said:
This works in practice by looking for a cookie set by a previous login session, or in the absence of that presenting the user with an HTML login form. That's difficult (but not impossible) to do if the user-agent isn't a browser.
OpenID assumes the user is available to communicate with the OpenID provider via a web-browser. That's the problem.
No, I think only web browsers can use *OpenID*. The verification works via an HTTP redirect which sends the user's user-agent to their OpenID provider so the provider can verify that the session is originating from the user. This works in practice by looking for a cookie set by a previous login session, or in the absence of that presenting the user with an HTML login form. That's difficult (but not impossible) to do if the user-agent isn't a browser.
No, an executive agreement doesn't make law. It declares how the President will direct his own branch to act, i.e. how he'll wield his pre-existing power. If he needs new authority to act or prohibit others' acts, the treaty will have to go to Congress to be "implemented".
The claim in the patent makes it clear there's a "base layer" and an "enhancement layer". The high quality version would need both, the low quality would only download the bits they need, and only have decryption rights to those.
If you read between the lines, what they're talking about is like a regular DRMed P2P distribution channel (BBC iplayer), but targetable to portable devices (i.e. the Zune) also.
It's clever, and useful if you're Microsoft, or maybe Apple, and have control over an ecosystem of products (Xbox/WMP/Zune or iTunes/iPhone/iPod).
Those posts are *certainly* (-1, Offtopic), given that the copyright status is irrelevant to determining a trademark dispute. Even if others should be able to sell Dick's works, that doesn't mean the original rightsholder would stop, and therefore a potential trademark dispute would be just as relevant (the merits of such a dispute aside).
Taking it a step further, since those posts aren't on topic in the first place, trying to bring them up in a forum where you know many people already have a strong interest and emotional association with the current state of copyright, such a comment elicits attention, distracting from the original discussion. That's trolling, although almost certainly unintentional.
The article you linked to says no. The health risks are no greater than carrying a cell phone or spending 2 minutes in an airplane at cruising altitude (depending on the type).
I don't know... I'm in pretty strong love with my 360. It gets online "right", not like you have an option at the bottom of a menu in 3 or 4 games, but rather that it's a natural and seamless part of the console itself, to the point where it feels like half a xbox when my ethernet cable's not plugged in.
But why not the DS? It was around for more of the decade, and it also stroked my amazement at how simple and polished social gaming can be, with single-cart download play. And I would wager the DS is in a lot more households.
Neither of you cited your claims, but I'm fairly sure it's actually the GP who has it right. Dodge v. Ford established that even a majority shareholder has some basic responsibility to the minority holders, which would preclude actions that would harm the shareholders for no clear benefit to the company. This is sometimes raised out of context on Slashdot to falsely claim that a business must by law maximize profit, but the basic principle is of a similar vein: you can't just water down the value of your shareholder's shares for nothing (as in the Ford case).
that's where the theory of capitalism fail, if every laptop owner know that it has been ripped of money for nothing in return
than, maybe, market would work (and low the price)
I'm sorry, but that has very little to do with "making the market work". To the buyers, X-many would buy at each potential price point. To the sellers, Y-many would sell a product at each potential price point. The maximum aggregate net value for BOTH sides is where X=Y. That's supply and demand. Notice that neither side cares about what you're going to do with the product, what profit you're going to make, what the product is worth internally to each individual buyer. Those are black boxes, they go into the formation of the supply and demand curves, but the only output that matters is still the curves.
What may be true in what you're saying is that some people irrationally assign some value to preventing the seller from achieving a particular profit margin (the logic is they think, "I could be getting this for cheaper! Maybe if I don't buy it, I will"), but it doesn't change what the market, in aggregate, would internally value the product at. By declining a transaction that would have been at a price point lower than their value of it, the buyer is depriving himself of a net gain. It's emotional and irrational.
Because very few people who buy the product actually pay that price (your carrier doesn't pay retail for your phone), market forces won't drive it down. It's the same reason hotels in fancy casinos charge 4x the usual rate. Book with a travel agent, or a tour group, or through your loyalty card, and you get a much more sane rate. The dummy rate is just there to fleece the few people who will actually pay it.
What's "wrong" supposed to mean? We also know that neither GR nor QM can simultaneous be correct explanations of the Universe, because of their mutual incompatibility, but that doesn't make them "wrong".
The Universe has some rules it plays by. We still don't know what they are, we may not ever. The best we ever do is to model those rules. Each model is "correct" within a particular range of validity. GR is correct at large length scales. QM is correct at small. Newton is correct at gamma approximately equal to 1. And so on...
Perhaps it may surprise you to know that reputable scientists also use Special Relativity *a lot*, despite being replaced by GR, or that we use different models (point, parton, and valence quark) of the proton depending on what regime we're in.
Well, ratification would count, except that in the U.S., ACTA is being negotiated as an executive agreement, and thus doesn't require ratification by Congress.
There are 3 types of treaties, "Treaties" proper, as defined under the Constitution requiring 2/3 Senate approval, congressional-executive agreements, which are negotiated by the Executive (President), and implemented by Congress by simple majority in both houses as if they were ordinary laws, and sole-executive agreements, which are negotiated and implemented by the Executive branch limited to the manners in which they have authority to do so (instructing the FBI not to enforce certain laws, for example).
According to Wikipedia, the latter two types are often prefered because they lack the permanence of Constitutional treaties:
It is desirable, in many instances, to exchange mutual advantages by Legislative Acts rather than by treaty: because the former, though understood to be in consideration of each other, and therefore greatly respected, yet when they become too inconvenient, can be dropped at the will of either party: whereas stipulations by treaty are forever irrevocable but by joint consent... --Thomas Jefferson
Slashdot Mirror
Because corporations don't get wages or salary. Their income is derived from cash outlays, which is much more analogous to capital gains at the individual level, for which we DO tax the net income.
Maybe to the average nerd on /., but not to anyone who understands Maemo at all.
Maemo was Debian-based in the same way that Microsoft is standards-based: buried at some pointless level and entirely irrelevant to users and developers alike. The API and SDK are of far greater consequence.
You've got the details right, but don't think it doesn't affect the US. The legislative battle over compulsory licensing can always be reopened and I'm sure Warner is posturing themselves to be ready just in case.
The thing that always gets misunderstood about compulsory licensing is it was meant to be a boon to consumers. It's an *exception* to copyright, compulsory on the part of the rightsholder. You can play by copyright, get permission, pay the rightsholder directly, *or* you can go through SoundExchange. Since it's insanely burdensome to get permission for everything you want (which might not always be granted or at prohibitive prices) you have some extra flexibility. This is EXACTLY why Warner et al want these prices higher. They want everyone to have to go through the RIAA for their music, a process in which neither indie producers nor broadcasters get a seat at the table.
I like this line..."Bronfman contended that this revenue comes nowhere near what they need in compensation for each individual's enjoyment of each work" - it's a complete summary of the way the labels are thinking. Each time you do something - anything - that resembles enjoyment, their feeling is that somebody - somewhere - should be getting money from you.
It's a very economist way of thinking, and not necessarily wrong. You maximize overall surplus when price is commensurate with value. Consider a world where producers had an incentive to make products we would actually enjoy and use, rather than just flashy enough to make an initial sale.
The big roadblock though is that such a model doesn't work in the real world. It necessitates DRM, which is a dealbreaker for me and I imagine most of us.
The judge offered the option of a new trial to the plaintiffs when he set aside the jury's verdict. There may be a 7th amendment issue involved.
The Director of NIST is a Senate-confirmed position. He's responsible to the Secretary of Commerce, and then the President, who is in turn responsible to the electorate (America is not a direct democracy, remember).
A lot of business is done at the Cabinet level and below, even internationally (we have the State Department, remember, and the Office of the US Trade Representative). Treaties that require more than existing Executive power still have to be implemented with legislation.
I think he meant that of the population in aggregate, your behavior is an outlier and has no real effect on their business model.
I would agree almost in entirety, but how does instant messaging work in such an environment? Can I get notified of an incoming GTalk message while browsing the web? What about new emails? Surely you need background processes to provide those.
There must be something wrong with me, because that was the first motivation for manned spaceflight to strike me as reasonable.
Only if I can be the first to register "one.up" =)
Or "look.up", which I would promptly sell to Google for a boatload of cash.
(Or "movin.on.up"?)
It'd be far worse if the DOJ started picking and choosing which laws they wanted to enforce/defend.
Medical marijuana?
Because the likeness of the stadiums are trademarked and in fact actively used in the trade of tickets and merchandise? And your house isn't? Sounds like the system working to protect things that make sense.
And where is it written that only web browsers can use HTTP? SOAP is based on HTTP.
That's not what I said:
This works in practice by looking for a cookie set by a previous login session, or in the absence of that presenting the user with an HTML login form. That's difficult (but not impossible) to do if the user-agent isn't a browser.
OpenID assumes the user is available to communicate with the OpenID provider via a web-browser. That's the problem.
No, I think only web browsers can use *OpenID*. The verification works via an HTTP redirect which sends the user's user-agent to their OpenID provider so the provider can verify that the session is originating from the user. This works in practice by looking for a cookie set by a previous login session, or in the absence of that presenting the user with an HTML login form. That's difficult (but not impossible) to do if the user-agent isn't a browser.
OpenID is web-based. That may work for WoW, but it's a non-starter for a long-term SSO solution.
How about Kerberos or something based on it? Is there a real need to reinvent the wheel?
No, an executive agreement doesn't make law. It declares how the President will direct his own branch to act, i.e. how he'll wield his pre-existing power. If he needs new authority to act or prohibit others' acts, the treaty will have to go to Congress to be "implemented".
The claim in the patent makes it clear there's a "base layer" and an "enhancement layer". The high quality version would need both, the low quality would only download the bits they need, and only have decryption rights to those.
If you read between the lines, what they're talking about is like a regular DRMed P2P distribution channel (BBC iplayer), but targetable to portable devices (i.e. the Zune) also.
It's clever, and useful if you're Microsoft, or maybe Apple, and have control over an ecosystem of products (Xbox/WMP/Zune or iTunes/iPhone/iPod).
Those posts are *certainly* (-1, Offtopic), given that the copyright status is irrelevant to determining a trademark dispute. Even if others should be able to sell Dick's works, that doesn't mean the original rightsholder would stop, and therefore a potential trademark dispute would be just as relevant (the merits of such a dispute aside).
Taking it a step further, since those posts aren't on topic in the first place, trying to bring them up in a forum where you know many people already have a strong interest and emotional association with the current state of copyright, such a comment elicits attention, distracting from the original discussion. That's trolling, although almost certainly unintentional.
The article you linked to says no. The health risks are no greater than carrying a cell phone or spending 2 minutes in an airplane at cruising altitude (depending on the type).
I don't know... I'm in pretty strong love with my 360. It gets online "right", not like you have an option at the bottom of a menu in 3 or 4 games, but rather that it's a natural and seamless part of the console itself, to the point where it feels like half a xbox when my ethernet cable's not plugged in.
But why not the DS? It was around for more of the decade, and it also stroked my amazement at how simple and polished social gaming can be, with single-cart download play. And I would wager the DS is in a lot more households.
Neither of you cited your claims, but I'm fairly sure it's actually the GP who has it right. Dodge v. Ford established that even a majority shareholder has some basic responsibility to the minority holders, which would preclude actions that would harm the shareholders for no clear benefit to the company. This is sometimes raised out of context on Slashdot to falsely claim that a business must by law maximize profit, but the basic principle is of a similar vein: you can't just water down the value of your shareholder's shares for nothing (as in the Ford case).
that's where the theory of capitalism fail, if every laptop owner know that it has been ripped of money for nothing in return than, maybe, market would work (and low the price)
I'm sorry, but that has very little to do with "making the market work". To the buyers, X-many would buy at each potential price point. To the sellers, Y-many would sell a product at each potential price point. The maximum aggregate net value for BOTH sides is where X=Y. That's supply and demand. Notice that neither side cares about what you're going to do with the product, what profit you're going to make, what the product is worth internally to each individual buyer. Those are black boxes, they go into the formation of the supply and demand curves, but the only output that matters is still the curves.
What may be true in what you're saying is that some people irrationally assign some value to preventing the seller from achieving a particular profit margin (the logic is they think, "I could be getting this for cheaper! Maybe if I don't buy it, I will"), but it doesn't change what the market, in aggregate, would internally value the product at. By declining a transaction that would have been at a price point lower than their value of it, the buyer is depriving himself of a net gain. It's emotional and irrational.
I don't know why these phones are so expensive.
Because very few people who buy the product actually pay that price (your carrier doesn't pay retail for your phone), market forces won't drive it down. It's the same reason hotels in fancy casinos charge 4x the usual rate. Book with a travel agent, or a tour group, or through your loyalty card, and you get a much more sane rate. The dummy rate is just there to fleece the few people who will actually pay it.
What's "wrong" supposed to mean? We also know that neither GR nor QM can simultaneous be correct explanations of the Universe, because of their mutual incompatibility, but that doesn't make them "wrong".
The Universe has some rules it plays by. We still don't know what they are, we may not ever. The best we ever do is to model those rules. Each model is "correct" within a particular range of validity. GR is correct at large length scales. QM is correct at small. Newton is correct at gamma approximately equal to 1. And so on...
Perhaps it may surprise you to know that reputable scientists also use Special Relativity *a lot*, despite being replaced by GR, or that we use different models (point, parton, and valence quark) of the proton depending on what regime we're in.
Well, ratification would count, except that in the U.S., ACTA is being negotiated as an executive agreement, and thus doesn't require ratification by Congress.
There are 3 types of treaties, "Treaties" proper, as defined under the Constitution requiring 2/3 Senate approval, congressional-executive agreements, which are negotiated by the Executive (President), and implemented by Congress by simple majority in both houses as if they were ordinary laws, and sole-executive agreements, which are negotiated and implemented by the Executive branch limited to the manners in which they have authority to do so (instructing the FBI not to enforce certain laws, for example). According to Wikipedia, the latter two types are often prefered because they lack the permanence of Constitutional treaties:
It is desirable, in many instances, to exchange mutual advantages by Legislative Acts rather than by treaty: because the former, though understood to be in consideration of each other, and therefore greatly respected, yet when they become too inconvenient, can be dropped at the will of either party: whereas stipulations by treaty are forever irrevocable but by joint consent...
--Thomas Jefferson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause