Are you sure that DVDs don't carry a CC track? I think different DVD players show the subtitles differently. Don't think I've ever tried CC while watching a DVD though.
Now that I think about it the CC track is a separate, digital text encoding, hence why it looks different on different TVs. So if it doesn't already exist you could create a CC-to-braille reader.
Well, the libertarian answer is: If you don't like that a company isn't providing closed captions then you get your friends to boycott the company until they do. The company will then make the calculation of how much they would need to raise prices to afford paying for closed captioning and will see if customers will buy at that price. If customers won't buy at the necessary price and the boycott cuts enough that it's no longer profitable to provide the content then the company will give up.
So in order for the "good" thing to be done in that situation it requires that many people be "good" and stand up for those principles by voting with their wallets.
Well, the goal isn't to go there and die. The goal would be, I assume, to go there and set up a base of operations. Dogs and monkeys are not too skilled in that department.
the car was no more fire-prone than other cars of the time, that its fatality rates were lower than comparably sized imported automobiles
So, yeah, it's actually exactly like that -- one company using out-of-context numbers and scare tactics to besmirch another company with a competing product despite the allegations being rather overblown.
Damn. Even cheaper. Though once you're counting in Zimbabwean dollars I don't see how that even matters. (Apologies to those caught in that terrible situation.)
The tax is $99 per binary signed by MS, total. So if you distribute one copy, yes, it's a $99 tax. If you distribute 99 copies, it's a $1 tax. If you distribute 99 billion copies it's a 1 Zimbabwean dollar tax.
As much as I hate MS in all of this, the cost to sign a binary through MS is $99, always and for any binary. The ability to disable secure boot is in the spec. The reason that MS ensured that this ability exists in the spec is to prevent a cry of anti-trust -- they can always point at it and say, "We made sure there was a way for competing operating systems to get installed." Now, of course, they can run the FUD machine claiming that without secure boot enabled Ubhatse (sounds sexy) can be owned, but MS isn't trying to lock out competitors entirely, just to make the door jam a bit. This policy won't be reversed in the current spec of UEFI and if it is MS will undergo another anti-trust case.
Check out the OCZ RevoDrive OCZSSDPX-1RVD0110 and its brethren. From Newegg: Sandforce controller Read: Up to 530 MB/s Write: Up to 435 MB/s Random Write 4KB (Aligned): 70,000 IOPS Seek Time: 0.1 ms 8W active power use 110 GB, $140
Maybe they rise over time anyway due to inflation and not inflating student aid reduces the amount of rise? Maybe they rise more like healthcare? Maybe there are a combination of factors that describe tuition and one of those inputs is student aid?
Or are you saying that Bill O'Reilly is so stupid as to say that when the data doesn't fit the simplest possible model then whatever that model predicts must be wrong even of other, more complex models, can come to the same conclusion?
Right, but how to handle Apple the computer company versus Apple the record company in a fair way? (Not that today's method is very fair, of course, but for comparison sake.)
If you don't have the money to settle you can at least take a chance on not losing by finding a contingency basis lawyer. By awarding the defending lawyer fees from the plaintiff a poor defendant has a chance at finding a lawyer. If you lose anyway, well, the losing was going to bankrupt you either way. This is not worse than before.
Yes, my first scenario is no worse than the current system. Being the current system succeeds at being that.
Under the current system the plaintiff's lawyer already tries to make the case as expensive as possible for the defendant, the purpose being to make the defendant's lawyer advise the defendant to give up because he's not going to turn a profit on this case. If the defendant would get more money for continuing to fight he might as well continue the fight. This is no worse than the current system because lawyers already play the bankrupt-the-opponent game. This is better than the current system because a poor person has a chance at getting a good lawyer on contingency.
If both lawyers end up taking the case on contingency then that's best possible outcome for justice -- now neither side can win solely by paying for a more expensive lawyer. This evens up the playing field without denying people choice of lawyer. I guess the lawyers lose, but that's not a terrible outcome in my book.
The assumption I'm making, of the rich suing the poor, is the most damaging of situations and thus is the one I'm focusing on. If the poor person is in the wrong, well, he was fucked anyway, wasn't he?
If it's rich suing rich or poor suing poor, the system is fair anyway. If it's poor suing rich the winning lawyer being paid costs of the losing lawyer is helpful to the poor.
Finally, do you have a better idea than our current system which is, obviously, broken?
Plaintiff sues with a lawyer on contingency. Plaintiff loses. Lawyer on contingency gets paid nothing, defendant's lawyers get paid nothing from the plaintiff. That's no worse than the current system.
Plaintiff sues with a good lawyer on contingency against a high value target. Plaintiff wins and his contingency lawyer makes some money off the plaintiff's judgement and a ton based on the defendant's court costs. This encourages good lawyers to take on contingency cases that they think they will win to get the court costs from the defendant's side. This is a good thing and is better than the current system for plaintiffs.
Defendant is sued. Now he can hire a lawyer who will defend him on contingency based on the plaintiff's court costs. This means defendants are likely to get lawyers in the same tier as plaintiffs. Does the plaintiff have a $1M lawyer? The defendant might find a lawyer that would normally do $500k cases. This is better than the current system where most defendants can't actually afford representation.
Well, if you know you're going to lose anyway but want your day in court, yes. The flip side of this suggestion, however, should be that if the defendant wins then the plaintiff owes whatever his lawyer's costs were to the defendant's lawyer.
Big company sues little man with $1M dream team. Johnny Cochran jumps on the case on a only-pay-if-you-win basis for $5k to little man. Johnny Cochran wins. Big company owes Johnny $1M.
It would encourage good lawyers to defend good but poor people.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you sure that DVDs don't carry a CC track? I think different DVD players show the subtitles differently. Don't think I've ever tried CC while watching a DVD though.
Now that I think about it the CC track is a separate, digital text encoding, hence why it looks different on different TVs. So if it doesn't already exist you could create a CC-to-braille reader.
What about the deaf-blind though?
Well, the libertarian answer is: If you don't like that a company isn't providing closed captions then you get your friends to boycott the company until they do. The company will then make the calculation of how much they would need to raise prices to afford paying for closed captioning and will see if customers will buy at that price. If customers won't buy at the necessary price and the boycott cuts enough that it's no longer profitable to provide the content then the company will give up.
So in order for the "good" thing to be done in that situation it requires that many people be "good" and stand up for those principles by voting with their wallets.
Well, the goal isn't to go there and die. The goal would be, I assume, to go there and set up a base of operations. Dogs and monkeys are not too skilled in that department.
From Wikipedia:
the car was no more fire-prone than other cars of the time, that its fatality rates were lower than comparably sized imported automobiles
So, yeah, it's actually exactly like that -- one company using out-of-context numbers and scare tactics to besmirch another company with a competing product despite the allegations being rather overblown.
It's like saying, "Buy a cat! Cats are not vulnerable to fin rot!"
Damn. Even cheaper. Though once you're counting in Zimbabwean dollars I don't see how that even matters. (Apologies to those caught in that terrible situation.)
The tax is $99 per binary signed by MS, total. So if you distribute one copy, yes, it's a $99 tax. If you distribute 99 copies, it's a $1 tax. If you distribute 99 billion copies it's a 1 Zimbabwean dollar tax.
As much as I hate MS in all of this, the cost to sign a binary through MS is $99, always and for any binary. The ability to disable secure boot is in the spec. The reason that MS ensured that this ability exists in the spec is to prevent a cry of anti-trust -- they can always point at it and say, "We made sure there was a way for competing operating systems to get installed." Now, of course, they can run the FUD machine claiming that without secure boot enabled Ubhatse (sounds sexy) can be owned, but MS isn't trying to lock out competitors entirely, just to make the door jam a bit. This policy won't be reversed in the current spec of UEFI and if it is MS will undergo another anti-trust case.
Check out the OCZ RevoDrive OCZSSDPX-1RVD0110 and its brethren.
From Newegg:
Sandforce controller
Read: Up to 530 MB/s
Write: Up to 435 MB/s
Random Write 4KB (Aligned): 70,000 IOPS
Seek Time: 0.1 ms
8W active power use
110 GB, $140
Ah, didn't realize it was a meme. Disregard my statement!
Maybe they rise over time anyway due to inflation and not inflating student aid reduces the amount of rise? Maybe they rise more like healthcare? Maybe there are a combination of factors that describe tuition and one of those inputs is student aid?
Or are you saying that Bill O'Reilly is so stupid as to say that when the data doesn't fit the simplest possible model then whatever that model predicts must be wrong even of other, more complex models, can come to the same conclusion?
Wyden often distinguishes himself as a human being first and a politician second.
Right, but how to handle Apple the computer company versus Apple the record company in a fair way? (Not that today's method is very fair, of course, but for comparison sake.)
You should use this drone.
I dunno. I think Candice Schwager is still ahead.
No, really? It's just an art student's project? You don't say.jpg
If you don't have the money to settle you can at least take a chance on not losing by finding a contingency basis lawyer. By awarding the defending lawyer fees from the plaintiff a poor defendant has a chance at finding a lawyer. If you lose anyway, well, the losing was going to bankrupt you either way. This is not worse than before.
Yes, my first scenario is no worse than the current system. Being the current system succeeds at being that.
Under the current system the plaintiff's lawyer already tries to make the case as expensive as possible for the defendant, the purpose being to make the defendant's lawyer advise the defendant to give up because he's not going to turn a profit on this case. If the defendant would get more money for continuing to fight he might as well continue the fight. This is no worse than the current system because lawyers already play the bankrupt-the-opponent game. This is better than the current system because a poor person has a chance at getting a good lawyer on contingency.
If both lawyers end up taking the case on contingency then that's best possible outcome for justice -- now neither side can win solely by paying for a more expensive lawyer. This evens up the playing field without denying people choice of lawyer. I guess the lawyers lose, but that's not a terrible outcome in my book.
The assumption I'm making, of the rich suing the poor, is the most damaging of situations and thus is the one I'm focusing on. If the poor person is in the wrong, well, he was fucked anyway, wasn't he?
If it's rich suing rich or poor suing poor, the system is fair anyway. If it's poor suing rich the winning lawyer being paid costs of the losing lawyer is helpful to the poor.
Finally, do you have a better idea than our current system which is, obviously, broken?
How do you settle for $20k if you have no money?
Plaintiff sues with a lawyer on contingency. Plaintiff loses. Lawyer on contingency gets paid nothing, defendant's lawyers get paid nothing from the plaintiff. That's no worse than the current system.
Plaintiff sues with a good lawyer on contingency against a high value target. Plaintiff wins and his contingency lawyer makes some money off the plaintiff's judgement and a ton based on the defendant's court costs. This encourages good lawyers to take on contingency cases that they think they will win to get the court costs from the defendant's side. This is a good thing and is better than the current system for plaintiffs.
Defendant is sued. Now he can hire a lawyer who will defend him on contingency based on the plaintiff's court costs. This means defendants are likely to get lawyers in the same tier as plaintiffs. Does the plaintiff have a $1M lawyer? The defendant might find a lawyer that would normally do $500k cases. This is better than the current system where most defendants can't actually afford representation.
Laptop sales declined by the amount that netbook sales increased. Laptops are more profitable than netbooks. At least, that's my assumption.
Well, if you know you're going to lose anyway but want your day in court, yes. The flip side of this suggestion, however, should be that if the defendant wins then the plaintiff owes whatever his lawyer's costs were to the defendant's lawyer.
Big company sues little man with $1M dream team. Johnny Cochran jumps on the case on a only-pay-if-you-win basis for $5k to little man. Johnny Cochran wins. Big company owes Johnny $1M.
It would encourage good lawyers to defend good but poor people.
Methods are, models are not. You could only patent the infrastructure and search techniques you use to find your targets, I believe.
And if you want to sue the government they can just decide not to take the case. Which is easier?
Start at Luke 3:11. Find cross-references as necessary. Educate yourself.