It's not so much that defending them is hard, but rather, that it's not a worthwhile effort unless you are fighting on principal. Veoh defended their rights and won the case, and look where it got them. I'm sorry that you are a fucking moron who doesn't understand math, but the way the system is set up means that on the rightsholders side, you have to be engaging in constant, blatant abuse without a shred of credibility before you even start to face penalties, while defending yourself even when you are clearly in the right has the potential to bankrupt most individuals and small businesse.
Yes, you can fight for a pyhrric victory at best, but that is obiously something that is not desirable to anyone not fighting solely out of principle. Abuse is rampant, and the recourse is minimal even if the rightsholder is fully liable. However, because many companie don't want to be spammed with DMCA takedown notices all day, they set up things like ContentID. If my video is incorrectly taken down due to contentID falsely identifying content or not conidering fair use, I can't sue the rightsholder and I can't sue Google because they have an agreement outside of the DMCA. So, in regard to youtube, not only is the legal recourse toothless to begin with, but it is even further neutered by an agreement Google has made to avoid being bothered by rightsholders so much.
They technically have recourse, but it is in many cases not useful. They have recourse in the same way that we can cure any disease with a high dose of arsenic.
Such actions make them subject to a court case, which can be costly even in you win (which is exctly what this article is about). Furthermore, the reinstating won't usually happen for ten days. For a lot of content, particularly news, being gone that long is a significant disadvantage.
There is sometimes a reasonable risk in reporting something, especially if you are someone the cop is going to suspect and you engage in behavior a cop doesn't find kosher, such as being out late. Little old ladies are not typically profiled, but if you are the type to be profiled, it's worth consideration, especially if it's a crime with no reasonable chance of being solved.
No, their job is to respect my constitional rights limiting their powers and not to look for any excuse to curtail them. I was pulled over driving back home late at night, and the cop insisted that he smelled weed (solely because me and my passenger looked like we were stoners at the time). He kept insisting that I had weed or had at least been around someone that smoked weed. I hadn't, and because I was too tired to bother standing up for my rights and that his smelling of imaginary substances meant that he had probable cause anyway,, I consented to a search. He found nothing, and weed had never been smoked in that car. He also made me take a breathalyzer test, which I passed.
Yes, cops sometimes need to be intimidating, but it's pretty much limited to stopping an imminent violent threat or some other similar need.
The police probably are fairly polite when you are performing an act of submission. You are already giving them the power that they seek. Where their mettle is tested is how they deal with a situation where they are challenged on legitimate means, such as not consenting to a search. At such a point, intimidation is the norm.
The average cop isn't going to report the little old lady who reports the mugger, but they also in all likelihood aren't going to do dick about it either besides file a bit of paperwork. If it's not a major crime or a large string of clearly related minor crimes and the cops don't catch them in the act, it's not worth their time. There's more money to made in civil forfeiture from drug cases and traffic violations.
There are a couple of problems. One is that using a different file system is quite inconvenient, since it requires installation of additional software. It also probably wouldn't solve the problem, since MS has a ton of bullshit patents. The real solution is to drop the Antitrust hammer down, probably in Europe.
I think you vastly understimate the degree of cynicism of younger people today. Children are quite perceptive, and notice that everyone gets a ribbon, gold star, trophy or whatnot, thus making it not in any way special. I played baseball in elementary school. I knew the piece of shit trophy I got was only indicative of showing up, and I know that the bigger trophies were signs of an actual accomplishment. I knew that slapping hands and saying 'good game' to the other team was completely insincere for everyone involved, and I knew who on the team had talent and who didn't. In high school, I was in marching band, and I knew that the 'spirit award' that was selected by the band boosters of the hosting school was more or less a pity award so the shitty band wouldn't leave empty handed, and I felt ashamed the time my band won it, as did most everyone else. It was a bit of a rallying point to get our shit together and win real trophies in later competitions.
As far as hardships go, you are correct that those that had a lot of their formative years in the 90s had an okay deal economically, although we're facing a great deal of that now. I'd also say that we have the least trust in our government, see cops as 'the bad guys' most, have the least faith in our government, and are pretty sure that Social Security will be bankrupt by the time we need it, so it's not going to be reciprocated. There's also the mountain of debt we'll be facing because of bailouts for those older folks who thought they all deserved a mansion, and that when they fell down, that someone should kiss their boo-boo and put a billion dollar band-aid on it. It's the geezers who genuinely think they're all special, and the reason people my age have heard it so much is because THEY were projecting what they wanted to believe about themselves onto us. However, we didn't believe it at all unless we were younger than five or Mr. Rogers was telling us. It's physically impossible to be cynical when you see him.
They don't seem to be doing a very in depth analysis, and are painting with very broad strokes. That means there are a number of people whose situations are not properly considered, the same error you seem to be making. That seems a bit out of character for them, given that their whole schtick is approaching economic questions in unconventional ways.
There's also the fact that unemployment numbers are incredibly misleading. Unemployment numbers are almost universally the number of people collecting unemployment benefits. However, that means that you fit a number of conditions. You have to have been employed in a manner that lets you collect unemployment. College students are more likely to not have jobs or have seasonal jobs that won't allow them to be eligible for unemployment. It also seems to ignore that a good way to have a job is to already have a job. Recent college grads are the ones that are being screwed the most here, and they would be underrepresented in unemployment figures. There would also be the issue of conflating them with college graduates who have been employed for a good long while, and thus aren't in the same equation here. A good analysis would include age and education status.
Finally, there's the macro level to consider. Even if for virtually all individuals, a college degree is a good investment, it's bad for society for everyone to go to college because we end up with degree inflation. The field of the degree and courses are irrelevant to most people who have them, so the effective result is that we aren't benefitting people who go to college, we are just screwing people who don't. A reduction in the demand for college would also be a benefit to students. Wasteful spending would be cut and tuition would drop. Universities would have to come up with ways to cut costs, and greater efficiency would arise from things like open licensed textbooks. This would benefit not only students at the colleges involved, but also students abroad and self-studiers.
The result is also likely including eating and having a place to live, which is hard to pass up on. If they make just enough to pay their debts and the cost of living, they won't have any money saved up. By contrast, someone making the same pay without debt would be able to save money and have a safety net that would allow them to more easily spend more time looking for a job, relocate, etc.
I'm not suggesting more education, I'm suggesting what will likely be less education, but more learning. Our education system is overall horrible for fostering learning. I was born with a love of learning, and the education system has been a net detriment to that, and that desire has pretty much only been revived due to the internet. The same is true of my peers, and I made some younger relatives more intellectually stimulated in a half hour of random rambling over the holidays than the school system had done in the entire academic year. There were a few teachers that were pretty good about it, and a few more professors in college, but even then, they were few and far between.
Most people who fought in WWII were useless little shits. Badass heroes were outliers. Now, you may be correct in stating that the parents of the soliders thought their children were badass heroes, but that's just more due to brainwasing patriotism than an actual change in a perception that is likely older than recorded history.
Now this is just a crazy idea, but perhaps an Ivy League education affords greater opportunities than other degrees, and thus be a drastically different investment than other universities.
Or to have 25K of expenses a year for a four year degree, which isn't unreasonable.
As for loans, if you are making 20K a year, which would be $10/hr (like the article notes) for a full time job with two weeks unpaid vacation, and the cost of living for you is 15K a year, that gives you 5K a year to put towards your loans. Let's assume that by some tecnicality, you manage to avoid paying interest on those loans. It will still take you 20 years to pay off that debt.
The greatest value is probably something sanitation related, followed by electricity, the internet, and a great deal of other things. And a great number of college graduates I know are working the same jobs or very similar ones to the ones they worked while still in college.
That you would make such a ridiculous blanket statement seems to suggest that it hasn't done much for your critical thinking. College may have been a great value for you. However, you might have went to college in a significantly different job market, had a different degree than most other graduates, and/or you might have been lucky. To assume that becuse it was a great value for you, than it is a great value for others regardless of other factors suggests that you lack a firm grasp of statistics.
If you go back 40-50 years, you will find people your age that think people around 20 are "completely narcissistic, entitled, helpless, infantilized little shits who don't take responsibility for anything, and who believe they can maintain a state of perpetual childhood even as they raise their own children." However, when they were 20, people your thought THEY were "completely narcissistic, entitled, helpless, infantilized little shits who don't take responsibility for anything, and who believe they can maintain a state of perpetual childhood even as they raise their own children."
They were probably right. Sturgeon's law applies to people as well. 90% of people have been shit for the entirety of humanity.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it's google+ ungoogle
It's not so much that defending them is hard, but rather, that it's not a worthwhile effort unless you are fighting on principal. Veoh defended their rights and won the case, and look where it got them. I'm sorry that you are a fucking moron who doesn't understand math, but the way the system is set up means that on the rightsholders side, you have to be engaging in constant, blatant abuse without a shred of credibility before you even start to face penalties, while defending yourself even when you are clearly in the right has the potential to bankrupt most individuals and small businesse.
Yes, you can fight for a pyhrric victory at best, but that is obiously something that is not desirable to anyone not fighting solely out of principle. Abuse is rampant, and the recourse is minimal even if the rightsholder is fully liable. However, because many companie don't want to be spammed with DMCA takedown notices all day, they set up things like ContentID. If my video is incorrectly taken down due to contentID falsely identifying content or not conidering fair use, I can't sue the rightsholder and I can't sue Google because they have an agreement outside of the DMCA. So, in regard to youtube, not only is the legal recourse toothless to begin with, but it is even further neutered by an agreement Google has made to avoid being bothered by rightsholders so much.
They technically have recourse, but it is in many cases not useful. They have recourse in the same way that we can cure any disease with a high dose of arsenic.
Such actions make them subject to a court case, which can be costly even in you win (which is exctly what this article is about). Furthermore, the reinstating won't usually happen for ten days. For a lot of content, particularly news, being gone that long is a significant disadvantage.
It's not unintended consequences if the consequences are intended. In this case, they certainly were.
It appears to be still valid in federal law, though.
There is sometimes a reasonable risk in reporting something, especially if you are someone the cop is going to suspect and you engage in behavior a cop doesn't find kosher, such as being out late. Little old ladies are not typically profiled, but if you are the type to be profiled, it's worth consideration, especially if it's a crime with no reasonable chance of being solved.
No, their job is to respect my constitional rights limiting their powers and not to look for any excuse to curtail them. I was pulled over driving back home late at night, and the cop insisted that he smelled weed (solely because me and my passenger looked like we were stoners at the time). He kept insisting that I had weed or had at least been around someone that smoked weed. I hadn't, and because I was too tired to bother standing up for my rights and that his smelling of imaginary substances meant that he had probable cause anyway,, I consented to a search. He found nothing, and weed had never been smoked in that car. He also made me take a breathalyzer test, which I passed.
Yes, cops sometimes need to be intimidating, but it's pretty much limited to stopping an imminent violent threat or some other similar need.
The police probably are fairly polite when you are performing an act of submission. You are already giving them the power that they seek. Where their mettle is tested is how they deal with a situation where they are challenged on legitimate means, such as not consenting to a search. At such a point, intimidation is the norm.
The average cop isn't going to report the little old lady who reports the mugger, but they also in all likelihood aren't going to do dick about it either besides file a bit of paperwork. If it's not a major crime or a large string of clearly related minor crimes and the cops don't catch them in the act, it's not worth their time. There's more money to made in civil forfeiture from drug cases and traffic violations.
Because Windows doesn't support anything else besides FAT and NTFS out of the box.
There are a couple of problems. One is that using a different file system is quite inconvenient, since it requires installation of additional software. It also probably wouldn't solve the problem, since MS has a ton of bullshit patents. The real solution is to drop the Antitrust hammer down, probably in Europe.
I think you vastly understimate the degree of cynicism of younger people today. Children are quite perceptive, and notice that everyone gets a ribbon, gold star, trophy or whatnot, thus making it not in any way special. I played baseball in elementary school. I knew the piece of shit trophy I got was only indicative of showing up, and I know that the bigger trophies were signs of an actual accomplishment. I knew that slapping hands and saying 'good game' to the other team was completely insincere for everyone involved, and I knew who on the team had talent and who didn't. In high school, I was in marching band, and I knew that the 'spirit award' that was selected by the band boosters of the hosting school was more or less a pity award so the shitty band wouldn't leave empty handed, and I felt ashamed the time my band won it, as did most everyone else. It was a bit of a rallying point to get our shit together and win real trophies in later competitions.
As far as hardships go, you are correct that those that had a lot of their formative years in the 90s had an okay deal economically, although we're facing a great deal of that now. I'd also say that we have the least trust in our government, see cops as 'the bad guys' most, have the least faith in our government, and are pretty sure that Social Security will be bankrupt by the time we need it, so it's not going to be reciprocated. There's also the mountain of debt we'll be facing because of bailouts for those older folks who thought they all deserved a mansion, and that when they fell down, that someone should kiss their boo-boo and put a billion dollar band-aid on it. It's the geezers who genuinely think they're all special, and the reason people my age have heard it so much is because THEY were projecting what they wanted to believe about themselves onto us. However, we didn't believe it at all unless we were younger than five or Mr. Rogers was telling us. It's physically impossible to be cynical when you see him.
only because we have better documentation.
They don't seem to be doing a very in depth analysis, and are painting with very broad strokes. That means there are a number of people whose situations are not properly considered, the same error you seem to be making. That seems a bit out of character for them, given that their whole schtick is approaching economic questions in unconventional ways.
There's also the fact that unemployment numbers are incredibly misleading. Unemployment numbers are almost universally the number of people collecting unemployment benefits. However, that means that you fit a number of conditions. You have to have been employed in a manner that lets you collect unemployment. College students are more likely to not have jobs or have seasonal jobs that won't allow them to be eligible for unemployment. It also seems to ignore that a good way to have a job is to already have a job. Recent college grads are the ones that are being screwed the most here, and they would be underrepresented in unemployment figures. There would also be the issue of conflating them with college graduates who have been employed for a good long while, and thus aren't in the same equation here. A good analysis would include age and education status.
Finally, there's the macro level to consider. Even if for virtually all individuals, a college degree is a good investment, it's bad for society for everyone to go to college because we end up with degree inflation. The field of the degree and courses are irrelevant to most people who have them, so the effective result is that we aren't benefitting people who go to college, we are just screwing people who don't. A reduction in the demand for college would also be a benefit to students. Wasteful spending would be cut and tuition would drop. Universities would have to come up with ways to cut costs, and greater efficiency would arise from things like open licensed textbooks. This would benefit not only students at the colleges involved, but also students abroad and self-studiers.
The result is also likely including eating and having a place to live, which is hard to pass up on. If they make just enough to pay their debts and the cost of living, they won't have any money saved up. By contrast, someone making the same pay without debt would be able to save money and have a safety net that would allow them to more easily spend more time looking for a job, relocate, etc.
I'm not suggesting more education, I'm suggesting what will likely be less education, but more learning. Our education system is overall horrible for fostering learning. I was born with a love of learning, and the education system has been a net detriment to that, and that desire has pretty much only been revived due to the internet. The same is true of my peers, and I made some younger relatives more intellectually stimulated in a half hour of random rambling over the holidays than the school system had done in the entire academic year. There were a few teachers that were pretty good about it, and a few more professors in college, but even then, they were few and far between.
Yes, it's a trend. Everyone has thought the newest generation sucks and that the world is going to hell. Obligatory SMBC
Most people who fought in WWII were useless little shits. Badass heroes were outliers. Now, you may be correct in stating that the parents of the soliders thought their children were badass heroes, but that's just more due to brainwasing patriotism than an actual change in a perception that is likely older than recorded history.
Now this is just a crazy idea, but perhaps an Ivy League education affords greater opportunities than other degrees, and thus be a drastically different investment than other universities.
Or to have 25K of expenses a year for a four year degree, which isn't unreasonable.
As for loans, if you are making 20K a year, which would be $10/hr (like the article notes) for a full time job with two weeks unpaid vacation, and the cost of living for you is 15K a year, that gives you 5K a year to put towards your loans. Let's assume that by some tecnicality, you manage to avoid paying interest on those loans. It will still take you 20 years to pay off that debt.
The greatest value is probably something sanitation related, followed by electricity, the internet, and a great deal of other things. And a great number of college graduates I know are working the same jobs or very similar ones to the ones they worked while still in college.
That you would make such a ridiculous blanket statement seems to suggest that it hasn't done much for your critical thinking. College may have been a great value for you. However, you might have went to college in a significantly different job market, had a different degree than most other graduates, and/or you might have been lucky. To assume that becuse it was a great value for you, than it is a great value for others regardless of other factors suggests that you lack a firm grasp of statistics.
If you go back 40-50 years, you will find people your age that think people around 20 are "completely narcissistic, entitled, helpless, infantilized little shits who don't take responsibility for anything, and who believe they can maintain a state of perpetual childhood even as they raise their own children." However, when they were 20, people your thought THEY were "completely narcissistic, entitled, helpless, infantilized little shits who don't take responsibility for anything, and who believe they can maintain a state of perpetual childhood even as they raise their own children."
They were probably right. Sturgeon's law applies to people as well. 90% of people have been shit for the entirety of humanity.
It also says that they are more dependent upon having a job. Someone with a lot of debt can't afford to not work.