Yes, it destroys those agreements, but it doesn't mean that the parties here are suddenly going to start imposing tons of tariffs on important trading partners. If nobody wants to do it, why the hell would they do it. It's not like being in the EU means that you have to tax anything not from the EU to death.
Only if there is a strong enough incentive to take active steps to do something that neither country would benefit from. The agreements are to not impose tariffs, but you can not have tariffs without such agreements. My question is what country do you think would bother with that, especially with a rather large economy.
It's quite similar to a peace treaty. You can be at peace with a country without an explicit peace treaty, and in most cases, there are compelling reasons to not be at war.
You are assuming that without membership in the EU, the UK and/or the members of the EU will start imposing mutually harmful restrictions. In whose interest would that be?
Moreso than internet commenters are forcing them not to. There's no technological reason for DRM to exist. The only reason it exists is because of the insistence of a small group who wants control over others. There's no reason to let them dominate this conversation. They aren't actually important, so we should take every opportunity to tell them to go to hell.
You seem to be forgetting other possibilities, like users just accessing the content through means other than official channels. People will get the media no matter what, so there's no reason to go along with DRM schemes.
All this whining about oppressing the oppressors is dripping with irony. The content providers pushing this are the ones that are really "on some kind of moral crusade against other people willing to exercise" choice. If you hold that it's their choice to do that, you have to hold that we have the choice to oppose them.
Stop taking away the freedom to encourage systems that take away your freedom? You are supporting the freedom to restrict the freedom of others, but not the freedom to not support supporting the freedom to restrict the freedom of others? How can logically defend that position?
'Typically' would imply that cases where this is not true are the exception instead of the rule. I don't think that's going to be the case.
As far as sudden big expenses, they may not be the person's fault, but it's possible the person could have done something about them beforehand.
Possible, yes. However, there are many people who have never had such opportunities.
If somebody has always used cash and never borrowed money, how do you know how that person will handle credit? You don't have a history. The person presumably lived within his or her means, which is a good sign, but that's not all. The person may continue paying for most things with cash, and miss payments, not being used to them, or not really feeling debts are real. If you want to know how somebody will handle a loan, the best way is to observe how that person has handled loans.
Paying for things with cash doesn't mean that you don't have to pay bills, and there's nothing that really makes loan payments different than other bills, other than the ability to pay more than the minimum payment. Someone who uses credit often yet moderately irresponsibly will have a better credit score than someone who manages to keep 90% of their paycheck through responsible money management (you know, the skill that one's credit score is supposed to be a proxy for) but never asks for a loan.
These are probably the biggest ways in which credit scores don't reflect character, but they don't do a horrible job.
They don't even do a good job of assessing one's ability to handle credit, and one's ability to handle credit generally has little to do with one's character, so yes, credit scores do a horrible job of depicting character, at least regarding a simple direct correlation.
It isn't fair to somebody who has a bad credit rating for no fault of his or her own, but it's one way a potential employer or landlord can judge if an applicant is a good risk, and it's arguably not fair to deny them that information.
The information makes some sense for a landlord, but not really for an employer outside not working in the financial industry and not being in crippling debt. As long as it doesn't mean they'll miss work or be otherwise unable to perform at work, credit score is irrelevant to one's ability to perform their job. Ideally, there should probably be different tiers of credit history. An institute granting a line of credit would probably have the whole seven years shebang. A landlord or similar position would have access to a more simple history proportionate to the term of the lease. A typical employer would have an even more basic history that assesses the probability of them being in such a state that they couldn't perform their job.
Using global statistics isn't relevant to US operations. So, the relevant question would be how do US deaths due to terrorists acts compare before and after. Sandy Hook, Boston Marathon, and the Aurora Shooting would arguably all fit the bill of terrorism in the US and are less than a year before Snowden's leaks, and the death toll exceeds what we've had in the time since then.
So, General Alexander, you are cordially invited to shut the hell up.
You're sounding awfully elitist there. One's credit score is not a good way to judge one's character. Many of the ways a credit score is calculated are arbitrary, such as one's preferred method of payment. People who prefer using cash over credit aren't going to have as good of a credit score, which means that if they get a loan, they will get a worse interest rate. Never mind that vehicular and medical accidents can cause a lot of debt regardless of who the responsible party is. Credit scores are a highly flawed way of judging one's ability to take on a debt, let alone an overall judge of character or decision making.
Credit history just seems to be a very odd thing to discriminate upon. I can see understand why one might dislike women or old people or someone of a different ethnicity, but formerly having had bad credit doesn't make any sense.
First of all, the codecs were typically handled by patent-encumbered FOSS code. That's far less of a security risk, and isn't even a legal issue in much of the world. Secondly, the codecs, even if proprietary, generally didn't have any kind of DRM mechanism.
That sounds in line with most everything else on a credit report. However, it would seem like his objection would be that information that WOULDN'T be on his credit report is present on Google searches for his name. That information is probably not relevant to his employer.
I don't see that as a problem, at least not in regards to employment, especially if the protection only extends to debts that are no longer part of one's credit report, which are not considered relevant to someone loaning you money, let alone paying you to perform a job. The legitimate relevance of a credit check towards employment shouldn't really extend past not being in crippling debt that will interfere with performing your job outside of a few careers for which money management is a legitimate skill.
Maybe I'm just a weirdo, but I think the better path would have been to take up a case with the employers that won't hire him because he was once in debt. Seems like they are the real assholes.
Sue them? Of course not. We should be able to bring severe criminal charges against them. Twenty year minimum for anyone complicit in such activities. The watchers have to be kept on a very tight leash.
On one hand, i think that SpaceX should get a shot at competing here, but I don't think they should go about it through taking advantage of overreaching executive order.
That's incorrect. With Java, you have a few options:
1) Fork the GPL version of Java. In such a case, you can have absolutely no compatibility and still be in the clear.
2) Write your own Java implementation, but have it meet the standard. I'm pretty sure what is and isn't compatible is laid out pretty clearly.
3) Pay Oracle enough for a license to do what you want.
That's a pretty unreasonable fear, given that I'm pretty sure you don't just hail an Uber taxi, and the vehicles of the different services are going to be very visually distinct. You are basically complaining that people are going to get the wrong impression of fine Japanese cuisine because you can buy Top Ramen at your grocery store.
Nurses do a considerable amount of the work, and there are over-the-counter drugs which someone can advise you to take without being a doctor. Another area where we have a similar issue is with the legal profession. A clerk could do most of the work you go to a lawyer for, as it's just filling out boilerplate forms.
If you want to have accountability for certain professions, that's fine, but you have to keep in mind that there is also a threat of protecting incumbents form competition, which can, on the grand scale, cause issues as bad or worse than a free for all.
Sorry, let me clarify, why does it matter to passengers if Uber drivers can get them from point A to point B for less in about the same time? That London cab drivers think it sullies the profession is irrelevant.
London requires well-functioning taxis in order to operate, and this is a massive step backwards.
If it's a massive step backward, then the cab drivers have nothing to worry about.
Okay, let's say you are right (although others here seem to paint a different story). The work hard, they are the best, and they always have minty fresh breath. Why does that matter if Uber drivers can get them from point A to point B for less in about the same time (they are probably not as efficient in route planning, but having more of them means that they are more likely to be near point A)? The Luddites produced higher quality textiles than mechanical looms, but mechanical looms produced textiles that were good enough and much cheaper.
You are correct that any original content can be copyrighted, but are incorrect about the meaning of 'original.' I have doubts that this database could stand up in court due to the precedent set by Feist v. Rural.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, it destroys those agreements, but it doesn't mean that the parties here are suddenly going to start imposing tons of tariffs on important trading partners. If nobody wants to do it, why the hell would they do it. It's not like being in the EU means that you have to tax anything not from the EU to death.
Only if there is a strong enough incentive to take active steps to do something that neither country would benefit from. The agreements are to not impose tariffs, but you can not have tariffs without such agreements. My question is what country do you think would bother with that, especially with a rather large economy.
It's quite similar to a peace treaty. You can be at peace with a country without an explicit peace treaty, and in most cases, there are compelling reasons to not be at war.
You are assuming that without membership in the EU, the UK and/or the members of the EU will start imposing mutually harmful restrictions. In whose interest would that be?
Moreso than internet commenters are forcing them not to. There's no technological reason for DRM to exist. The only reason it exists is because of the insistence of a small group who wants control over others. There's no reason to let them dominate this conversation. They aren't actually important, so we should take every opportunity to tell them to go to hell.
You seem to be forgetting other possibilities, like users just accessing the content through means other than official channels. People will get the media no matter what, so there's no reason to go along with DRM schemes.
All this whining about oppressing the oppressors is dripping with irony. The content providers pushing this are the ones that are really "on some kind of moral crusade against other people willing to exercise" choice. If you hold that it's their choice to do that, you have to hold that we have the choice to oppose them.
Stop taking away the freedom to encourage systems that take away your freedom? You are supporting the freedom to restrict the freedom of others, but not the freedom to not support supporting the freedom to restrict the freedom of others? How can logically defend that position?
They aren't directly supporting DRM, and this will entail a proprietary tool, so why should the Firefox team waste resources on this?
'Typically' would imply that cases where this is not true are the exception instead of the rule. I don't think that's going to be the case.
Possible, yes. However, there are many people who have never had such opportunities.
Paying for things with cash doesn't mean that you don't have to pay bills, and there's nothing that really makes loan payments different than other bills, other than the ability to pay more than the minimum payment. Someone who uses credit often yet moderately irresponsibly will have a better credit score than someone who manages to keep 90% of their paycheck through responsible money management (you know, the skill that one's credit score is supposed to be a proxy for) but never asks for a loan.
They don't even do a good job of assessing one's ability to handle credit, and one's ability to handle credit generally has little to do with one's character, so yes, credit scores do a horrible job of depicting character, at least regarding a simple direct correlation.
The information makes some sense for a landlord, but not really for an employer outside not working in the financial industry and not being in crippling debt. As long as it doesn't mean they'll miss work or be otherwise unable to perform at work, credit score is irrelevant to one's ability to perform their job. Ideally, there should probably be different tiers of credit history. An institute granting a line of credit would probably have the whole seven years shebang. A landlord or similar position would have access to a more simple history proportionate to the term of the lease. A typical employer would have an even more basic history that assesses the probability of them being in such a state that they couldn't perform their job.
Using global statistics isn't relevant to US operations. So, the relevant question would be how do US deaths due to terrorists acts compare before and after. Sandy Hook, Boston Marathon, and the Aurora Shooting would arguably all fit the bill of terrorism in the US and are less than a year before Snowden's leaks, and the death toll exceeds what we've had in the time since then.
So, General Alexander, you are cordially invited to shut the hell up.
You're sounding awfully elitist there. One's credit score is not a good way to judge one's character. Many of the ways a credit score is calculated are arbitrary, such as one's preferred method of payment. People who prefer using cash over credit aren't going to have as good of a credit score, which means that if they get a loan, they will get a worse interest rate. Never mind that vehicular and medical accidents can cause a lot of debt regardless of who the responsible party is. Credit scores are a highly flawed way of judging one's ability to take on a debt, let alone an overall judge of character or decision making.
Credit history just seems to be a very odd thing to discriminate upon. I can see understand why one might dislike women or old people or someone of a different ethnicity, but formerly having had bad credit doesn't make any sense.
First of all, the codecs were typically handled by patent-encumbered FOSS code. That's far less of a security risk, and isn't even a legal issue in much of the world. Secondly, the codecs, even if proprietary, generally didn't have any kind of DRM mechanism.
That sounds in line with most everything else on a credit report. However, it would seem like his objection would be that information that WOULDN'T be on his credit report is present on Google searches for his name. That information is probably not relevant to his employer.
I don't see that as a problem, at least not in regards to employment, especially if the protection only extends to debts that are no longer part of one's credit report, which are not considered relevant to someone loaning you money, let alone paying you to perform a job. The legitimate relevance of a credit check towards employment shouldn't really extend past not being in crippling debt that will interfere with performing your job outside of a few careers for which money management is a legitimate skill.
Maybe I'm just a weirdo, but I think the better path would have been to take up a case with the employers that won't hire him because he was once in debt. Seems like they are the real assholes.
An 'accelerated pathway.' Totally different from a fast lane.
Sue them? Of course not. We should be able to bring severe criminal charges against them. Twenty year minimum for anyone complicit in such activities. The watchers have to be kept on a very tight leash.
On one hand, i think that SpaceX should get a shot at competing here, but I don't think they should go about it through taking advantage of overreaching executive order.
Kill 13661, let SpaceX bid. Then I'll be happy.
That's incorrect. With Java, you have a few options: 1) Fork the GPL version of Java. In such a case, you can have absolutely no compatibility and still be in the clear. 2) Write your own Java implementation, but have it meet the standard. I'm pretty sure what is and isn't compatible is laid out pretty clearly. 3) Pay Oracle enough for a license to do what you want.
That's a pretty unreasonable fear, given that I'm pretty sure you don't just hail an Uber taxi, and the vehicles of the different services are going to be very visually distinct. You are basically complaining that people are going to get the wrong impression of fine Japanese cuisine because you can buy Top Ramen at your grocery store.
Nurses do a considerable amount of the work, and there are over-the-counter drugs which someone can advise you to take without being a doctor. Another area where we have a similar issue is with the legal profession. A clerk could do most of the work you go to a lawyer for, as it's just filling out boilerplate forms.
If you want to have accountability for certain professions, that's fine, but you have to keep in mind that there is also a threat of protecting incumbents form competition, which can, on the grand scale, cause issues as bad or worse than a free for all.
If it's a massive step backward, then the cab drivers have nothing to worry about.
Okay, let's say you are right (although others here seem to paint a different story). The work hard, they are the best, and they always have minty fresh breath. Why does that matter if Uber drivers can get them from point A to point B for less in about the same time (they are probably not as efficient in route planning, but having more of them means that they are more likely to be near point A)? The Luddites produced higher quality textiles than mechanical looms, but mechanical looms produced textiles that were good enough and much cheaper.
You are correct that any original content can be copyrighted, but are incorrect about the meaning of 'original.' I have doubts that this database could stand up in court due to the precedent set by Feist v. Rural.