They don't even need that. They just need "we'll completely financially ruin you after tying you up in court for months unless you take this settlement." Then the proxy users will be forced to choose between settling (small fine, no court battle, and never running a proxy again) or fighting (potentially huge fine, long court battle even if you win, and never run a proxy again if you lose). In other words, business as usual for the RIAA/MPAA.
This is true enough, but your "car fleeing a bank robbery" example is a criminal case with police investigating.
Copyright (when it comes to music/movies, at least) tends to be a civil case against the MPAA/RIAA members and the individual who is accused of infringing the copyright. You could be totally innocent of infringement, but the MPAA/RIAA sees you as guilty and is willing to pay the legal fees to make an example of you. You, on the other hand, have limited funds and time. So if you are sued and face a multi-million dollar fine (plus legal fees) after months of courtroom battles, you might just take the offer of a $3,000 settlement and admission of guilt (even if you aren't guilty).
This won't change with the new proposed system. They would identify people running proxied torrents and would sue them. Sure their evidence would be flimsy (as if their current evidence of IP address screenshots is solid), but it already is. If they saw the case going against them, they will drop the suit (to avoid setting a precedent against them), but the defendants would have already spent a lot of legal fees and time/energy defending themselves. The RIAA/MPAA will make running a proxied torrent a legally risky proposition even if you don't have any copyrighted materials passing through your system. (That's not even bringing up them lobbying Congress to declare such systems illegal entirely.)
... so that they can fight against the zombie apocalypse. And when the robots try to take over, we'll enlist the aid of Lizard-like aliens to crush them. I know what you're thinking: But what about when the Lizard-aliens take over? That's the best part of the plan. When winter rolls around, the Lizard-aliens will just freeze to death. Problem solved.
Just to show it's an identical ripoff and not a "tremendous coincidence":
Coulton version: - Uses duck quacks in place of some expletives. - Replaces the name "Mix-A-Lot" with "Johnny C" (at around 2:17, IIRC).
Glee version: - Uses duck quacks in place of some expletives. - Replaces the name "Mix-A-Lot" with "Johnny C" (at around 2:17, IIRC).
Plus, the audio syncs up perfectly. A little too perfectly. Jonathan Coulton is looking into whether they took his audio and reused it. If they did, he might actually have a valid copyright infringement suit.
And Fox has contacted back ( http://www.jonathancoulton.com/2013/01/18/baby-got-back-and-glee/ ) to tell him he should be grateful for the exposure they gave him. You know, that exposure they gave by using his arrangement without any credit whatsoever. The Super Secret Exposure. I wonder how grateful Fox is for the exposure that a Bittorrent user gives them by sharing out full episodes of Glee.
It almost makes me want to start watching Glee just so I could stop watching them in protest.
There used to be strong religious taboos and social morays that kept people faithful, but after the sexual revolution of the 60s and cheap and effective birth control, the gloves are now pretty much off.
Or, when Mr. Smith fooled around with his secretary and was caught by his wife, she didn't do much (except perhaps threaten to go stay at her mother's house for the weekend in protest) as divorcing the cheater wasn't a viable option. Women were told to be obedient wives and just go with what hubby said. Besides, a divorced woman was looked down upon. (Society was stacked against women on many levels.)
Now, if Mr. Smith fools around with his secretary, his wife won't be "obedient" and quiet, but will give him the boot. Best case: They'll go for couples counseling to try to save their marriage. Worst case: They'll get divorced and society won't think anything of it. (NOTE: This is a good thing. I'm definitely not in favor of wives suffering silently in an attempt to be "obedient" to their husbands.)
My wife used to teach in a middle school all-girl's school. You wouldn't know if one girl had a problem with another girl even if you observed them closely. They'd look for all the world like the best of friends. Meanwhile, one girl would be effectively destroying the other girl.
As a contrast, I have two boys. You always know if there's a problem between boys. You can spot the fighting/yelling from a mile away.
So it wouldn't surprise me to hear that girls grow up to be better able to hide wrong doings while boys grow up to be unable to hide it. Girls are just more subtle at that sort of thing.
It's not so much the scale of the theft as it is the scale of the person/company doing the theft.
Home user uploading a hit song to a P2P network = Small user = Big penalties
Phone company charging each of their customers $1.99 a month in "Federal Recovery Tax" (where no such tax exists) = Big user = At most a stern finger wagging and a fine much less than the money they raked in from the fees.
Of course, the big difference is that your average small/home user doesn't have the means to lobby Congress. The big companies, however, can provide Congress-folk with cushy jobs after their terms. Not in exchange for bills passed, of course. That might be illegal. But just coincidentally cushy jobs would open up if these bills were passed. *wink* *wink* *nudge* *nudge*
Poor people typically consume more of their money because their income and their "minimum spending necessary to survive" are closer together. If someone makes $21,000 per year and requires $20,000 for necessities (food, rent, medical, etc.) then they're only saving $1,000 a year. Not enough to become rich at any point.
If someone earns $1,000,000 a year and only requires $100,000 to live on (necessities plus a few luxuries), they can easily save 90% of their income every year.
If you taxed both at 10%, the poor person would need to pay $2,100 in taxes (resulting in not having enough money for necessities) and the rich person would pay $100,000 (thus reducing their yearly savings to a "mere" 80% of their salary).
This doesn't even get into the situations where a CEO is given a "salary" of $1 and generous stock options and non-monetary perks (thus living a life of luxury despite having a very low "income"). Any simple flat tax is going to either a) have to address these cases and will quickly turn into a monstrosity again, or b) not address these cases and wind up being unfair.
I use a USB external battery. I'll charge it at night right alongside my phone and then I carry it along with me. It connects to my phone using a standard USB->microUSB connection. (Apple users could use a USB->Apple cable, but I have an Android phone.) I get two "30%->100%" charges out of this battery. (I'll rarely let it dip below 30%. Given that, with heavy use, it usually will take about 4 hours to deplete my phone's battery this much, I can wind up going for 12 hours before needing a recharge. (Since I bought mine, other models came out which would give me 3 or more phone charges.)
The poster says that USB external batteries are bulky, but how much bulk would keeping 2 batteries on you be? Not to mention the inconvenience of having to open your phone's case, shut down your phone, open the phone itself, replace the battery (making sure to remember which is the charged and which is the depleted), put everything back together, and boot your phone back up.
This is the one I bought ($30 on Amazon) in case anyone's interested.
It's all about profits. They want customers to pay them money for a service, but then actually delivering that service is annoying as it eats away at their profits.
Moreover, they see Internet companies like Google making tons of money and think "they're making these profits while using our networks... we should get a piece of that action." Of course, the telecom companies shouldn't get a cut of a pizza shop's profits just because customers are using the telecom's service to call in orders. In a similar manner, ISPs don't deserve a cut of a company's profits just because the company's customers paid the ISP for Internet access. That's logic, though, which has no place in greedy profit-seeking.
Select a random assortment of words, not words that can be strung together using conventional grammar rules, or even distortions of conventional grammar rules.
The TSA lady who did the pat down, though? She had an attitude the whole time beginning when my wife didn't put her arms in EXACTLY the right position. It was 5am at the time, could we have a little understanding? Oops, sorry. Forgot we were talking about the TSA.
My wife went through one and needed to get the pat down too. They found an "anomaly" on her that required further inspection. Note to any women out there: Spanx are an anomaly to the TSA and you will get the patented TSA Feel Up to make sure that your undergarment is what is causing the issue.
It's almost to the point where the terrorists don't need to actually pull off an attack. They just release "chatter" about an attack and watch the West scurry around. I wonder how long until the terrorists try to see just how outrageous they can be and still have the West react. "There are reports that a terrorist group has come up with a nose bomb. Everyone will now submit to a TSA-enforced sinus inspection before boarding their planes."
This was the test phase. Everyone who went through one of these machines (including myself) was a guinea pig.
By the way, the test phase was a complete success. Rapiscan was paid tons of money. Wait, you thought the test was about the machines being safe for the people operating them or the people in them? *falls over laughing*
Oddly enough, in all the times I've read that word, I've never once pronounced it in my head as "Rapi(d) Scan". I've always pronounced it as "Rape-i-scan" (with a short i like in "it"). For some reason, them trying to play on the word "rapid" just never came to mind.
its still partially a password of sorts that banks use to verify your ID when you call on the phone
Not always. My identity was stolen once. The thieves opened a credit card in my name using my address, SSN, and DOB. They got my mother's maiden name wrong. (Wasn't even close.) It didn't raise a single red flag to stop the transaction. Neither did them changing the address immediately and asking for rush delivery of the card or trying to get a $5,000 cash advance before the card even was activated.
So banks might *say* they're using Mother's Maiden Name to verify identity, but not all banks (*cough*Capital One*cough*) do.
Sadly, too many people think "put on the Internet" means "Public Domain". If you find an image on the Internet and it doesn't specifically say that it is public domain (or under a copyright license such as Creative Commons that allows you to reuse the image for free), assume that it is copyrighted and that you can't use it without permission. Then, contact the owner of the image and ask if you can use it for your intended purpose. The copyright owner might just let you (and if he/she doesn't, then you've saved yourself legal threats).
From what I know of physics, FTL travel isn't forbidden. It's just passing the speed of light that's impossible. You can't go from a standstill to c (much less more-than-c), but if you could somehow "jump over" c, you'd be able to travel FTL. Whether any way of "jumping over c" exists or not is another story.
No, but those nuts who are claiming that Sandy Hook was a government conspiracy to take away their guns and that the kids are safely hidden somewhere? I don't think I want those folks to own any guns. And the people who go on YouTube ranting about how they'll go on a shooting rampage if any gun control is enacted? I don't think I want them to own any guns either.
Slashdot Mirror
They don't even need that. They just need "we'll completely financially ruin you after tying you up in court for months unless you take this settlement." Then the proxy users will be forced to choose between settling (small fine, no court battle, and never running a proxy again) or fighting (potentially huge fine, long court battle even if you win, and never run a proxy again if you lose). In other words, business as usual for the RIAA/MPAA.
This is true enough, but your "car fleeing a bank robbery" example is a criminal case with police investigating.
Copyright (when it comes to music/movies, at least) tends to be a civil case against the MPAA/RIAA members and the individual who is accused of infringing the copyright. You could be totally innocent of infringement, but the MPAA/RIAA sees you as guilty and is willing to pay the legal fees to make an example of you. You, on the other hand, have limited funds and time. So if you are sued and face a multi-million dollar fine (plus legal fees) after months of courtroom battles, you might just take the offer of a $3,000 settlement and admission of guilt (even if you aren't guilty).
This won't change with the new proposed system. They would identify people running proxied torrents and would sue them. Sure their evidence would be flimsy (as if their current evidence of IP address screenshots is solid), but it already is. If they saw the case going against them, they will drop the suit (to avoid setting a precedent against them), but the defendants would have already spent a lot of legal fees and time/energy defending themselves. The RIAA/MPAA will make running a proxied torrent a legally risky proposition even if you don't have any copyrighted materials passing through your system. (That's not even bringing up them lobbying Congress to declare such systems illegal entirely.)
... so that they can fight against the zombie apocalypse. And when the robots try to take over, we'll enlist the aid of Lizard-like aliens to crush them. I know what you're thinking: But what about when the Lizard-aliens take over? That's the best part of the plan. When winter rolls around, the Lizard-aliens will just freeze to death. Problem solved.
Modded on Slashdot as Funny.
Used by Fox as their real response. http://www.jonathancoulton.com/2013/01/18/baby-got-back-and-glee/
Just to show it's an identical ripoff and not a "tremendous coincidence":
Coulton version:
- Uses duck quacks in place of some expletives.
- Replaces the name "Mix-A-Lot" with "Johnny C" (at around 2:17, IIRC).
Glee version:
- Uses duck quacks in place of some expletives.
- Replaces the name "Mix-A-Lot" with "Johnny C" (at around 2:17, IIRC).
Plus, the audio syncs up perfectly. A little too perfectly. Jonathan Coulton is looking into whether they took his audio and reused it. If they did, he might actually have a valid copyright infringement suit.
And Fox has contacted back ( http://www.jonathancoulton.com/2013/01/18/baby-got-back-and-glee/ ) to tell him he should be grateful for the exposure they gave him. You know, that exposure they gave by using his arrangement without any credit whatsoever. The Super Secret Exposure. I wonder how grateful Fox is for the exposure that a Bittorrent user gives them by sharing out full episodes of Glee.
It almost makes me want to start watching Glee just so I could stop watching them in protest.
Looks similar to what BlueStacks does. http://www.bluestacks.com/
And, for those posting about being wary of software from a Chinese company, BlueStacks is located in California.
If they also announce that J.J. Abrams is going to direct a new Ghostbusters movie and a new Back To The Future movie, the geek universe will implode.
At the same time? A Tasmanian Wooly Neandersaurus. That does sound kind of cool.
Or, when Mr. Smith fooled around with his secretary and was caught by his wife, she didn't do much (except perhaps threaten to go stay at her mother's house for the weekend in protest) as divorcing the cheater wasn't a viable option. Women were told to be obedient wives and just go with what hubby said. Besides, a divorced woman was looked down upon. (Society was stacked against women on many levels.)
Now, if Mr. Smith fools around with his secretary, his wife won't be "obedient" and quiet, but will give him the boot. Best case: They'll go for couples counseling to try to save their marriage. Worst case: They'll get divorced and society won't think anything of it. (NOTE: This is a good thing. I'm definitely not in favor of wives suffering silently in an attempt to be "obedient" to their husbands.)
My wife used to teach in a middle school all-girl's school. You wouldn't know if one girl had a problem with another girl even if you observed them closely. They'd look for all the world like the best of friends. Meanwhile, one girl would be effectively destroying the other girl.
As a contrast, I have two boys. You always know if there's a problem between boys. You can spot the fighting/yelling from a mile away.
So it wouldn't surprise me to hear that girls grow up to be better able to hide wrong doings while boys grow up to be unable to hide it. Girls are just more subtle at that sort of thing.
It's not so much the scale of the theft as it is the scale of the person/company doing the theft.
Home user uploading a hit song to a P2P network = Small user = Big penalties
Phone company charging each of their customers $1.99 a month in "Federal Recovery Tax" (where no such tax exists) = Big user = At most a stern finger wagging and a fine much less than the money they raked in from the fees.
Of course, the big difference is that your average small/home user doesn't have the means to lobby Congress. The big companies, however, can provide Congress-folk with cushy jobs after their terms. Not in exchange for bills passed, of course. That might be illegal. But just coincidentally cushy jobs would open up if these bills were passed. *wink* *wink* *nudge* *nudge*
Poor people typically consume more of their money because their income and their "minimum spending necessary to survive" are closer together. If someone makes $21,000 per year and requires $20,000 for necessities (food, rent, medical, etc.) then they're only saving $1,000 a year. Not enough to become rich at any point.
If someone earns $1,000,000 a year and only requires $100,000 to live on (necessities plus a few luxuries), they can easily save 90% of their income every year.
If you taxed both at 10%, the poor person would need to pay $2,100 in taxes (resulting in not having enough money for necessities) and the rich person would pay $100,000 (thus reducing their yearly savings to a "mere" 80% of their salary).
This doesn't even get into the situations where a CEO is given a "salary" of $1 and generous stock options and non-monetary perks (thus living a life of luxury despite having a very low "income"). Any simple flat tax is going to either a) have to address these cases and will quickly turn into a monstrosity again, or b) not address these cases and wind up being unfair.
I use a USB external battery. I'll charge it at night right alongside my phone and then I carry it along with me. It connects to my phone using a standard USB->microUSB connection. (Apple users could use a USB->Apple cable, but I have an Android phone.) I get two "30%->100%" charges out of this battery. (I'll rarely let it dip below 30%. Given that, with heavy use, it usually will take about 4 hours to deplete my phone's battery this much, I can wind up going for 12 hours before needing a recharge. (Since I bought mine, other models came out which would give me 3 or more phone charges.)
The poster says that USB external batteries are bulky, but how much bulk would keeping 2 batteries on you be? Not to mention the inconvenience of having to open your phone's case, shut down your phone, open the phone itself, replace the battery (making sure to remember which is the charged and which is the depleted), put everything back together, and boot your phone back up.
This is the one I bought ($30 on Amazon) in case anyone's interested.
It's all about profits. They want customers to pay them money for a service, but then actually delivering that service is annoying as it eats away at their profits.
Moreover, they see Internet companies like Google making tons of money and think "they're making these profits while using our networks... we should get a piece of that action." Of course, the telecom companies shouldn't get a cut of a pizza shop's profits just because customers are using the telecom's service to call in orders. In a similar manner, ISPs don't deserve a cut of a company's profits just because the company's customers paid the ISP for Internet access. That's logic, though, which has no place in greedy profit-seeking.
Correct horse battery staple! http://xkcd.com/936/
Well, I certainly think my wife's hot.
The TSA lady who did the pat down, though? She had an attitude the whole time beginning when my wife didn't put her arms in EXACTLY the right position. It was 5am at the time, could we have a little understanding? Oops, sorry. Forgot we were talking about the TSA.
My wife went through one and needed to get the pat down too. They found an "anomaly" on her that required further inspection. Note to any women out there: Spanx are an anomaly to the TSA and you will get the patented TSA Feel Up to make sure that your undergarment is what is causing the issue.
It's almost to the point where the terrorists don't need to actually pull off an attack. They just release "chatter" about an attack and watch the West scurry around. I wonder how long until the terrorists try to see just how outrageous they can be and still have the West react. "There are reports that a terrorist group has come up with a nose bomb. Everyone will now submit to a TSA-enforced sinus inspection before boarding their planes."
This was the test phase. Everyone who went through one of these machines (including myself) was a guinea pig.
By the way, the test phase was a complete success. Rapiscan was paid tons of money. Wait, you thought the test was about the machines being safe for the people operating them or the people in them? *falls over laughing*
Oddly enough, in all the times I've read that word, I've never once pronounced it in my head as "Rapi(d) Scan". I've always pronounced it as "Rape-i-scan" (with a short i like in "it"). For some reason, them trying to play on the word "rapid" just never came to mind.
Not always. My identity was stolen once. The thieves opened a credit card in my name using my address, SSN, and DOB. They got my mother's maiden name wrong. (Wasn't even close.) It didn't raise a single red flag to stop the transaction. Neither did them changing the address immediately and asking for rush delivery of the card or trying to get a $5,000 cash advance before the card even was activated.
So banks might *say* they're using Mother's Maiden Name to verify identity, but not all banks (*cough*Capital One*cough*) do.
Sadly, too many people think "put on the Internet" means "Public Domain". If you find an image on the Internet and it doesn't specifically say that it is public domain (or under a copyright license such as Creative Commons that allows you to reuse the image for free), assume that it is copyrighted and that you can't use it without permission. Then, contact the owner of the image and ask if you can use it for your intended purpose. The copyright owner might just let you (and if he/she doesn't, then you've saved yourself legal threats).
From what I know of physics, FTL travel isn't forbidden. It's just passing the speed of light that's impossible. You can't go from a standstill to c (much less more-than-c), but if you could somehow "jump over" c, you'd be able to travel FTL. Whether any way of "jumping over c" exists or not is another story.
No, but those nuts who are claiming that Sandy Hook was a government conspiracy to take away their guns and that the kids are safely hidden somewhere? I don't think I want those folks to own any guns. And the people who go on YouTube ranting about how they'll go on a shooting rampage if any gun control is enacted? I don't think I want them to own any guns either.