do "all costs associated" include lost revenue or just direct expenses like hiring lawyers? Somehow I don't think the lobbyists who wrote the DMCA would have wanted the former.
I came here to put in Blindsight, that Nicoll quote, and the Rifters trilogy. If that's not enough, there's Watts' personal life: adventures with flesh eating bacteria and US border guards. I think he found the flesh eating bacteria more reasonable to deal with.
However, the door is not shut on this issue: "Flava may be entitled to additional preliminary injunctive relief as well, if it can show, as it has not shown yet, that myVidster’s service really does contribute significantly to infringement of Flava’s copyrights." If myVidster was actively encouraging the sharing, hosting the videos itself, or profiting from their showing, the ruling likely would have been different.
So how has Sidereel.com survived? It's a website (based in CA) that lists legit links to shows but their traffic is driven by all of the links to pirated content that they let people add.
You didn't get it: the "game" for Rage was getting Rage to run on your system, with in game achievements for various textures and colors displaying correctly. The actual run-around-and-shoot-stuff was just DLC for the people who had already won. I haven't won yet, but then again I haven't felt like doing complete AMD driver reinstall yet.
You must be joking. Since when do Republicans believe that government loans to business are a good idea?
Since always. 38 Steps got its loan courtesy of Carcieri, the Republican governor of RI. The DOE loan program was started by Republican president George Bush in 2005, and it was his DOE that advanced Solyndra as a company worthy of a loan. By the time Obama signed off on it the process had been in the works for years. The only times Republicans don't believe loans to business are a good idea are when a, Democrats might get credit for doing something useful (See GM), b, they see an opportunity to blame Democrats for something bad (see Solyndra).
Sheesh, they're called rocket scientists, not rocket weenies. Specific impulse is the name of the game! So what if the lithium, fluorine, and hydrogen fuel needs to be stored at separate temperatures over 400C apart and the hydrofluoric acid it belches out as exhaust will dissolve the entire gantry/launch pad/ launch facility - we're talking an exhaust velocity of 5 kilometers per second!
And don't get me started on the EPA saying we shouldn't be lighting off a few hundred tons of red fuming nitric acid/ dimethylhydrazine or FOOF/dimethylmercury.
Still, if I search for "X Y Z" I expect terms X Y and Z to be in every result.
You should expect the phrase "X Y Z" to be in every result for that search. If you want X, Y, and Z to all be in every result, google "X" "Y" "Z".
They seem to have retired the + operator last year without bothering to tell anyone, now you use quotes around a single keyword to get the same effect.
Every single lock will not have to be changed. There are several ways to fix this without replacing the entire lock. Fill the hole. Cover the whole with an exterior lock.
That port is used to recharge the battery in the lock.
Put a more secure circuit between the exterior plug and the lock's main board. That more secure circuit only need to handle NOT letting you read the memory. Given that the article is completely wrong about having to change the locks, I would question whether there really isn't a way to fix it via firmware. Either way though, the fix does not require a new lock, and it is a task that the hotel's regular handyman can perform.
The board itself is probably cheap, removing the port from the board and soldering in a new daughter board/port would be expensive.
I don't see any advantage to that over replacing the whole board, which is what the article ("New circuitboards will have to be installed in every affected lock,") actually suggests.
Given that the article is completely wrong about having to change the locks, I would question whether there really isn't a way to fix it via firmware.
Brocious's full time job was to reverse engineer Onity's locks and front desk systems for a startup; he probably knows whether the lock has upgradable firmware.
I'd be up for metered cable: $1 per hour for all of the shows and movies I watch; the catch is that I'll need to be paid back $1 per hour for all of the commercials that come with that programming. These days that means a net of 40-80 cents per hour to them. But I'm willing to throw in product placement for free!
3D content creators seem to ignore the reason we evolved 3D vision -- to navigate rapidly in real 3D space and to range-find..
Which brings up the two things I'd like to be able to watch in 3D: sports and computer games - but in order for it to be watchable they first need to solve the convergence/parallax issues mentioned upthread. I don't see that happening outside of holographic glasses anytime soon.
For viewing molecules, the easiest method is a cheat: many programs will rock the molecule back and forth on the vertical axis. You can keep the same part of the protein (active site, for instance) in view indefinitely while the rocking motion gives depth cues and it works pretty well even for people not sitting directly in front of the screen. I'd go with that; most protein visualisation and modeling software has it as an option and it will work on any display or projector.
The other method that will work with any hardware is cross eyed or wall eyed stereo. It gives you much better depth perception and is much better if you are trying to dock/move molecules around each other onscreen. Unfortunately lots of people can't do one or the other (I find wall eyed difficult), or they get headaches. If you're viewing from off-center the problems get worse. Again, most protein visualisation software has the option.
I used those active shutter goggles sometimes back in the '90s while modeling proteins on Silicon Graphics workstations. The whole process was so cumbersome that I just switched over to cross eyed stereo instead.
Magic bullets don't generate steady demand, or steady profits. No cure will generate as much revenue as periodic installments of $xx,xxx for treatments.
Nope. If you're willing to pay $100K for two courses of whatsa-zumab to treat your cancer, you're willing to pay $200k to cure it.
If you were expecting to sell someone 10 years worth of treatment for something and all of a sudden come up with a cure, then you sell them the cure for the price of 10 years of treatment.
What's with the term "Big Pharma"? Is there some sort of mom-and-pop pharmaceutical company that is the alternative to Glaxo-Smith-Kline? Aren't they all big? Isn't there just "Pharma"?
Big Pharma came about as all of the already huge pharma companies began merging back in the '90s. "There can be only one" seemed to be the mantra for Ciba-Geigy-Sandoz-Novartis....
The alternative to Big Pharma is biotech, more or less.
I can show you stacks of internal memos and documentation showing that the major pharmaceutical companies purposefully stall and delay research into cures, and there have been several cases where they've sued to prevent universities and private researchers from pursuing testing of certain chemical compounds because they infringed on a patent -- after research showed dramatic and sustained improvements in a patient's health that reduced or eliminated their dependancy on already-existing drugs.
Cite? Memos, documentation, and cases please, cause I call bullshit.
A cure for A cancer would be tremendously profitable for the company that had it, even if it displaced some of its existing chemotherapies:
-A cure would displace all of the competition as well as the company's own product; so the company would no longer be sharing the market.
-A cure would shoot through the FDA like shit through a goose. A cure would pass the FDA with smaller and shorter trials (with phase IV post marketing trials to monitor safety), so it would cost much less to develop than a so-so treatment, get to market years earlier than a so-so treatment, and spend much more of its patent life in the market rather than stuck wading through the FDA.
-Whats more, the clock is already running on the patents of the existing therapies. Who wouldn't trade the exclusive rights to sell an also ran for 5-10 years for the rights to sell a home run for 15 years?
They expected no real competition at the low end price point.
That may not be relevant. Amazon's business model for the previous kindles was to use it to get people to buy more stuff from
Amazon and to collect usage records for marketing analysis. I have to think that's one reason they've been so generous about replacing broken kindles: working kindles keep generating revenue, broken ones don't.
Even though the Fire and its competitors will be acccessing a much smaller percentage of their content from Amazon than previous kindles, Amazon's vertical (close enough)monopoly will still turn a profit on each Fire that's initially sold at a loss.
Turn the price tag of 65 billion into an indefinite expenditure of $2 billion/ yr.
The current total number of trips (bus, plane, car) is about 8 million per year.
So if EVERYONE switched to the train it would amount to $250 per trip one way, $500 per round trip.
Which means we (CA, that is) could instead buy everyone a RT plane ticket and then give them $250-$350 to spend during their trip. Or buy planes, start an intrastate airline, let everyone fly it for free. An airline could be up and running within two years and service all of the cities big enough to merit an airport, instead of people waiting decades for the train to arrive in their town. And it would save a billion dollars a year doing it.
Or we could buy something useful that people actually, you know, need:
Natural gas and electric buses.
Light rail and trolleys.
Most of the people who would use this train can already afford to fly. How about doing something for the people who can't afford to get to work instead?
Perhaps it shows that society is all about pragmatism and equality of wealth distribution rather than ideals and innate rights.
Copyright and patents were founded on pragmatism and have never been based on innate rights. States agree to enforce a limited monopoly as an incentive to get creators to create, not because creators have an innate right to control the IP of their creations.
But since coffee also has been show to cut the rates of liver cancer and Alzheimer. I would say that there are other functions at work here. All three seems to be, as the summary stated, related to the ability to kill off damaged cells before they do more damage.
My guess is that a lot of studies are actually measuring people's ability to metabolize caffeine, which is a function of the liver. If your liver enzymes are no longer able to metabolize much caffeine (or you're taking drugs that contraindicate caffeine), you not only quit drinking coffee but you're more likely to have other problems as well. I'd like to see the studies performed where the control group is strictly people who choose not to drink coffee for other reasons - i.e., Mormons.
They are making air travel so inconvenient and humiliating so we'll all start taking the train. Oh yes, thanks to the machinations of the TSA and train lobby, soon we'll all be coasting along at 50 miles and hour. Crossing the country may take several days, but the scanners and body cavity searches will be history!
so the first-order estimate suggests you'd need about 2.3 acres per mission-load of astronauts to grow a subsistence diet.
How do those calculations work out if the greenhouse is hydroponic or aquaponic rather than soil based? Also, reflectors could allow earth-normal levels of insolation.
Payments were in cash too, rather than coupons (though much smaller than the amounts lost).
But I guess, a similar course of action might be difficult in cases where the identity of the harmed parties is not easily known.
Coupon/rebate settlements are more likely in consumer product lawsuits (we made a lousy product; here's 30% off buying another). They tend to create several kinds of abuse. For one thing, coupons aren't worth their face value in cash - they typically sell for a small percentage of their face value. For another, few of the coupons are ever actually exercised. If Lawyers are paid in cash while the class gets paid in coupons, it's easy for the value of the lawyers' share of the settlement to be several times that of the class's share. Defendants like the settlements because they're inexpensive (payouts are stretched out over time and proportional to people buying more of the product). Lawyers like the settlements because companies will roll over for them quickly compared to cash settlements. Judges have been cracking down on the worst of the abuses though.
For class action suits by investors - remember when companies were screaming about lawyers like Bill Lerach manufacturing stockholder lawsuits out of thin air? They finally nailed him for manipulating lead claimants in the class action lawsuits he filed, but it turned out that the stock option fraud (back dating and revaluing for high level execs), securities fraud, and insider trading fraud he was bringing suit against was endemic both during and after the dot.com boom.
Slashdot Mirror
do "all costs associated" include lost revenue or just direct expenses like hiring lawyers? Somehow I don't think the lobbyists who wrote the DMCA would have wanted the former.
I came here to put in Blindsight, that Nicoll quote, and the Rifters trilogy. If that's not enough, there's Watts' personal life: adventures with flesh eating bacteria and US border guards. I think he found the flesh eating bacteria more reasonable to deal with.
However, the door is not shut on this issue: "Flava may be entitled to additional preliminary injunctive relief as well, if it can show, as it has not shown yet, that myVidster’s service really does contribute significantly to infringement of Flava’s copyrights." If myVidster was actively encouraging the sharing, hosting the videos itself, or profiting from their showing, the ruling likely would have been different.
So how has Sidereel.com survived? It's a website (based in CA) that lists legit links to shows but their traffic is driven by all of the links to pirated content that they let people add.
You didn't get it: the "game" for Rage was getting Rage to run on your system, with in game achievements for various textures and colors displaying correctly. The actual run-around-and-shoot-stuff was just DLC for the people who had already won. I haven't won yet, but then again I haven't felt like doing complete AMD driver reinstall yet.
You must be joking. Since when do Republicans believe that government loans to business are a good idea?
Since always. 38 Steps got its loan courtesy of Carcieri, the Republican governor of RI. The DOE loan program was started by Republican president George Bush in 2005, and it was his DOE that advanced Solyndra as a company worthy of a loan. By the time Obama signed off on it the process had been in the works for years. The only times Republicans don't believe loans to business are a good idea are when a, Democrats might get credit for doing something useful (See GM), b, they see an opportunity to blame Democrats for something bad (see Solyndra).
And don't get me started on the EPA saying we shouldn't be lighting off a few hundred tons of red fuming nitric acid/ dimethylhydrazine or FOOF/dimethylmercury.
Smile for the camera.
Are you going to shoot them in the back?
How so compared to the present situation?
Why would Apple want to make more money?
FTFY.
Yep, they hid advanced search and google scholar. I guess Google doesn't need for data on people's use of those search tools anymore.
Still, if I search for "X Y Z" I expect terms X Y and Z to be in every result.
You should expect the phrase "X Y Z" to be in every result for that search. If you want X, Y, and Z to all be in every result, google "X" "Y" "Z". They seem to have retired the + operator last year without bothering to tell anyone, now you use quotes around a single keyword to get the same effect.
Every single lock will not have to be changed. There are several ways to fix this without replacing the entire lock. Fill the hole. Cover the whole with an exterior lock.
That port is used to recharge the battery in the lock.
Put a more secure circuit between the exterior plug and the lock's main board. That more secure circuit only need to handle NOT letting you read the memory. Given that the article is completely wrong about having to change the locks, I would question whether there really isn't a way to fix it via firmware. Either way though, the fix does not require a new lock, and it is a task that the hotel's regular handyman can perform.
The board itself is probably cheap, removing the port from the board and soldering in a new daughter board/port would be expensive. I don't see any advantage to that over replacing the whole board, which is what the article ("New circuitboards will have to be installed in every affected lock,") actually suggests.
Given that the article is completely wrong about having to change the locks, I would question whether there really isn't a way to fix it via firmware.
Brocious's full time job was to reverse engineer Onity's locks and front desk systems for a startup; he probably knows whether the lock has upgradable firmware.
I'd be up for metered cable: $1 per hour for all of the shows and movies I watch; the catch is that I'll need to be paid back $1 per hour for all of the commercials that come with that programming. These days that means a net of 40-80 cents per hour to them. But I'm willing to throw in product placement for free!
3D content creators seem to ignore the reason we evolved 3D vision -- to navigate rapidly in real 3D space and to range-find. .
Which brings up the two things I'd like to be able to watch in 3D: sports and computer games - but in order for it to be watchable they first need to solve the convergence/parallax issues mentioned upthread. I don't see that happening outside of holographic glasses anytime soon.
The other method that will work with any hardware is cross eyed or wall eyed stereo. It gives you much better depth perception and is much better if you are trying to dock/move molecules around each other onscreen. Unfortunately lots of people can't do one or the other (I find wall eyed difficult), or they get headaches. If you're viewing from off-center the problems get worse. Again, most protein visualisation software has the option.
I used those active shutter goggles sometimes back in the '90s while modeling proteins on Silicon Graphics workstations. The whole process was so cumbersome that I just switched over to cross eyed stereo instead.
Magic bullets don't generate steady demand, or steady profits. No cure will generate as much revenue as periodic installments of $xx,xxx for treatments.
Nope. If you're willing to pay $100K for two courses of whatsa-zumab to treat your cancer, you're willing to pay $200k to cure it.
If you were expecting to sell someone 10 years worth of treatment for something and all of a sudden come up with a cure, then you sell them the cure for the price of 10 years of treatment.
And make a lot more money.
What's with the term "Big Pharma"? Is there some sort of mom-and-pop pharmaceutical company that is the alternative to Glaxo-Smith-Kline? Aren't they all big? Isn't there just "Pharma"?
Big Pharma came about as all of the already huge pharma companies began merging back in the '90s. "There can be only one" seemed to be the mantra for Ciba-Geigy-Sandoz-Novartis ....
The alternative to Big Pharma is biotech, more or less.
I can show you stacks of internal memos and documentation showing that the major pharmaceutical companies purposefully stall and delay research into cures, and there have been several cases where they've sued to prevent universities and private researchers from pursuing testing of certain chemical compounds because they infringed on a patent -- after research showed dramatic and sustained improvements in a patient's health that reduced or eliminated their dependancy on already-existing drugs.
Cite? Memos, documentation, and cases please, cause I call bullshit.
A cure for A cancer would be tremendously profitable for the company that had it, even if it displaced some of its existing chemotherapies:
-A cure would displace all of the competition as well as the company's own product; so the company would no longer be sharing the market.
-A cure would shoot through the FDA like shit through a goose. A cure would pass the FDA with smaller and shorter trials (with phase IV post marketing trials to monitor safety), so it would cost much less to develop than a so-so treatment, get to market years earlier than a so-so treatment, and spend much more of its patent life in the market rather than stuck wading through the FDA.
-Whats more, the clock is already running on the patents of the existing therapies. Who wouldn't trade the exclusive rights to sell an also ran for 5-10 years for the rights to sell a home run for 15 years?
They expected no real competition at the low end price point.
That may not be relevant. Amazon's business model for the previous kindles was to use it to get people to buy more stuff from Amazon and to collect usage records for marketing analysis. I have to think that's one reason they've been so generous about replacing broken kindles: working kindles keep generating revenue, broken ones don't. Even though the Fire and its competitors will be acccessing a much smaller percentage of their content from Amazon than previous kindles, Amazon's vertical (close enough)monopoly will still turn a profit on each Fire that's initially sold at a loss.
Turn the price tag of 65 billion into an indefinite expenditure of $2 billion/ yr.
The current total number of trips (bus, plane, car) is about 8 million per year.
So if EVERYONE switched to the train it would amount to $250 per trip one way, $500 per round trip.
Which means we (CA, that is) could instead buy everyone a RT plane ticket and then give them $250-$350 to spend during their trip. Or buy planes, start an intrastate airline, let everyone fly it for free. An airline could be up and running within two years and service all of the cities big enough to merit an airport, instead of people waiting decades for the train to arrive in their town. And it would save a billion dollars a year doing it.
Or we could buy something useful that people actually, you know, need:
Natural gas and electric buses.
Light rail and trolleys.
Most of the people who would use this train can already afford to fly. How about doing something for the people who can't afford to get to work instead?
Perhaps it shows that society is all about pragmatism and equality of wealth distribution rather than ideals and innate rights.
Copyright and patents were founded on pragmatism and have never been based on innate rights. States agree to enforce a limited monopoly as an incentive to get creators to create, not because creators have an innate right to control the IP of their creations.
But since coffee also has been show to cut the rates of liver cancer and Alzheimer. I would say that there are other functions at work here. All three seems to be, as the summary stated, related to the ability to kill off damaged cells before they do more damage.
My guess is that a lot of studies are actually measuring people's ability to metabolize caffeine, which is a function of the liver. If your liver enzymes are no longer able to metabolize much caffeine (or you're taking drugs that contraindicate caffeine), you not only quit drinking coffee but you're more likely to have other problems as well. I'd like to see the studies performed where the control group is strictly people who choose not to drink coffee for other reasons - i.e., Mormons.
They are making air travel so inconvenient and humiliating so we'll all start taking the train. Oh yes, thanks to the machinations of the TSA and train lobby, soon we'll all be coasting along at 50 miles and hour. Crossing the country may take several days, but the scanners and body cavity searches will be history!
Simple solution - Just fly first class!
so the first-order estimate suggests you'd need about 2.3 acres per mission-load of astronauts to grow a subsistence diet.
How do those calculations work out if the greenhouse is hydroponic or aquaponic rather than soil based? Also, reflectors could allow earth-normal levels of insolation.
Payments were in cash too, rather than coupons (though much smaller than the amounts lost).
But I guess, a similar course of action might be difficult in cases where the identity of the harmed parties is not easily known.
Coupon/rebate settlements are more likely in consumer product lawsuits (we made a lousy product; here's 30% off buying another). They tend to create several kinds of abuse. For one thing, coupons aren't worth their face value in cash - they typically sell for a small percentage of their face value. For another, few of the coupons are ever actually exercised. If Lawyers are paid in cash while the class gets paid in coupons, it's easy for the value of the lawyers' share of the settlement to be several times that of the class's share. Defendants like the settlements because they're inexpensive (payouts are stretched out over time and proportional to people buying more of the product). Lawyers like the settlements because companies will roll over for them quickly compared to cash settlements. Judges have been cracking down on the worst of the abuses though.
For class action suits by investors - remember when companies were screaming about lawyers like Bill Lerach manufacturing stockholder lawsuits out of thin air? They finally nailed him for manipulating lead claimants in the class action lawsuits he filed, but it turned out that the stock option fraud (back dating and revaluing for high level execs), securities fraud, and insider trading fraud he was bringing suit against was endemic both during and after the dot.com boom.