Unless they lost only their least talented or least satisfied employees
Who do you think is more likely to hold on tightly for dear life to a job - someone with talent who can get another one after leaving, or deadwood that knows nothing else?
(Why, yes, I will be celebrating my 20th anniversary with IBM next year, why?)
>the bank will charge you a service fee to deposit
Parent poster is in Canada. I worked in Canada one summer about 10 years ago and could not believe how customer-unfriendly the banks were. (Made BB look like Nordstrom's...)
Do Canadian banks *really* charge you a fee to accept your money? If so, and you're in Toronto or somewhere else close to the border, why not use a US bank?
Having read many of the posts here I understand why so many.coms went bust. The geeks running them didn't have the faintest concept of accounting...
I oppose the expensing of options because there is often no good way to value them, particularly in the case of a startup offering them in lieu of cash (which is often where they do the most good from the business's point of view, and where rules requiring them to be expensed are likely to hurt the business's viability the most).
Option grants and the associated potential costs are already required to be disclosed in the footnotes to a company's financial statements. If the rules do wind up changing (as seems likely, or perhaps even inevitable), the financial tricks companies play with their stated earnings will make the recent financial engineering of pension returns look like chump change. (Even Black-Scholes requires the person using the model to make a number of assumptions, some of which are open to abuse...)
One possibility (which I encountered in another context) is that you create a piece of this material, then record its "signature" under various wavelengths shining from different directions. Then you hand out the material as the ID card and publish the signatures.
Creating a duplicate is infeasible because you'd have to more-or-less exactly duplicate the position of #bignumber of nano-scale particles inside the containing matrix...
This isn't a simple replacement of the mag stripe with a contactless EEPROM. The card and the (remote) reader will have to interact via a cryptographic protocol, and in particular the reader will have to authenticate with the card so that the card knows that at the other end of the aether there's a terminal that's been blessed by somebody and someone will be held accountable if something untoward happens.
At least that's the theory. We'll see how well the protocols are designed...
Truth be told the only federal representatives elected directly by the public are the Congressional representatives. They in turn, through the electoral college, vote for the president.
Each state (and DC) gets a number of electoral votes equal to its representation in Congress (# representatives + 2), which may be what you're thinking of...
Unlike all the *other* problems with biometrics, like false positives/false negatives/gelatin sheet spoofing, showing the camera a photograph, etc., this one seems like it should be easy to solve: don't store the biometric data, instead, treat it like a password and store a cryptographic hash of it instead.
The paper explicitly covers encryption, etc., of the data.
Any system that uses the data to decide whether or not the presented (fake) pattern matches the template is subject to this attack, i.e., hashing the data won't help.
This issue has been argued back and forth for many years, with consumers groups arguing that this was a fair use (see sections 2.8 and 2.9), and the recording industry arguing that it was not. The issue was finally settled by Congress when the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA) (P.L. 102-
563, 106 Stat. 4237, codified at 17 U.S.C. 1001 - 1010) was passed in October 1992. This Act added ten sections to Title 17, one of which provided an alternative to the fair use analysis for musical recordings. The new section states (emphasis added):
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the
noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.
As the legislative history to this statute noted, "In short, the reported legislation would clearly establish that consumers cannot be sued for making analog or digital audio copies for private noncommercial use."
Does this mean you can make copies for your family and friends, as long as it's not "commercial?" A strict reading of the words in the statute would seem to say that you may. This is not as outrageous as it sounds. Part of the impetus behind the AHRA was the perception that blank tapes were being used mostly to copy commercial musical sound recordings. As a result, the AHRA provided that a royalty payment (referred to as a "DAT tax" by its detractors) be paid for each sale of digital audio tape to compensate authors of musical works and sound recordings for the profits
lost due to these copies. See 17 U.S.C. 1003, 1004. Arguably, the AHRA anticipates and allows exactly this type of copying, and a literal reading of section 1008 would tend to support this position. But the AHRA is still sufficiently new this hasn't been tested in court yet.
3.7) Can I legally make a cassette copy of a musical CD for my own use, so I can play it in my car?
This issue has been argued back and forth for many years, with consumers groups arguing that this was a fair use (see sections 2.8 and 2.9), and the recording industry arguing that it was not. The issue was finally settled by Congress when the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA) (P.L. 102- 563, 106 Stat. 4237, codified at 17 U.S.C. 1001 - 1010) was passed in October 1992. This Act added ten sections to Title 17, one of which provided an alternative to the fair use analysis for musical recordings. The new section states:
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement
of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or
distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital
audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an
analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a
consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical
recordings or analog musical recordings.
17 U.S.C. 1008.
As the legislative history to this statute noted, "In short, the reported legislation would clearly establish that consumers cannot be sued for making analog or digital audio copies for private noncommercial use." H.R. Rep. 102-780(I).
Does this mean you can make copies for your family and friends, as long as it's not "commercial?" A strict reading of the words in the statute would seem to say that you may. This is not as outrageous as it sounds. Part of the impetus behind the AHRA was the perception that blank tapes were being used mostly to copy commercial musical sound recordings. As a result, the AHRA provided that a royalty payment (referred to as a "DAT tax" by its detractors) be paid for each sale of digital audio tape to compensate authors of musical works and sound recordings for the profits lost due to these copies. See 17 U.S.C. 1003, 1004. Arguably, the AHRA anticipates and allows exactly this type of copying, and a literal reading of section 1008 would tend to support this position. But the AHRA is still sufficiently new this hasn't been tested in court yet.
Note, also, that this section applies only to musical recordings; it clearly does not include spoken word recordings. Of course, it is still possible that such a use of a spoken word recording might still be considered a section 107 fair use (see sections 2.8 and 2.9), even though section 1008 does not apply to provide a clear exemption.
Everyone yelling about how much more money the RIAA has for legal fees is ignoring the fact that possession of music which is not "licensed" to you is against the law.
Unless, of course, it's fair use.
The copy of Elton John's Greatest Hits on my machine is a case in point - I don't own the album; I borrowed it from a friend and ripped it. And despite what Hilary Rosen and Jack Valenti want you to believe, that is perfectly legal...
Yeah, I know, OT but English is not my mother tongue. I thought, Fritz was some reference to the Germans but this does not really make sense here, does it? What does "Fritz types" mean?
It's a reference to Ernest "Fritz" Hollings, Democratic U.S. Senator from South Carolina, who has been the driving force behind "mandatory DRM" legislation.
You may also know him as the "Senator from Disney."
P.S. - All that complexity in the present tax laws related to the definition of income and deductions? It's going to show up in time under Armey's bill in order to decide exactly what a "business input" is...
`(c) BUSINESS TAXABLE INCOME- For purposes of this section--
`(1) IN GENERAL- The term `business taxable income' means gross active income reduced by the deductions specified in subsection (d).
`(2) GROSS ACTIVE INCOME-
`(A) IN GENERAL- For purposes of paragraph (1), the term `gross active income' means gross receipts from--
`(i) the sale or exchange of property or services in the United States by any person in connection with a business activity, and
`(ii) the export of property or services from the United States in connection with a business activity.
(d) DEDUCTIONS-
`(1) IN GENERAL- The deductions specified in this subsection are--
`(A) the cost of business inputs for the business activity,
`(B) wages (as defined in section 3121(a) without regard to paragraph (1) thereof) which are paid in cash for services performed in the United States as an employee, and
`(C) retirement contributions to or under any plan or arrangement which makes retirement distributions (as defined in section 63(c)) for the benefit of such employees to the extent such contributions are allowed as a deduction under section 404.
(2) BUSINESS INPUTS-
`(A) IN GENERAL- For purposes of paragraph (1), the term `cost of business inputs' means--
`(i) the amount paid for property sold or used in connection with a business activity,
`(ii) the amount paid for services (other than for the services of employees, including fringe benefits paid by reason of such services) in connection with a business activity, and
`(iii) any excise tax, sales tax, customs duty, or other separately stated levy imposed by a Federal, State, or local government on the purchase of property or services which are for use in connection with a business activity.
Got rental income? Everything you can deduct from gross rental income today is still deductible (it's a "business input"). You even get to expense capital items up front (which you can't do today.)
Got a company jet? Its use is "connected" to a "business activity", so its operating costs (and purchase price!) are fully deductible, and if the CEO in Chicago happens to use it to get to his (company-provided) courtside seats for the Laker game it's not taxable income to him (it's not "wages"). (The Laker tickets perk isn't taxable either...)
It is true that net rental (or farm) income will be taxable at business rates, and that the corporation would pay tax on any dividends (as is done today), unless they could figure out a way to turn it into a "business input"...
Slashdot Mirror
Who do you think is more likely to hold on tightly for dear life to a job - someone with talent who can get another one after leaving, or deadwood that knows nothing else?
(Why, yes, I will be celebrating my 20th anniversary with IBM next year, why?)
Both Senator Frist (majority leader) and Senator Daschle (minority leader) are cosponsors.
This one's going to pass...
>the bank will charge you a service fee to deposit
Parent poster is in Canada. I worked in Canada one summer about 10 years ago and could not believe how customer-unfriendly the banks were. (Made BB look like Nordstrom's...)
Do Canadian banks *really* charge you a fee to accept your money? If so, and you're in Toronto or somewhere else close to the border, why not use a US bank?
Having read many of the posts here I understand why so many .coms went bust. The geeks running them didn't have the faintest concept of accounting...
I oppose the expensing of options because there is often no good way to value them, particularly in the case of a startup offering them in lieu of cash (which is often where they do the most good from the business's point of view, and where rules requiring them to be expensed are likely to hurt the business's viability the most).
Option grants and the associated potential costs are already required to be disclosed in the footnotes to a company's financial statements. If the rules do wind up changing (as seems likely, or perhaps even inevitable), the financial tricks companies play with their stated earnings will make the recent financial engineering of pension returns look like chump change. (Even Black-Scholes requires the person using the model to make a number of assumptions, some of which are open to abuse...)
One possibility (which I encountered in another context) is that you create a piece of this material, then record its "signature" under various wavelengths shining from different directions. Then you hand out the material as the ID card and publish the signatures.
Creating a duplicate is infeasible because you'd have to more-or-less exactly duplicate the position of #bignumber of nano-scale particles inside the containing matrix...
My latest electric bill (all electric house, well insulated, mid-south) shows 4 1/4 KW per hour average for the month.
I'll take 4 cells...
I'm shocked he managed to get the cats to wear the damn things long enough to be photographed.
You mean 22 (oops, 24)...
Second world used to be the Communist Bloc; probably not relevant any more (does Cuba need it's own world?)
This isn't a simple replacement of the mag stripe with a contactless EEPROM. The card and the (remote) reader will have to interact via a cryptographic protocol, and in particular the reader will have to authenticate with the card so that the card knows that at the other end of the aether there's a terminal that's been blessed by somebody and someone will be held accountable if something untoward happens.
At least that's the theory. We'll see how well the protocols are designed...
I ask you: How dense does somebody have to be to confuse a cartoon show against a live person cable television news network?
If you're watching Fox News, you're at least three quarters of the way to dense enough...
Um, no. Congresspeople can't serve as electors.
Each state (and DC) gets a number of electoral votes equal to its representation in Congress (# representatives + 2), which may be what you're thinking of...
"The SCO lawsuit makes me wish my company was in Utah. We need a new building."
If I could do balance forecasting (ideally using formula-based templates), I could ditch my spreadsheets.
I'd be using quicken but the version I've got doesn't support this either...
The paper explicitly covers encryption, etc., of the data.
Any system that uses the data to decide whether or not the presented (fake) pattern matches the template is subject to this attack, i.e., hashing the data won't help.
It's also not spelled that way...
This issue has been argued back and forth for many years, with consumers groups arguing that this was a fair use (see sections 2.8 and 2.9), and the recording industry arguing that it was not. The issue was finally settled by Congress when the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA) (P.L. 102- 563, 106 Stat. 4237, codified at 17 U.S.C. 1001 - 1010) was passed in October 1992. This Act added ten sections to Title 17, one of which provided an alternative to the fair use analysis for musical recordings. The new section states (emphasis added):
As the legislative history to this statute noted, "In short, the reported legislation would clearly establish that consumers cannot be sued for making analog or digital audio copies for private noncommercial use."
Does this mean you can make copies for your family and friends, as long as it's not "commercial?" A strict reading of the words in the statute would seem to say that you may. This is not as outrageous as it sounds. Part of the impetus behind the AHRA was the perception that blank tapes were being used mostly to copy commercial musical sound recordings. As a result, the AHRA provided that a royalty payment (referred to as a "DAT tax" by its detractors) be paid for each sale of digital audio tape to compensate authors of musical works and sound recordings for the profits lost due to these copies. See 17 U.S.C. 1003, 1004. Arguably, the AHRA anticipates and allows exactly this type of copying, and a literal reading of section 1008 would tend to support this position. But the AHRA is still sufficiently new this hasn't been tested in court yet.
Although I'd always heard it was Caliph Omar.
They seem to know something about it...
http://www.eff.org/IP//copyright.faq
3.7) Can I legally make a cassette copy of a musical CD for my own use,
so I can play it in my car?
This issue has been argued back and forth for many years, with consumers
groups arguing that this was a fair use (see sections 2.8 and 2.9), and
the recording industry arguing that it was not. The issue was finally
settled by Congress when the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA) (P.L. 102-
563, 106 Stat. 4237, codified at 17 U.S.C. 1001 - 1010) was passed in
October 1992. This Act added ten sections to Title 17, one of which
provided an alternative to the fair use analysis for musical recordings.
The new section states:
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement
of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or
distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital
audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an
analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a
consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical
recordings or analog musical recordings.
17 U.S.C. 1008.
As the legislative history to this statute noted, "In short, the reported
legislation would clearly establish that consumers cannot be sued for
making analog or digital audio copies for private noncommercial use."
H.R. Rep. 102-780(I).
Does this mean you can make copies for your family and friends, as long
as it's not "commercial?" A strict reading of the words in the statute
would seem to say that you may. This is not as outrageous as it sounds.
Part of the impetus behind the AHRA was the perception that blank tapes
were being used mostly to copy commercial musical sound recordings. As a
result, the AHRA provided that a royalty payment (referred to as a "DAT
tax" by its detractors) be paid for each sale of digital audio tape to
compensate authors of musical works and sound recordings for the profits
lost due to these copies. See 17 U.S.C. 1003, 1004. Arguably, the AHRA
anticipates and allows exactly this type of copying, and a literal
reading of section 1008 would tend to support this position. But the
AHRA is still sufficiently new this hasn't been tested in court yet.
Note, also, that this section applies only to musical recordings; it
clearly does not include spoken word recordings. Of course, it is still
possible that such a use of a spoken word recording might still be
considered a section 107 fair use (see sections 2.8 and 2.9), even though
section 1008 does not apply to provide a clear exemption.
Unless, of course, it's fair use.
The copy of Elton John's Greatest Hits on my machine is a case in point - I don't own the album; I borrowed it from a friend and ripped it. And despite what Hilary Rosen and Jack Valenti want you to believe, that is perfectly legal...
I think the only military excursions that US undertook since the UN has been UN approved actions.
Afghanistan (?)
Kosovo
Panama
Grenada
Lebanon
Vietnam
Dunno if we've waited for UN permission for much since Korea...
Yeah, I know, OT but English is not my mother tongue. I thought, Fritz was some reference to the Germans but this does not really make sense here, does it? What does "Fritz types" mean?
It's a reference to Ernest "Fritz" Hollings, Democratic U.S. Senator from South Carolina, who has been the driving force behind "mandatory DRM" legislation.
You may also know him as the "Senator from Disney."
it sure as hell would put a bullet into companies like these.
Which is why the IRS doesn't just have a simple webform to allow taxpayers to submit their taxes - the Senators for H&R Block et al won't allow it.
The compromise is that any firm that does electronic filing has to do a certain (fairly reasonable - around 30% IIRC) amount of business for free.
P.S. - All that complexity in the present tax laws related to the definition of income and deductions? It's going to show up in time under Armey's bill in order to decide exactly what a "business input" is...
Again, that's not what the bill says.
`(c) BUSINESS TAXABLE INCOME- For purposes of this section--
(d) DEDUCTIONS-
Got rental income? Everything you can deduct from gross rental income today is still deductible (it's a "business input"). You even get to expense capital items up front (which you can't do today.)
Got a company jet? Its use is "connected" to a "business activity", so its operating costs (and purchase price!) are fully deductible, and if the CEO in Chicago happens to use it to get to his (company-provided) courtside seats for the Laker game it's not taxable income to him (it's not "wages"). (The Laker tickets perk isn't taxable either...)
It is true that net rental (or farm) income will be taxable at business rates, and that the corporation would pay tax on any dividends (as is done today), unless they could figure out a way to turn it into a "business input"...