Classical capitalism also relies heavily on open information. In this case Australian consumers don't know any better, although the study shows that's starting to change.
It's interesting how consumers work. Rather than saying "That product is useful and for me it's worth $X", they will look at the cost to produce and say "That amount of profit is excessive, it should be less than $X". You can see this with digital copies of entertainment. The product is better for most people (more convenient and in a preferred storage form), so does this mean people are happier to pay more over physical storage? No, they will say "The price is ridiculous, it should be far cheaper given they don't have to pay transport and manufacturing costs."
As to your main point, the lack of competition against software like Adobe products and Windows is not because of patents and copyright, it's because they created a *cough* good product and created it early, generating momentum and an effective monopoly. Other software companies are free to produce operating systems and photo editing suites (and do).
Companies will charge whatever the market will bear, and markets still differ geographically. The Australian market has it's own communication and momentum about software prices, and it takes time to absorb international information.
And rightly so. Admirable as giving citizens a direct voice is, it's not necessarily representative. All it proves is that there are X people out there who support change Y. People against change Y may be more numerous but aren't taken into account. That's why elected representatives do their own polling. On the positive side, this sort of 'click the button' skewing probably does provide a counterbalance to traditional lobbyist skewing.
On this particular issue I'd expect it to be smacked down. Being the only first-world country to reject international copyright agreements is going to cause trade problems, especially in your own I.P. output. In the case of Finland imagine if, for example, other countries were legally free to make copies of Linux?
On the first point, prior record only applies to sentencing, not conviction, so that's (presumably) why the guilty wife got 20 years and, for Zimmerman, it's completely irrelevant.
The difference is that you'd be struggling to buy a TV in Best Buy/Walmart that didn't support HDMI. The proportion of network-connected media players that support AirPlay is not even close to universal.
The article uses "plugin" to refer to the current system of DRM and "module" to refer to the proposed HTML5 system. There is little difference in that both are closed-source addons designed to keep the video data inaccessible from the browser code (which is the answer to h4rr4r's question).
If your entire OS and drivers are open source, that's not going to work and it's unlikely these DRM modules will be provided for your platform.
The DRM will be a closed-source plugin whose API conforms to the HTML5 standard for DRM plugins. I'm unclear on whether the plugin outputs to the video and audio devices itself, or if it passes the streams to the browser. If the latter then you are correct.
A standards body is an arbitrator for different groups, not an authoratative leader, so as much as I may not like it they are going to have to accomodate the DRM wishes of the major content producers. Even if open source browsers could not implement the standard I don't think it will damage them substantially - we already have the situation where you can expect not to access certain content in certain browsers and under certain operating systems.
SSH is solving a different problem. It is protecting the information from middle parties, not the SSH client software itself. How would you write an open source ssh client that could display the results of an ls to your terminal, but the user couldn't change the code to write those results to a file as well? That's the DRM problem.
Providing a binary blob is security by obscurity, because it's difficult but you can debug and trace the assembly... unless you have trusted pathways where your hardware and OS are working against you. Granted, the latter might be less obscurity and more deliberately inaccessible.
The best security is the kind I can hand you the source code and you STILL can't break it.
DRM does require some obscurity. How would you implement an open source DRM client, for example, where the user is free to compile it themselves?
Either the binary code has to be signed or the user can add their own hooks to extract the data. I guess you consider that protected rather than obscure, but they're related.
They cop different abuse (which is really the definition of sexism!) For example a male politician is more likely to be called out on their physical appearance (like being overweight, or your examples). Female politicians are more likely to be belittled or disregarded.
That is an argument from ignorance: in the bible, marriage is between a man and a number of wives and concubines and slaves...
In the New Testament Paul stipulates that a leader should be "the husband of but one wife". Polygamy in the Old Testament is typically considered to be a historical record, not actually condoned by God.
On the other hand even the New Testament isn't that clear. It's not certain that phrase refers to monogamy at all, but possibly divorce and possibly simple integrity. Discounting OT polygamy may be wishful thinking, but by the time of the NT polygamy wasn't really practiced in the Roman Empire.
What is the purpose of freedom? At least in the U.S. it appears to be substantially about restricting the government or others from harming you. That is, the ultimate point really is about harm reduction. When it's bandied about as a holy end goal in itself it loses all meaning.
You've hit the nail on the head, and the head is asking the question Why does the government confer special rights to married couples?. The answer is that it's part of the job of running society to encourage families and children. It sounds trite but families really are the building blocks of society and its continued existence.
Homosexual couples 'cannot' produce children which is why they traditionally haven't been part of the definition of marriage. Of course it's not that simple as they can involve other people to do so, plus many heterosexual couples don't have children, and of course polygamy can produce volumes of children.
In your particular case, you and your roommates are very unlikely to create a family or combine finances in the same way a romantic couple would so it makes no sense to give you benefits that are designed to encourage families and offset the burden for those doing so (typically lost income and additional costs in some areas).
He's saying it's one component of the ranking, not the only component. The corollary is that, given the U.S's low tax rates, what does it say about their other freedoms that they only placed 10th?
It's not fair to point to a single shock-jock whose question wasn't tolerated by the public whatsoever.
Also, Gillard did her best to make gender politics an issue, continually trying to paint Abbot as a misogynist. Witness her 'dressing down' speech and her recent left-field attempt to spark an abortion debate in a feminist context.
If the editors added the 'controversial' line then it's a poor reflection on them. At best it is mildly controversial.
It's riotously controversial if you are a writer for News Limited, though. I have not seen a single positive article about it in their broadsheet, The Australian, over the past few years. As Murdoch also owns Foxtel cable, which is likely to be eaten by an NBN, conspiracy theorists could be forgiven for suggesting editorial independence has been compromised.
Not at all. Usually it looks like it is up to the victim because in rape cases most of the case relies on their evidence. However, in general, once you report a crime (as the victim or not) it is completely up to the police etc. whether to prosecute it or not. They may use discretion in some cases (young thief agrees to pay back a shopkeeper and the parents know) and not in others (battered wife doesn't want to press charges because she's scared).
In this particular case I believe the Swedish police already have statements from the victims so the usual impediment to prosecuting with a reluctant rape victim (getting them to give evidence) isn't present.
Slashdot Mirror
Of slightly-related interest, there's a Fosters bar in Domodedovo airport in Moscow.
Classical capitalism also relies heavily on open information. In this case Australian consumers don't know any better, although the study shows that's starting to change.
It's interesting how consumers work. Rather than saying "That product is useful and for me it's worth $X", they will look at the cost to produce and say "That amount of profit is excessive, it should be less than $X". You can see this with digital copies of entertainment. The product is better for most people (more convenient and in a preferred storage form), so does this mean people are happier to pay more over physical storage? No, they will say "The price is ridiculous, it should be far cheaper given they don't have to pay transport and manufacturing costs."
As to your main point, the lack of competition against software like Adobe products and Windows is not because of patents and copyright, it's because they created a *cough* good product and created it early, generating momentum and an effective monopoly. Other software companies are free to produce operating systems and photo editing suites (and do).
Companies will charge whatever the market will bear, and markets still differ geographically. The Australian market has it's own communication and momentum about software prices, and it takes time to absorb international information.
Wouldn't the survivors of infanticide be those whose parents were inclined toward monogamy, affording them better protection?
The more demanding infant seems like all the more reason for an interloping male to kill it.
I may be misunderstanding your argument, but the premise of the study is that monogamy developed to stop interlopers for this reason.
And rightly so. Admirable as giving citizens a direct voice is, it's not necessarily representative. All it proves is that there are X people out there who support change Y. People against change Y may be more numerous but aren't taken into account. That's why elected representatives do their own polling. On the positive side, this sort of 'click the button' skewing probably does provide a counterbalance to traditional lobbyist skewing.
On this particular issue I'd expect it to be smacked down. Being the only first-world country to reject international copyright agreements is going to cause trade problems, especially in your own I.P. output. In the case of Finland imagine if, for example, other countries were legally free to make copies of Linux?
No it's a reference to "phone home" and a dig at DRM.
Also, remember Yasser Arafat won it in 1994.
On the first point, prior record only applies to sentencing, not conviction, so that's (presumably) why the guilty wife got 20 years and, for Zimmerman, it's completely irrelevant.
According to the inquiry findings section of that article the judge ruled;
There is no evidence to indicate that the use of the CIMS database in this manner was approved or condoned by the CPC.
So looks like Harper is legal to me, and this line tallies well with the GP's "some but no total evidence".
It's hard to tell. The one thing we can all agree upon is that it's a massive conspiracy.
The difference is that you'd be struggling to buy a TV in Best Buy/Walmart that didn't support HDMI. The proportion of network-connected media players that support AirPlay is not even close to universal.
Of course, it's not like you couldn't just hook up one of these in place of the flat panel LCD and capture it unencrypted anyway:
I'm not familiar with these, but surely they wouldn't work if the DRM plugin uses HDCP?
The article uses "plugin" to refer to the current system of DRM and "module" to refer to the proposed HTML5 system. There is little difference in that both are closed-source addons designed to keep the video data inaccessible from the browser code (which is the answer to h4rr4r's question).
If your entire OS and drivers are open source, that's not going to work and it's unlikely these DRM modules will be provided for your platform.
The DRM will be a closed-source plugin whose API conforms to the HTML5 standard for DRM plugins. I'm unclear on whether the plugin outputs to the video and audio devices itself, or if it passes the streams to the browser. If the latter then you are correct.
A standards body is an arbitrator for different groups, not an authoratative leader, so as much as I may not like it they are going to have to accomodate the DRM wishes of the major content producers. Even if open source browsers could not implement the standard I don't think it will damage them substantially - we already have the situation where you can expect not to access certain content in certain browsers and under certain operating systems.
SSH is solving a different problem. It is protecting the information from middle parties, not the SSH client software itself. How would you write an open source ssh client that could display the results of an ls to your terminal, but the user couldn't change the code to write those results to a file as well? That's the DRM problem.
Providing a binary blob is security by obscurity, because it's difficult but you can debug and trace the assembly ... unless you have trusted pathways where your hardware and OS are working against you. Granted, the latter might be less obscurity and more deliberately inaccessible.
The best security is the kind I can hand you the source code and you STILL can't break it.
Agreed.
DRM does require some obscurity. How would you implement an open source DRM client, for example, where the user is free to compile it themselves?
Either the binary code has to be signed or the user can add their own hooks to extract the data. I guess you consider that protected rather than obscure, but they're related.
They cop different abuse (which is really the definition of sexism!) For example a male politician is more likely to be called out on their physical appearance (like being overweight, or your examples). Female politicians are more likely to be belittled or disregarded.
That is an argument from ignorance: in the bible, marriage is between a man and a number of wives and concubines and slaves...
In the New Testament Paul stipulates that a leader should be "the husband of but one wife". Polygamy in the Old Testament is typically considered to be a historical record, not actually condoned by God.
On the other hand even the New Testament isn't that clear. It's not certain that phrase refers to monogamy at all, but possibly divorce and possibly simple integrity. Discounting OT polygamy may be wishful thinking, but by the time of the NT polygamy wasn't really practiced in the Roman Empire.
What is the purpose of freedom? At least in the U.S. it appears to be substantially about restricting the government or others from harming you. That is, the ultimate point really is about harm reduction. When it's bandied about as a holy end goal in itself it loses all meaning.
You've hit the nail on the head, and the head is asking the question Why does the government confer special rights to married couples?. The answer is that it's part of the job of running society to encourage families and children. It sounds trite but families really are the building blocks of society and its continued existence.
Homosexual couples 'cannot' produce children which is why they traditionally haven't been part of the definition of marriage. Of course it's not that simple as they can involve other people to do so, plus many heterosexual couples don't have children, and of course polygamy can produce volumes of children.
In your particular case, you and your roommates are very unlikely to create a family or combine finances in the same way a romantic couple would so it makes no sense to give you benefits that are designed to encourage families and offset the burden for those doing so (typically lost income and additional costs in some areas).
He's saying it's one component of the ranking, not the only component. The corollary is that, given the U.S's low tax rates, what does it say about their other freedoms that they only placed 10th?
It's not fair to point to a single shock-jock whose question wasn't tolerated by the public whatsoever.
Also, Gillard did her best to make gender politics an issue, continually trying to paint Abbot as a misogynist. Witness her 'dressing down' speech and her recent left-field attempt to spark an abortion debate in a feminist context.
If the editors added the 'controversial' line then it's a poor reflection on them. At best it is mildly controversial.
It's riotously controversial if you are a writer for News Limited, though. I have not seen a single positive article about it in their broadsheet, The Australian, over the past few years. As Murdoch also owns Foxtel cable, which is likely to be eaten by an NBN, conspiracy theorists could be forgiven for suggesting editorial independence has been compromised.
Same. 22 is noticably better than 21 especially in the layout transition. Further comparison;
Chromium - even faster and a little (but noticably) snappier when zooming or rotating
IE10 - like walking through quicksand. Still works though.
To be fair to Firefox, I have a literally hundreds of tabs open (most still unloaded) and Chromium has 5. For my use Firefox is still much preferred.
Not at all. Usually it looks like it is up to the victim because in rape cases most of the case relies on their evidence. However, in general, once you report a crime (as the victim or not) it is completely up to the police etc. whether to prosecute it or not. They may use discretion in some cases (young thief agrees to pay back a shopkeeper and the parents know) and not in others (battered wife doesn't want to press charges because she's scared).
In this particular case I believe the Swedish police already have statements from the victims so the usual impediment to prosecuting with a reluctant rape victim (getting them to give evidence) isn't present.