https://cornerstone.lib.mnsu.e...
Paragraph 1 of the introduction: "In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC), the United States Supreme Court ruled that government could not limit corporate political spending in elections arguing that such limitations would violate the free speech rights of corporations. With this ruling, the Court has set a new standard for corporate First Amendment rights. "
Long story short, the court chose to err on the side of caution, which is understandable...but it doesn't change the fact that the brand power of a corporation can have a disproportionate impact on the political process. There's no easy way to solve the problem, and I have no suggestions. I just know that it's wrong to give a company effectively unlimited voice in elections.
You're so right. I absolutely love to have my precious limited time interrupted by unskippable advertising in the middle of quality programming. Please, let me pay 5 times more to have feed after feed of crappy ads for products that I don't care at all about. As long as Netflix continues to provide an ad-free on-demand experience, I'm TOTALLY cool with paying $13...$15...hell, even $20/month.
My familiarity with all of the different vulnerabilities that have been exposed over the last couple of years is cursory at best. Too much time spent on mitigation, too little on education. "Here, apply this...wait, no that one makes it worse do this...no wait, don't apply any patches...you already did? Guess you need a whole new motherboard and processor..."
Hyperthreading is at least partly to blame for the serious security flaws in nearly every processor produced over the last two decades. The 9900K still has it because some people value speed over security.
https://www.itnews.com.au/news...
On ebooks...they can keep that up, but people like me will just start buying physical copies again. I mean, I love the convenience of having a library everywhere I go. That doesn't mean it's worth paying more than paperback prices for a license to read on a specific platform that can be arbitrarily revoked at the whim of the company with no real recourse.
Wait, wait, wait...is this "someonewhocares"? I started using that hosts list YEARS ago! Easily one of the most comprehensive lists of advertising URLs I've ever found. I wouldn't be surprised if others built their lists off of that one.
That would seem to indicate that it's used (relatively) correctly here. The defendant would need resources to attempt to refute the judge's verdict. Just because they have resources, though, doesn't mean they'll win their appeal. The verdict may get the "salute" of approval or it may be overturned. One might even go so far as to say that the judge and his verdict are interchangeable in this context.
At low levels, the JUDGE is the law, unless the defendant has the resources to run the judge up the flagpole. In this case, the guy is probably going to serve his time and the tell the story of how he was f*ed by the system for the rest of his life, further degrading faith in the system and further diminishing the likelihood that anyone will bother to invest time and resources in fixing it.
Sometimes, in order to grow a business to a sustainable level, some losses must be taken. Once the necessary growth is achieved, the business can modify its model to become sustainable.
the menu options that I loved in 2003. I hate the ribbon. It's nowhere near as intuitive as the very simple menus. I don't need or want icons on my menu bar.
if he had just created a restore partition on each of the hard drives. The issue is in providing separate physical media. Had the systems been sold "intact", meaning wiped of all personal information but with HDD partitions in place, there would have been no copyright infringement. He had a great plan but poor execution; he left himself open, and now he will have to pay the price...sad but true.
Unless you purchase it through a service that could go out of business and you lose your device and/or backups of that media. Spotify is a great example of the best of both worlds. You set up your library, download the songs, and take them wherever you want. For roughly the cost of 2/3 of an album per month, you have access to the entire Spotify library without concern of theft or device/media failure. As long as you have Internet access you can recover your library. Seems like a fair deal and a fair compromise that ensures media creators are compensated for their work.
You've never owned the music. At best, you owned physical media (that were subject to theft, degradation, or destruction) with a license to play the content for yourself only. Additionally, that content was limited to the format in which it was recorded. Through streaming services you have access to the entire library for which the service is licensed, in the most current format, without risk of loss due to theft or physical damage. You can play that content on any supported media device; for example, Pandora is supported on smart tvs, Android, iOS, OSX, Windows, and Linux. Some services even allow you to purchase (licenses to) digital copies of individual songs for offline play...and all this for a nominal fee that is approximately half the cost of a full album.
How is that a bad thing? If all music is available on demand, it pushes ISPs to roll out high-speed wireless in all areas due to customer demand. Pay your reasonable fee and have access to any music you want at any time. Granted, with the death of Net Neutrality it opens up the possibility of ISPs favoring their own streaming services...but we can at least be hopeful that the market will prevent this in the potential extreme.
Slashdot Mirror
The comparison is between social networks with similar numbers of monthly active users...perhaps you missed the multiple references to MAUs.
Given that it burns a condensed greenhouse gas and burning methane only produces carbon dioxide and water...yeah, you might be right.
https://cornerstone.lib.mnsu.e... Paragraph 1 of the introduction: "In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC), the United States Supreme Court ruled that government could not limit corporate political spending in elections arguing that such limitations would violate the free speech rights of corporations. With this ruling, the Court has set a new standard for corporate First Amendment rights. " Long story short, the court chose to err on the side of caution, which is understandable...but it doesn't change the fact that the brand power of a corporation can have a disproportionate impact on the political process. There's no easy way to solve the problem, and I have no suggestions. I just know that it's wrong to give a company effectively unlimited voice in elections.
People only vote that way because corporations are given a platform. Stupid fucking Citizens United bullshit.
You have a VERY limited scope of focus...I mean, if all you care about is superhero shows, that's fine. There is a LOT more content on Netflix.
You're so right. I absolutely love to have my precious limited time interrupted by unskippable advertising in the middle of quality programming. Please, let me pay 5 times more to have feed after feed of crappy ads for products that I don't care at all about. As long as Netflix continues to provide an ad-free on-demand experience, I'm TOTALLY cool with paying $13...$15...hell, even $20/month.
My familiarity with all of the different vulnerabilities that have been exposed over the last couple of years is cursory at best. Too much time spent on mitigation, too little on education. "Here, apply this...wait, no that one makes it worse do this...no wait, don't apply any patches...you already did? Guess you need a whole new motherboard and processor..."
Hyperthreading is at least partly to blame for the serious security flaws in nearly every processor produced over the last two decades. The 9900K still has it because some people value speed over security. https://www.itnews.com.au/news...
Bigly.
I agree. I discovered Broken Earth through the Hugos and absolutely love it! Fresh and original...a welcome change from "standard" scifi.
On ebooks...they can keep that up, but people like me will just start buying physical copies again. I mean, I love the convenience of having a library everywhere I go. That doesn't mean it's worth paying more than paperback prices for a license to read on a specific platform that can be arbitrarily revoked at the whim of the company with no real recourse.
Wait, wait, wait...is this "someonewhocares"? I started using that hosts list YEARS ago! Easily one of the most comprehensive lists of advertising URLs I've ever found. I wouldn't be surprised if others built their lists off of that one.
That would seem to indicate that it's used (relatively) correctly here. The defendant would need resources to attempt to refute the judge's verdict. Just because they have resources, though, doesn't mean they'll win their appeal. The verdict may get the "salute" of approval or it may be overturned. One might even go so far as to say that the judge and his verdict are interchangeable in this context.
This is the first accurate explanation I've seen.
At low levels, the JUDGE is the law, unless the defendant has the resources to run the judge up the flagpole. In this case, the guy is probably going to serve his time and the tell the story of how he was f*ed by the system for the rest of his life, further degrading faith in the system and further diminishing the likelihood that anyone will bother to invest time and resources in fixing it.
Sometimes, in order to grow a business to a sustainable level, some losses must be taken. Once the necessary growth is achieved, the business can modify its model to become sustainable.
There's a difference between a toolbar and a menu bar.
the menu options that I loved in 2003. I hate the ribbon. It's nowhere near as intuitive as the very simple menus. I don't need or want icons on my menu bar.
Yeah, I'm pushing most of our users that way, but there aren't any thinclients that do triple monitor, afaik.
Probably 5-10% of my work is web-based. The rest is done via remote desktops...but I often have 5-10 RDP sessions running at a time...
if he had just created a restore partition on each of the hard drives. The issue is in providing separate physical media. Had the systems been sold "intact", meaning wiped of all personal information but with HDD partitions in place, there would have been no copyright infringement. He had a great plan but poor execution; he left himself open, and now he will have to pay the price...sad but true.
Perhaps, then, a service that combines both streaming and offline play will be best for you.
Unless you purchase it through a service that could go out of business and you lose your device and/or backups of that media. Spotify is a great example of the best of both worlds. You set up your library, download the songs, and take them wherever you want. For roughly the cost of 2/3 of an album per month, you have access to the entire Spotify library without concern of theft or device/media failure. As long as you have Internet access you can recover your library. Seems like a fair deal and a fair compromise that ensures media creators are compensated for their work.
You've never owned the music. At best, you owned physical media (that were subject to theft, degradation, or destruction) with a license to play the content for yourself only. Additionally, that content was limited to the format in which it was recorded. Through streaming services you have access to the entire library for which the service is licensed, in the most current format, without risk of loss due to theft or physical damage. You can play that content on any supported media device; for example, Pandora is supported on smart tvs, Android, iOS, OSX, Windows, and Linux. Some services even allow you to purchase (licenses to) digital copies of individual songs for offline play...and all this for a nominal fee that is approximately half the cost of a full album.
How is that a bad thing? If all music is available on demand, it pushes ISPs to roll out high-speed wireless in all areas due to customer demand. Pay your reasonable fee and have access to any music you want at any time. Granted, with the death of Net Neutrality it opens up the possibility of ISPs favoring their own streaming services...but we can at least be hopeful that the market will prevent this in the potential extreme.