Why won't the content providers address the obvious, and just make the content available through Netflix/iTunes/Amazon/VUDU/etc. soon after release?
Because a) they're whole strategy is to safeguard their cable revenue and b) netflix money is not cable money. Netflix costs $9 month. Cable costs 5-12 times that. You think some of the richest companies in America want to give up that kinda money? You think they'll give that up without a fight? Would you?
...is a bitch to administer. Configuration, authentication, making sure you do all the crap so you don't get flagged as spam. I'll admit that the first time I played with Postfix it took me like two solid days to get everything set up right. You got any recommendations for deployment and admin to save me the headache next time? (Cuz the best part is, it's now been long enough that I've forgotten most of it and it'd probably take me another two days to set up...)
Yes, but the difference is when I see a Prelude my first thought isn't "watch out, she's gonna blow...." I give mad props for the chutzpah required to look at a junked out Pinto and say "awesome, just what I was looking for!" But turning 10s in a 4 banger -- even a largish 2.2 -- is pretty sweet.
Guy I know has a Pinto that's been turned into a seriously sweet dragster. Naturally aspirated Chevy 350 and it turns high 11s in the quarter mile. Of course, it may be the only Pinto on the planet that isn't a POS, but still....
So they're patenting the service which Safeway has been offering since 2007?
And wasn't there a couple of companies that did the same thing back during web-bubble 1.0?
I love that there is such a thing as the head of the Hanoi Propaganda and Education Department. That makes my day.
Don't they know you never actually name your propaganda department the Propaganda Department? I'm pretty sure it was covered in Running a Dictatorship of the Proletariat for Dummies.
If it's government information, it should be public information. That needs to be the default position with everything the government collects. Exceptions to this need to be exceedingly rare. Democracies die behind closed doors.
If we've decided that owning a firearm has enough inherent risk that it needs to be licensed, then of course we have have a right to know who has received those licenses. Otherwise how can we tell if the county sheriff is actually issuing permits in the manner we want him or her to? (In "may issue" jurisdictions CCW permits are rife with abuse. My favorite was the guy with a 20 year old manslaughter conviction who got one. He'd also donated thousands to the sheriff's campaign committee. Coincidence, of course. Administrative glitch. Sure.) And if we've decided gun ownership is dangerous enough to require a permit, then of course I should be able to know who on my street is strapped. For the same reason I have a right to know about hazardous waste being hauled through my town, and which trucking companies are hauling it, and what their safety record is.
Now I personally believe that the government has no business telling me what I can pack, where, and how. I believe that requiring a CCW permit, much less a permit to own a gun in the first place, is a violation of my 2nd amendment rights (there's no constitutional right to haul hazardous waste). I also believe in assault rifles being sold at drive through windows with no background check. However, if the government does issue these permits, then of course they should be public record.
Now was the this the best decision by the paper? Nah. But in general the default position of a news organization should be to publish, and if you're going to error, better to do it on the side of getting the information out there. And anyone pissed off about this should be pissed over a law that requires a permit just to own a gun.
In general standard here in the U.S. is that libel only attaches upon finding of 'absolute malice' -- you knew what you were saying was false and defamatory and said/published it anyway. This is best known as the standard for journalists reporting on public officials or 'public figures,' however courts have consistently found this also applies to non-media defendants. This is a very high bar, and means that most libel cases are non-starters unless you're grossly negligent. Misunderstanding a nuance of contract law will not expose you to a libel suit. The rules are very different when you're discussing a non-public figure, but for purposes of a Fortune 500 company that's not an issue. The rules are also very different in other countries, particularly the UK.
Name and shame away...if the company sued you over that, and the facts are as you state them, it would likely get thrown out of court without you even needing to appear (depending on jurisdiction).
Of course, IANAL, just a working journalist who has to know the practical state of libel law to keep from getting sued.
Slashdot Mirror
Why won't the content providers address the obvious, and just make the content available through Netflix/iTunes/Amazon/VUDU/etc. soon after release? Because a) they're whole strategy is to safeguard their cable revenue and b) netflix money is not cable money. Netflix costs $9 month. Cable costs 5-12 times that. You think some of the richest companies in America want to give up that kinda money? You think they'll give that up without a fight? Would you?
...is a bitch to administer. Configuration, authentication, making sure you do all the crap so you don't get flagged as spam. I'll admit that the first time I played with Postfix it took me like two solid days to get everything set up right. You got any recommendations for deployment and admin to save me the headache next time? (Cuz the best part is, it's now been long enough that I've forgotten most of it and it'd probably take me another two days to set up...)
Yes, but the difference is when I see a Prelude my first thought isn't "watch out, she's gonna blow...." I give mad props for the chutzpah required to look at a junked out Pinto and say "awesome, just what I was looking for!" But turning 10s in a 4 banger -- even a largish 2.2 -- is pretty sweet.
Guy I know has a Pinto that's been turned into a seriously sweet dragster. Naturally aspirated Chevy 350 and it turns high 11s in the quarter mile. Of course, it may be the only Pinto on the planet that isn't a POS, but still....
So they're patenting the service which Safeway has been offering since 2007? And wasn't there a couple of companies that did the same thing back during web-bubble 1.0?
You have to show your ID to buy a sim card? That's some weak sauce. I mean, that's why we call 'em burners, ya know.
I love that there is such a thing as the head of the Hanoi Propaganda and Education Department. That makes my day. Don't they know you never actually name your propaganda department the Propaganda Department? I'm pretty sure it was covered in Running a Dictatorship of the Proletariat for Dummies.
If it's government information, it should be public information. That needs to be the default position with everything the government collects. Exceptions to this need to be exceedingly rare. Democracies die behind closed doors.
If we've decided that owning a firearm has enough inherent risk that it needs to be licensed, then of course we have have a right to know who has received those licenses. Otherwise how can we tell if the county sheriff is actually issuing permits in the manner we want him or her to? (In "may issue" jurisdictions CCW permits are rife with abuse. My favorite was the guy with a 20 year old manslaughter conviction who got one. He'd also donated thousands to the sheriff's campaign committee. Coincidence, of course. Administrative glitch. Sure.) And if we've decided gun ownership is dangerous enough to require a permit, then of course I should be able to know who on my street is strapped. For the same reason I have a right to know about hazardous waste being hauled through my town, and which trucking companies are hauling it, and what their safety record is.
Now I personally believe that the government has no business telling me what I can pack, where, and how. I believe that requiring a CCW permit, much less a permit to own a gun in the first place, is a violation of my 2nd amendment rights (there's no constitutional right to haul hazardous waste). I also believe in assault rifles being sold at drive through windows with no background check. However, if the government does issue these permits, then of course they should be public record.
Now was the this the best decision by the paper? Nah. But in general the default position of a news organization should be to publish, and if you're going to error, better to do it on the side of getting the information out there. And anyone pissed off about this should be pissed over a law that requires a permit just to own a gun.
In general standard here in the U.S. is that libel only attaches upon finding of 'absolute malice' -- you knew what you were saying was false and defamatory and said/published it anyway. This is best known as the standard for journalists reporting on public officials or 'public figures,' however courts have consistently found this also applies to non-media defendants. This is a very high bar, and means that most libel cases are non-starters unless you're grossly negligent. Misunderstanding a nuance of contract law will not expose you to a libel suit. The rules are very different when you're discussing a non-public figure, but for purposes of a Fortune 500 company that's not an issue. The rules are also very different in other countries, particularly the UK. Name and shame away...if the company sued you over that, and the facts are as you state them, it would likely get thrown out of court without you even needing to appear (depending on jurisdiction). Of course, IANAL, just a working journalist who has to know the practical state of libel law to keep from getting sued.