Underestimating the RIAA's greed that they would actually agree to this.
Well, if they're independent groups not on a label, the RIAA has no say.
Of course, that doesn't prevent the RIAA from occasionally asserting that Fat Wreck Chords and other labels are members (over the objection of those labels).
Sadly, just because the RIAA has no legal basis to do something has never stopped them.
when the political system of Social Democracy or Social corporatism or the economic system Welfare Capitalism and/or the concept of welfare state is meant
No, that's what you mean by it and how you want it to be used, but that doesn't make it true. It's an awesome technique of rhetoric which casts your own spin on things.
In most countries, socialism means you recognize there's things society can do better than individuals can, and that we'd rather live in a society where illness and unemployment doesn't wipe out your entire life.
Your comment in another way: "Sure influenza has killed some people but not everyone dies when they get it so how can you say it's bad?"
Wow, your awesome skills with false dichotomies and offering absurd opposites is absolutely staggering.
"Not every woman has been raped, so how can rape be such a bad thing?" "Not everybody has died from a nuclear bomb so how can you can nuclear bombs be bad?" "Capitalism has yet to destroy society so it must be awesome" "Not all babies died from melamine contaminated formula, so melamine can't be all that bad for you" "My job hasn't been outsourced, so globalization must be awesome" "You're either with us or with the terrorists"
Sorry, but you started with an absurd assertion, and have gone downhill from there. You're mostly speaking nonsense, and the world can't be summed up with platitudes and over the top either-or statements.
Because socialists have this nasty habit of killing LOTS of people.
Yup, countries like Canada, Denmark, Finland, New Zealand and the Netherlands are well known for their atrocities and killings.
Seriously, just because you can cite a couple of really awful examples of historical groups who had the word "Socialist" in their name, doesn't mean you can equate all forms of socialism with killing.
if you dont spend your money you got people claiming you are not paying your fair share
That's because the entire school of thought which is trickle-down economics requires it.
If people aren't spending their money, then the entire theory behind Reagonomics is a fiction, and tax cuts for the rich don't work.;-)
Since the entire justification for those tax cuts is to get people out spending, you need to do your patriotic duty and get out there and spend like a mad fool or risk invalidating an entire economic theory. It's your job to stimulate the economy and get us out of this down turn by buying stuff.
If they cut taxes and people didn't spent, people might start to think economists don't have a clue.
If you're not gonna spend it, they'll need to tax it. So start spending, or we'll have to try Socialism.:-P
The internet won't have cars falling out of the sky onto people when some idiot doesn't keep his in good shape or puts it into manual and does something stupid.
I just don't see this ever happening because of the magnitude of the costs and making sure it's safe. It's a nerd fantasy, but I think it's unworkable.
In the mean time, the Donald Trumps of the world will have to stick with their private helicopters.
Do flying planes use some form of anti-gravity? Can they float in the air?
You're re-defining 'fly' to a very narrow (and entirely fictional) purpose.
Sure, the Jetsons had the whole hovering thing, but the flying car we've been hearing about for decades has often been the car/plan hybrid.
We don't have any physics which leads us to this anti-gravity you seem to think is a precondition, so I have no idea on what basis you feel a flying car needs to have that.
No, I didn't forget to read it... I just don't believe we're going to be able to build the infrastructure to have millions of autonomous flying vehicles soaring around the world.
My opinion of what you and TFA describe is something which is a cool intellectual exercise, but so damned far from something which can be made into reality as to be a waste of time.
We can't solve basic problems like feeding people and not trying to kill each other constantly. Millions of autonomous flying cars? That's such a pie-eyed fantasy as to be laughable.
So, instead of just the technical hurdle of a flying car, we need to design and build the entire infrastructure for this, along with developing the flight control software, routing, and everything else which comes with it.
This would be such a massive expenditure that it would never happen.
I just don't see this vast and expensive infrastructure coming into existence on its own -- so I'm forced to conclude your Jetson's vision of the future will stay in the realm of things which are cool, hypothetically possible, but so damned impratical to achieve as to make this purely a pipe dream.
and Chase would suddenly be more accountable for their contractor's actions
Good, because those contractors are doing this on behalf of Chase -- so ideally they couldn't do something like denying any responsibility because it was all done by the evil contractor.
They did it on your behalf, and you engaged them to do it, you are still responsible for it. You can't then say that what your contractors do isn't your problem.
Essentially it lets them do an end run around their privacy policy. "We don't collect or share" becomes meaningless when the people who do the work for you do collect and share.
And according to DoNotTrackMe, TFA has beacons for 5 tracking companies, plus two social media sites. So ITWorld are just as guilty of this shit as everyone else.
I swear, between NoScript, AdBlockPlus, DoNotTrackMe, and blocking/deleting cookies -- I'm *still* not sure how much crap is out there I'm missing.
I don't feel the slightest bit of guilt for blocking these sites so some marketing asshole can collect data.
the real problem we need to research and investigate is why do beer bottles unexpectedly and inappropriately become empty
I've done extensive testing on this, and have concluded that what is actually happening is a volumetric transference from the vessel to the imbiber, at a rate proportional to the time the glass spends separated from the flat surface.
You can predict the transfer rate by both the frequency with which the glass goes through it's lifting cycle and the tilt angle of the container at any given moment. Usually approaching 45 degrees suggest imminent container emptiness.
There's a second relationship whereby the imbiber themselves become vessels, and for certain forms of liquids (ie beer), the outflow rate from the secondary container increases according to the amount of liquid transferred in.
What I haven't been able to identify is how some containers become full -- I routinely see vessels which become full with substances like Jagermeister and white tequila, for which I've not been able to identify any rational explanation.
This is yet another "patent on a digital analog to a well known physical process" patent. You know, "a system and methodology for doing something we've done for centuries, but on a computer".
People have been turning pages in books for a very long time. It's a well understood process.
I seriously doubt that there's any real technical innovation or invention in using existing touch-screen technology to make it look like you're doing something which is already well known for physical books.
It's a visual metaphor, nothing more. I don't think Apple should have been granted a patent, and I don't think Samsung should.
Is there any compelling reason to buy a BlackBerry now?
They've always been heavily focused on business users who need to view Excel documents on their phone and connect to a corporate Exchange server.
But for everybody else, there's plenty of other options besides BlackBerry. And my wife's experience with the PlayBook I bought her -- well, that isn't exactly making me think I'd ever buy anything from them again, because it didn't provide the best user experience.
Slashdot Mirror
That is one of the most depressing things I've read in a while.
It's pretty accurate, but it's depressing as hell.
Well, if they're independent groups not on a label, the RIAA has no say.
Of course, that doesn't prevent the RIAA from occasionally asserting that Fat Wreck Chords and other labels are members (over the objection of those labels).
Sadly, just because the RIAA has no legal basis to do something has never stopped them.
Those are acne scars from when Mars was much younger, you insensitive clods!
It's often referred to as the Peter Principle, and I assure you, the exact same thing happens in private industry all of the time.
It's not unique to governments.
Well, their EULAs indemnify them from this, and courts have upheld the EULAs.
So, no, they're not really held responsible, and there is a legal framework as to why.
Software companies can do almost anything they want to, or as badly as they can get away with, and for the most part there's not a thing you can do.
Awesome, isn't it?
No, that's what you mean by it and how you want it to be used, but that doesn't make it true. It's an awesome technique of rhetoric which casts your own spin on things.
In most countries, socialism means you recognize there's things society can do better than individuals can, and that we'd rather live in a society where illness and unemployment doesn't wipe out your entire life.
Wow, your awesome skills with false dichotomies and offering absurd opposites is absolutely staggering.
"Not every woman has been raped, so how can rape be such a bad thing?" "Not everybody has died from a nuclear bomb so how can you can nuclear bombs be bad?" "Capitalism has yet to destroy society so it must be awesome" "Not all babies died from melamine contaminated formula, so melamine can't be all that bad for you" "My job hasn't been outsourced, so globalization must be awesome" "You're either with us or with the terrorists"
Sorry, but you started with an absurd assertion, and have gone downhill from there. You're mostly speaking nonsense, and the world can't be summed up with platitudes and over the top either-or statements.
Yup, countries like Canada, Denmark, Finland, New Zealand and the Netherlands are well known for their atrocities and killings.
Seriously, just because you can cite a couple of really awful examples of historical groups who had the word "Socialist" in their name, doesn't mean you can equate all forms of socialism with killing.
That's because the entire school of thought which is trickle-down economics requires it.
If people aren't spending their money, then the entire theory behind Reagonomics is a fiction, and tax cuts for the rich don't work. ;-)
Since the entire justification for those tax cuts is to get people out spending, you need to do your patriotic duty and get out there and spend like a mad fool or risk invalidating an entire economic theory. It's your job to stimulate the economy and get us out of this down turn by buying stuff.
If they cut taxes and people didn't spent, people might start to think economists don't have a clue.
If you're not gonna spend it, they'll need to tax it. So start spending, or we'll have to try Socialism. :-P
The internet won't have cars falling out of the sky onto people when some idiot doesn't keep his in good shape or puts it into manual and does something stupid.
I just don't see this ever happening because of the magnitude of the costs and making sure it's safe. It's a nerd fantasy, but I think it's unworkable.
In the mean time, the Donald Trumps of the world will have to stick with their private helicopters.
Do flying planes use some form of anti-gravity? Can they float in the air?
You're re-defining 'fly' to a very narrow (and entirely fictional) purpose.
Sure, the Jetsons had the whole hovering thing, but the flying car we've been hearing about for decades has often been the car/plan hybrid.
We don't have any physics which leads us to this anti-gravity you seem to think is a precondition, so I have no idea on what basis you feel a flying car needs to have that.
No, I didn't forget to read it ... I just don't believe we're going to be able to build the infrastructure to have millions of autonomous flying vehicles soaring around the world.
My opinion of what you and TFA describe is something which is a cool intellectual exercise, but so damned far from something which can be made into reality as to be a waste of time.
We can't solve basic problems like feeding people and not trying to kill each other constantly. Millions of autonomous flying cars? That's such a pie-eyed fantasy as to be laughable.
So, instead of just the technical hurdle of a flying car, we need to design and build the entire infrastructure for this, along with developing the flight control software, routing, and everything else which comes with it.
This would be such a massive expenditure that it would never happen.
I just don't see this vast and expensive infrastructure coming into existence on its own -- so I'm forced to conclude your Jetson's vision of the future will stay in the realm of things which are cool, hypothetically possible, but so damned impratical to achieve as to make this purely a pipe dream.
Most drivers don't seem to be able to handle safely navigating on surface roads.
I'm pretty sure the vast majority have no hope in hell of operating a flying car when they have up and down available to them.
And I can't see the FAA wanting to suddenly let a bunch of people start taking to the skies in something like this without a proper pilots license.
Sure, they should be able to get the information .. but I believe what is for sale here is the actual paper record during the event.
They're not selling you the information, but the artifact.
Nope ... because I just don't care.
Apparently you missed the part where they're stunningly incapable of self regulating.
Self regulation is corporate speak for "let us do whatever the hell we want and leave us alone".
1b. If you answered No to the above, you will be marked as Evil.
Good, because those contractors are doing this on behalf of Chase -- so ideally they couldn't do something like denying any responsibility because it was all done by the evil contractor.
They did it on your behalf, and you engaged them to do it, you are still responsible for it. You can't then say that what your contractors do isn't your problem.
Essentially it lets them do an end run around their privacy policy. "We don't collect or share" becomes meaningless when the people who do the work for you do collect and share.
I haven't seen that, but any site which makes that suggestion will simply get a back button and then ignored.
They all say they need ads to run, and that they have a privacy policy, but then they don't even know who all is getting to see your browsing habits.
No thanks.
And according to DoNotTrackMe, TFA has beacons for 5 tracking companies, plus two social media sites. So ITWorld are just as guilty of this shit as everyone else.
I swear, between NoScript, AdBlockPlus, DoNotTrackMe, and blocking/deleting cookies -- I'm *still* not sure how much crap is out there I'm missing.
I don't feel the slightest bit of guilt for blocking these sites so some marketing asshole can collect data.
I've done extensive testing on this, and have concluded that what is actually happening is a volumetric transference from the vessel to the imbiber, at a rate proportional to the time the glass spends separated from the flat surface.
You can predict the transfer rate by both the frequency with which the glass goes through it's lifting cycle and the tilt angle of the container at any given moment. Usually approaching 45 degrees suggest imminent container emptiness.
There's a second relationship whereby the imbiber themselves become vessels, and for certain forms of liquids (ie beer), the outflow rate from the secondary container increases according to the amount of liquid transferred in.
What I haven't been able to identify is how some containers become full -- I routinely see vessels which become full with substances like Jagermeister and white tequila, for which I've not been able to identify any rational explanation.
This is yet another "patent on a digital analog to a well known physical process" patent. You know, "a system and methodology for doing something we've done for centuries, but on a computer".
People have been turning pages in books for a very long time. It's a well understood process.
I seriously doubt that there's any real technical innovation or invention in using existing touch-screen technology to make it look like you're doing something which is already well known for physical books.
It's a visual metaphor, nothing more. I don't think Apple should have been granted a patent, and I don't think Samsung should.
These kinds of patents are ridiculous.
We call them 'beer condoms'. :-P
Is there any compelling reason to buy a BlackBerry now?
They've always been heavily focused on business users who need to view Excel documents on their phone and connect to a corporate Exchange server.
But for everybody else, there's plenty of other options besides BlackBerry. And my wife's experience with the PlayBook I bought her -- well, that isn't exactly making me think I'd ever buy anything from them again, because it didn't provide the best user experience.