Doesn't a contract sort of require my signature on it?
No, at least not in the US.
Or at least written rules and regulations before I purchase the ticket (not after)? You can't add stipulations to my purchase after I've already made the payment, you know, no matter how much you'd like to. If you leave it open ended like that, all you have to do is sell someone a donut and say "also, you have to let me drive your car around for the day. Otherwise, you can't go in."
Most venues have such stipulations on the ticket or are references as part of the ticket purchase (such as air carriers do); and in this case the person getting the press pass should know the rules.
Now that I think about it, there are dozens of ways to record and transmit information... how does the NCAA or any other media control freaks plan on stopping people from using their phones, pda's and other increasingly small recording devices to send live information to public web sites?
Aside from the normal legal response of suing the website owner's into poverty, they can do it the same way they currently do - ushers can watch for suspect behavior and eject people; or fans sitting next to the play by play guy can notify an usher when he or she becomes annoying; of course there's always the old fashioned fight in the stands as well.
Also, why is it "illegal" to record a sporting event (via audio, video, or text) and distribute it publicly?
It's called a contract - you agree to not do that; if you do they can eject you.
Is it because then no one would want to pump money into the pockets of the Cable providers and other media broadcasters?
Since sporting events are intended to generate money I'd say that's a good reason to not allow unauthorized live broadcasts.
Huh? The Mac came out in 1984 and the color Mac II came out in 1987. I'd hardly call 3 years "many" and yes, the competition (Amiga, Atari ST) had color from the start (1985) and until VGA appeared for PCs in 1987, the state of color PC graphics (CGA, EGA) was poor, to say the least.
And the Apple//gs had a color finder before the Mac; unfortunately by the time the Color Mac was out PC graphics were on par with the Mac (IMHO) and PCs were less expensive so Apple missed a chance to migrate their IIgs base to the Mac; at the very time the PC/Mac battle was still somewhat of a tossup.
Actually, all it says is that OSS can be considered COTS; so a DON entity can now classify OSS as COTS for procurement purposes. Nothing in it says they must consider OSS during procurement; and the requirement to talk to the lawyers when considering it will probably result in it being ignored anyway.
Of interest would be the clause about internal use - if one government agency modifies it can any other use it without requiring a broader release of the source? On theory the DON, as longs the program stays within the US Government, would be under no obligation to release any modifications since they have not distributed it; all they have done is install and run it on machines owned by them.
Censorship is a free speech issue, no matter who is performing the censorship. Whether it's the federal or state government, or a private corporation, preventing people exercising the right to free speech makes no difference. The only difference is that it's only a constitutional matter if the federal government is involved.
However, in the US, the Constitution limits government's ability to restrict speech; private citizens have no obligation to allow anyone to use their property to speak. Preventing someone from using your property to speak is neither a free speech nor censorship issue; rather it its a property rights issue.
I may not agree with how someone uses their property to extol or prevent someone from presenting a point of view and may chose not to associate or do business with them; but they have every right to do so.
If the blogger took the photo of the fake ID, she owns the copyright to the photograph. The question then is what can she do with the photo since it may contain a copyrighted piece of work (the actual ID). If you consider publishing in the blog to be editorial use; then she can publish the photo (she owns the copyright) and editorial use does not require permission from the subject to publish.
That does not mean she can use the photo to damage the subject without risk of a lawsuit; but that is seperate from can she publish.
OTOH; anyone can attempt to use a law to achieve their goals.
Umm, actually, group insurance is typically more expensive for most people. For example, if you have 9 people that would pay $100 a month in an individual plan, and 1 person that would pay $1,100 a month, and the averaged premium becomes $200 per month, then 9/10 of the people are paying higher premiums. The savings are from the facts that the main reason you'd have group coverage is that your employer offers it and is picking up part of the premium, and that should you develop a catastrophic condition, your personal rates would not go up proportionally (although your coworkers may hate you).
If you are unhealthy, likely to have health problems, or likely to incur expensive conditions (such as pregnancy), then your premiums may be lower than they would be otherwise. If you are young and healthy, then your premiums are likely to be higher than in an individual plan, at least until your company chips in.
The problem is the insurance company doesn't know if you are teh $100 person or the $1000, and need to price depending on tehir assessment. Should you pay less? Probably, but as an individual you are a more risky proposition.
if it were profitable to insure individuals for less than they would pay at group rates insurnace companies would do it (and I mean the actual cost whether it is a company or individually purchased group policy). Of course, tehn tehy would essentially be creating a group anyway. Of ocurse, teh risk is adverse selection - the people who think they will pay more than teh insurance buy it and others don't. Some companies learn that the hard way - such as one compnay who offered home warrnaty insurance for about $300 per year with no limit on the condition or age of your furnance, etc. They dropped teh policies after a few years beacuse it was not profitable - people with 20 and 30 year old homes with dying furnances bought them but those with new homes passed on the coverage.
After acuusing the original author of making a weak argument, this ones goes one to argue semantics and claim he discussing a concept.
For example:
"We probably would not call such laws "copyright", since they wouldn't prohibit copying. Even if we did call them "copyright", the word would mean something so different from what it means today as to render Bulmash's arguments inapplicable. Indeed, the GPL today doesn't really prohibit people from copying, it merely imposes certain requirements on those who make and distribute derivative works. If you just want to copy and use a GPL'd work yourself, or even make a private derivative work from it, you're free to do so, and many organizations in fact do that. The GPL's requirement is just that if you want to share, you must enable others to share likewise.
This runs completely counter to the modern notion of copyright, and could be enforced using laws so drastically different from our laws today as to be unrecognizeable. Thus, to say that the GPL depends on copyright is like saying that reading depends on scribes.
(snip)
Claiming that copyright abolitionists depend on copyright for enforcement of their principles is just playing a name game -- it's thinking with words instead of with concepts"I>
First he confuses the meaning of the word copy in copyright; then assumes somehow without current copyright laws the gGPL would be enforcable.
"Put bluntly: a future law that merely allows authors to enforce sharing need have little in common with today's laws that allow the restriction of sharing. Since these two things are more opposite than alike, calling them both "copyright" doesn't make much sense."
Except that current laws do nothing of the sort - they give the creator teh right to decide how it may be distributed.
"But that is what Bulmash does, when he implies that the current copyright regime (or something structurally similar to it) is the only way the GPL could be enforced."
How can you enforce the GPL if you don't give the creator the right to determine licensing terms; as is what current copyright does? Assume people will do teh right thing all the time?
In fact, current copyright law lets you distribute a work any way you want - you can release code with new restrictions, and ask pleople to comply with the GPL *IF THEY WANT TO.*
RICO was always going to be a stretch. The RIAA was, and still is behaving reprehensibly. The lawyers wanted some way to prove they were acting illegally, so they has a stab at the RICO laws. But these aren't designed to stop an entrenched cartel from suing its customers using inappropriate laws. They're disigned to combat actual organised crime. We're talking gangsters and organised fraud operations.
Except RICO has become a way to dog pile on a defendant to get them to plea bargain by threatening much higher penalities if they are found guilty. It gives them a bigger hammer to use.
As one lawyer friend put it - You want to learn about right and wrong - seek religion. You want to learn about winning and losing - go to court.
Ok, so now when you purchase a whole album, you get:
)) Pay as much or more than you would for the CD )) Lossy compression (maybe better quality, but still not as good) )) No album art )) Save the producers the cost of stamping CD/printing art/distribution
Why am I paying _more_ for this? Hmm. Buying/ripping CDs is starting to look like a good idea again.
I doubt iTunes was really about buying a whole album, especially since they unbundled the purchases from the beginning.
They're betting that more people will want to buy 20 songs for $20 from various artists rather than 2 CD's that have maybe 2 or 3 songs they want and a bunch of filler. They then added the ability to shop online instead of going to the record store and instant loading to an iPod. The CD ripper who wants most of the songs is not really their target market; IMHO.
They are essentially saying 2 things: 1) Consumers - we belive you will value the added quality and lack of DRM and are willing to pay a premium for this. 2)Record industry - we will raise prices to CD prices, he added premium will cover incremental piracy loses like CD's do today.
This does represent a bit of a strategy change in that non-DRM songs should work easily on any mp3 player; so they are no going for the Zune / Zen / etc. buyer as well. Given the iPod's dominance in the mp3 market they probably are less worried about losing a few player sales versus pushing iTunes out to compete with rival services and manufacturers.
Shouldn't an airline be allowed to deny a pilot a job based on a profile that determines he's likely to suffer seizures?
That is what's called a bona fide occupational requirement and yes, they can.
Should an insurance company have to carry and not charge extra for somebody whose genes are programmed to misfire when the applicant turns 35?
Well, the idea behind insurance is to spread risk over a large pool so when you need to pay out you have the cash; that's why gruop policies are generally cheaper than individuals. Insurance companies already do a lot of risk assessment to determine what to charge; this bill prevents them from selectively excluding people due to a possibility of an adverse outcome.
Now, they should be able to use testing results for a statistically valid sample to determine overall group risks and price accordingly; but that's what they do today.
You know, sometimes people who call 911 are *unable to speak*. You may be having a stroke, to pick an example. Standard procedure for the 911 operator when 911 is called but no one talks on the other end is to dispatch emergency response to the phone number's location, for precisely this reason. Which can be done only when the 911 operator knows where the phone number is, of course.
Exactly. Where I live a hangup or no response call gets fire, police and ambulance rolling. Fire is usually first to arrive, which is good. As one cop put it, if your house is on fire they're there; if you need medical attention, they're paramedics, and most crooks will split at the sound of sirens, lights, and people with fire axes heading for the front door. In fact, she recommended if someone is in your house and you aren't sure it is safe to talk to dial 911 and not say a word and then hang up; they'd rather over respond than have a situation worsen.
That's why I still have a land line; plus it works even when the power is out in the house.
Well, since the government is us (in a democracy) you are saying that we can't run things.
Because we, as voters, elect politicians that promise to deliver us things - which generally involve bringing in money or reduces our taxes. We would want the shiny hospital with all the latest technology 30 minutes from where we live; as would every other voter. We would not want our elected representatives to say it makes better fiscal and social sense to build one hospital a hundred miles away instead of next door, or that taxes will go up to pay for services.
But if we can't run things as voters or representatives, how can we run them any better as CEO's?
Because market forces drive the success and failure of companies; which results in decisions being made on what is fiscally sound (generally) rather than on what will make the CEO most popular.
Just because it's not for profit doesn't mean its government run. I should know, I work for one of America's better known 501c3's [habitat.org].
I realize that, having also worked for a 501c3.
Compare us to a for profit home builder. Their mission is to make money, not houses. They build the cheapest, least durable houses they can build and still sell at the highest price possible. They don't care if your slab cracks, so long as it is after your 18 month homeowner's warranty. Compare that to my mission. I'm bound by charter, contract and our board of director's to build more houses, that are better built and more affordable each year. My salary is partly based on my ability to do this. Why not run health care like this? The balance sheet has to come to zero every year (though this doesn't preclude long-term investments), and you have to justify executive salaries and perks. Imagine a health care industry driven not by the need to satisfy investor but the need to make people healthy
There are US health care systems that are non-profit; many are faith based such as Habitat; others are run by government or educational institutions, some are simply non-profits. In the end, however, they need to make enough money to survive; just as Habitat needs donations to continue its mission. Some do that well; others don't. And unlike Habitat; they need to serve whoever walks into an emergency room; they can't simply say we don't have a house for you. If non-profits work better than they will become more prevalent than for profits; OTOH being a 501c3 doesn't automatically mean you are efficient or well run. Choice is better in the long run.
Doomed argument. It doesn't matter how 'well' the government runs things, as long as everyone gets the same mediocre product. The real reason is 'health-care activity' is goods and services produced by men and women who have the right to dispose of those goods and services in trade as they see fit. To distribute them to the 'needy' under threat of physical force is a horrendous violation of their individual rights.
The real issue here is a poor educational system. Teachers need to be paid based on merit. Students with poor discipline need to flunk. Instead, educators think flunking a student is a sign of a bad school, or a bad teacher. Parents can't believe that they are responsible for their childrens' inability to learn. They coddle their children, blaming everyone but themselves or their children.
We've grown into an age where kids don't care. Teachers are not given the power to teach properly, nor are they incented to do so. They go through the motions, and whatever happens, happens.
There are many causes, not the least of which is parents who either don't care so if their kid is suspended he or she just sits at home playing video games for a few days; or who come screaming and blame the teacher when their precoius spawn is punished. Guess what, at some point teachers stop caring and don't waste their time on the losers - push them through and forget about them.
The teachers unions have crippled the entire process. The unions protect the worst teachers. Unions also drive the best teachers out of the system, leaving us with a system that gradually deteriorates.
It's a shame that local teacher's unions aren't as powerful as some believe; then maybe teachers could exert authority and maintain discipline instead of worrying that parents complaints will result in a bad review and not being rehired.
Good teachers leave because they are good - and can make a lot more money with a lot less hassle in another job.
Unions always blame lack of funding. They line up the poor kids, pointing at how little money is spent on kids' educations. Yet most of the funding increases don't go to teachers' salaries. It goes to administrative costs, new buildings, and golden parachutes for administrators.
That's because the unions don't have the power to control spending - in our district (rather well off one) I don't know a single teacher who wouldn't like to be able to direct spending so they wouldn't run out of copy paper 2 months before the end of the year or buying textbooks so each student has their own copy. (Real cases).
What we need is for teachers to be held accountable. And for those students that refuse to do the work, disciplinary action. Flunk them.
Accountability without authority is useless. Take away a kid's cellphone because they're texting during a test - Mom or Dad will come screaming at the administrator and teacher "How dare you do that to my little darling" instead of saying "Tough luck, child; you knew the rules and broke them"
There are a lot of great teachers, who care and whose main reward is to see some kid discover they can learn. Personally, that would not be enough for me to put up with all the other crap. Don't even get started on "No Child Left Behind."
THere is protection for people in your position called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower#Legal_p rotection_for_whistleblowerswhistleblower laws that can help protect you against any retaliation.
Nice concept, but most whistle blowers go through hell for a long time before they get protection, if they get it at all.
Job loss, unemployability, marital problems, etc. are all the price they pay for doing the right thing. I'm not saying we should simply go along with what we know is wrong but to expect the legal system to protect you is a pipe dream. It may, but not until you've been beaten pretty badly.
I would suggest Legal department/counsel, if your company has one, is where you should be going if you are concerned with legal ramifications -- that's their job, they are the ones paid to determine what is and isn't the best legal way to proceed.
Remember, the legal department's job is to protect the company, not you.
Talk t a lawyer; but be sure it is your lawyer - get help from one familiar with employment law.
Also, I'd echo the sentiments of others - start looking for a new job.
I have the right to free speech. That means I could say, for example, "people with brown eyes are champagne-sipping bums!" Under your flawed reasoning, the government could not stop me from saying that, but they could arrest me "as a result of my actions."
Civilians working for the military, Army contractors -- even soldiers' families -- are all subject to the directive as well, though many of the people affected by these new regulations can't even access them because they are being kept on the military's restricted Army Knowledge Online intranet
Army Knowledge Online (AKO) is pretty easy to get access to if you are an Army civilian, family member, or contractor. The Army wants AKO to be one of its main information sources and pretty much gives anyone who has any connection to the Army an account. For contractors all you need is a sponsor; civilians get one as part of their job. Not sure how a dependent gets an account. Active duty, reserve, guard and retirees all get accounts.
this is more about consumer behavior than straight economics. the optimizations referred to aren't just adjusting pricing to supply and demand, but, as noted in the article, address perceived value as well. I'm no economist, nor do I want to be, but it seems to me that such analysis can uncover otherwise unexpected responses to price adjustments.
Exactly, though I'd argue that even straight economics has a large behavioral component. What this does is let organizations maximize profits by tuning price to demand by optimizing the pricing mix; understanding the covariance between demand to set optimal price points; and uncovering correlations between complimentary goods.
While there will be many/.'rs who say "It won't work on me because I..." they miss the point that while individual behavior varies widely group behavior is rather predictable.
Of course, they haven't come anywhere close to US universities ability to price discriminate although stores would love to be able to base your scholarship I mean discount based on family income.
Huh? Are you arguing that because you have a right to do something you are somehow exempt from the results of your actions. That would be an interesting defense.
No, I am not arguing anything. I am stating the fact that because you have the constitutional right to do something, the government (sworn to defend the constitution) can not punish you for exercising that right.
And in this case they didn't - they punished him for the results of his act - not for exercising his free speech rights. Did they overact? - possibly. Did they violate his right to free speech? - no.
I am seriously concerned that some of of the people on this site don't understand this fundamental legal concept, yet they vote. FFS! Do I really need to explain this? Have you graduated high school?
I suggest you should be more concerned with your not having a clue about what you are talking about. Try reading for comprehension:
1. You have certain fundamental rights that the government cannot infringe.
2. You are responsible for the results of your actions; even if they are an outcome from your exercising one of your rights.
Yes, but that does not exempt you from the consequences of exercising that right.
That's total bullshit! You really are a consultant, aren't you?
Huh? Are you arguing that because you have a right to do something you are somehow exempt from the results of your actions. That would be an interesting defense.
Slashdot Mirror
Doesn't a contract sort of require my signature on it?
No, at least not in the US.
Or at least written rules and regulations before I purchase the ticket (not after)? You can't add stipulations to my purchase after I've already made the payment, you know, no matter how much you'd like to. If you leave it open ended like that, all you have to do is sell someone a donut and say "also, you have to let me drive your car around for the day. Otherwise, you can't go in."
Most venues have such stipulations on the ticket or are references as part of the ticket purchase (such as air carriers do); and in this case the person getting the press pass should know the rules.
Now that I think about it, there are dozens of ways to record and transmit information... how does the NCAA or any other media control freaks plan on stopping people from using their phones, pda's and other increasingly small recording devices to send live information to public web sites?
Aside from the normal legal response of suing the website owner's into poverty, they can do it the same way they currently do - ushers can watch for suspect behavior and eject people; or fans sitting next to the play by play guy can notify an usher when he or she becomes annoying; of course there's always the old fashioned fight in the stands as well.
Also, why is it "illegal" to record a sporting event (via audio, video, or text) and distribute it publicly?
It's called a contract - you agree to not do that; if you do they can eject you.
Is it because then no one would want to pump money into the pockets of the Cable providers and other media broadcasters?
Since sporting events are intended to generate money I'd say that's a good reason to not allow unauthorized live broadcasts.
Huh? The Mac came out in 1984 and the color Mac II came out in 1987. I'd hardly call 3 years "many" and yes, the competition (Amiga, Atari ST) had color from the start (1985) and until VGA appeared for PCs in 1987, the state of color PC graphics (CGA, EGA) was poor, to say the least.
//gs had a color finder before the Mac; unfortunately by the time the Color Mac was out PC graphics were on par with the Mac (IMHO) and PCs were less expensive so Apple missed a chance to migrate their IIgs base to the Mac; at the very time the PC/Mac battle was still somewhat of a tossup.
And the Apple
Actually, all it says is that OSS can be considered COTS; so a DON entity can now classify OSS as COTS for procurement purposes. Nothing in it says they must consider OSS during procurement; and the requirement to talk to the lawyers when considering it will probably result in it being ignored anyway.
Of interest would be the clause about internal use - if one government agency modifies it can any other use it without requiring a broader release of the source? On theory the DON, as longs the program stays within the US Government, would be under no obligation to release any modifications since they have not distributed it; all they have done is install and run it on machines owned by them.
Censorship is a free speech issue, no matter who is performing the censorship. Whether it's the federal or state government, or a private corporation, preventing people exercising the right to free speech makes no difference. The only difference is that it's only a constitutional matter if the federal government is involved.
However, in the US, the Constitution limits government's ability to restrict speech; private citizens have no obligation to allow anyone to use their property to speak. Preventing someone from using your property to speak is neither a free speech nor censorship issue; rather it its a property rights issue.
I may not agree with how someone uses their property to extol or prevent someone from presenting a point of view and may chose not to associate or do business with them; but they have every right to do so.
If the blogger took the photo of the fake ID, she owns the copyright to the photograph. The question then is what can she do with the photo since it may contain a copyrighted piece of work (the actual ID). If you consider publishing in the blog to be editorial use; then she can publish the photo (she owns the copyright) and editorial use does not require permission from the subject to publish.
That does not mean she can use the photo to damage the subject without risk of a lawsuit; but that is seperate from can she publish.
OTOH; anyone can attempt to use a law to achieve their goals.
Umm, actually, group insurance is typically more expensive for most people. For example, if you have 9 people that would pay $100 a month in an individual plan, and 1 person that would pay $1,100 a month, and the averaged premium becomes $200 per month, then 9/10 of the people are paying higher premiums. The savings are from the facts that the main reason you'd have group coverage is that your employer offers it and is picking up part of the premium, and that should you develop a catastrophic condition, your personal rates would not go up proportionally (although your coworkers may hate you).
If you are unhealthy, likely to have health problems, or likely to incur expensive conditions (such as pregnancy), then your premiums may be lower than they would be otherwise. If you are young and healthy, then your premiums are likely to be higher than in an individual plan, at least until your company chips in.
The problem is the insurance company doesn't know if you are teh $100 person or the $1000, and need to price depending on tehir assessment. Should you pay less? Probably, but as an individual you are a more risky proposition.
if it were profitable to insure individuals for less than they would pay at group rates insurnace companies would do it (and I mean the actual cost whether it is a company or individually purchased group policy). Of course, tehn tehy would essentially be creating a group anyway. Of ocurse, teh risk is adverse selection - the people who think they will pay more than teh insurance buy it and others don't. Some companies learn that the hard way - such as one compnay who offered home warrnaty insurance for about $300 per year with no limit on the condition or age of your furnance, etc. They dropped teh policies after a few years beacuse it was not profitable - people with 20 and 30 year old homes with dying furnances bought them but those with new homes passed on the coverage.
After acuusing the original author of making a weak argument, this ones goes one to argue semantics and claim he discussing a concept.
For example:
"We probably would not call such laws "copyright", since they wouldn't prohibit copying. Even if we did call them "copyright", the word would mean something so different from what it means today as to render Bulmash's arguments inapplicable. Indeed, the GPL today doesn't really prohibit people from copying, it merely imposes certain requirements on those who make and distribute derivative works. If you just want to copy and use a GPL'd work yourself, or even make a private derivative work from it, you're free to do so, and many organizations in fact do that. The GPL's requirement is just that if you want to share, you must enable others to share likewise.
This runs completely counter to the modern notion of copyright, and could be enforced using laws so drastically different from our laws today as to be unrecognizeable. Thus, to say that the GPL depends on copyright is like saying that reading depends on scribes.
(snip)
Claiming that copyright abolitionists depend on copyright for enforcement of their principles is just playing a name game -- it's thinking with words instead of with concepts"I>
First he confuses the meaning of the word copy in copyright; then assumes somehow without current copyright laws the gGPL would be enforcable.
"Put bluntly: a future law that merely allows authors to enforce sharing need have little in common with today's laws that allow the restriction of sharing. Since these two things are more opposite than alike, calling them both "copyright" doesn't make much sense."
Except that current laws do nothing of the sort - they give the creator teh right to decide how it may be distributed.
"But that is what Bulmash does, when he implies that the current copyright regime (or something structurally similar to it) is the only way the GPL could be enforced."
How can you enforce the GPL if you don't give the creator the right to determine licensing terms; as is what current copyright does? Assume people will do teh right thing all the time?
In fact, current copyright law lets you distribute a work any way you want - you can release code with new restrictions, and ask pleople to comply with the GPL *IF THEY WANT TO.*
RICO was always going to be a stretch. The RIAA was, and still is behaving reprehensibly. The lawyers wanted some way to prove they were acting illegally, so they has a stab at the RICO laws. But these aren't designed to stop an entrenched cartel from suing its customers using inappropriate laws. They're disigned to combat actual organised crime. We're talking gangsters and organised fraud operations.
Except RICO has become a way to dog pile on a defendant to get them to plea bargain by threatening much higher penalities if they are found guilty. It gives them a bigger hammer to use.
As one lawyer friend put it - You want to learn about right and wrong - seek religion. You want to learn about winning and losing - go to court.
Ok, so now when you purchase a whole album, you get:
)) Pay as much or more than you would for the CD
)) Lossy compression (maybe better quality, but still not as good)
)) No album art
)) Save the producers the cost of stamping CD/printing art/distribution
Why am I paying _more_ for this? Hmm. Buying/ripping CDs is starting to look like a good idea again.
I doubt iTunes was really about buying a whole album, especially since they unbundled the purchases from the beginning.
They're betting that more people will want to buy 20 songs for $20 from various artists rather than 2 CD's that have maybe 2 or 3 songs they want and a bunch of filler. They then added the ability to shop online instead of going to the record store and instant loading to an iPod. The CD ripper who wants most of the songs is not really their target market; IMHO.
They are essentially saying 2 things:
1) Consumers - we belive you will value the added quality and lack of DRM and are willing to pay a premium for this.
2)Record industry - we will raise prices to CD prices, he added premium will cover incremental piracy loses like CD's do today.
This does represent a bit of a strategy change in that non-DRM songs should work easily on any mp3 player; so they are no going for the Zune / Zen / etc. buyer as well. Given the iPod's dominance in the mp3 market they probably are less worried about losing a few player sales versus pushing iTunes out to compete with rival services and manufacturers.
Shouldn't an airline be allowed to deny a pilot a job based on a profile that determines he's likely to suffer seizures?
That is what's called a bona fide occupational requirement and yes, they can.
Should an insurance company have to carry and not charge extra for somebody whose genes are programmed to misfire when the applicant turns 35?
Well, the idea behind insurance is to spread risk over a large pool so when you need to pay out you have the cash; that's why gruop policies are generally cheaper than individuals. Insurance companies already do a lot of risk assessment to determine what to charge; this bill prevents them from selectively excluding people due to a possibility of an adverse outcome.
Now, they should be able to use testing results for a statistically valid sample to determine overall group risks and price accordingly; but that's what they do today.
You know, sometimes people who call 911 are *unable to speak*. You may be having a stroke, to pick an example. Standard procedure for the 911 operator when 911 is called but no one talks on the other end is to dispatch emergency response to the phone number's location, for precisely this reason. Which can be done only when the 911 operator knows where the phone number is, of course.
Exactly. Where I live a hangup or no response call gets fire, police and ambulance rolling. Fire is usually first to arrive, which is good. As one cop put it, if your house is on fire they're there; if you need medical attention, they're paramedics, and most crooks will split at the sound of sirens, lights, and people with fire axes heading for the front door. In fact, she recommended if someone is in your house and you aren't sure it is safe to talk to dial 911 and not say a word and then hang up; they'd rather over respond than have a situation worsen.
That's why I still have a land line; plus it works even when the power is out in the house.
Well, since the government is us (in a democracy) you are saying that we can't run things.
Because we, as voters, elect politicians that promise to deliver us things - which generally involve bringing in money or reduces our taxes. We would want the shiny hospital with all the latest technology 30 minutes from where we live; as would every other voter. We would not want our elected representatives to say it makes better fiscal and social sense to build one hospital a hundred miles away instead of next door, or that taxes will go up to pay for services.
But if we can't run things as voters or representatives, how can we run them any better as CEO's?
Because market forces drive the success and failure of companies; which results in decisions being made on what is fiscally sound (generally) rather than on what will make the CEO most popular.
I think you missed my sarcasm tag
Just because it's not for profit doesn't mean its government run. I should know, I work for one of America's better known 501c3's [habitat.org].
I realize that, having also worked for a 501c3.
Compare us to a for profit home builder. Their mission is to make money, not houses. They build the cheapest, least durable houses they can build and still sell at the highest price possible. They don't care if your slab cracks, so long as it is after your 18 month homeowner's warranty. Compare that to my mission. I'm bound by charter, contract and our board of director's to build more houses, that are better built and more affordable each year. My salary is partly based on my ability to do this. Why not run health care like this? The balance sheet has to come to zero every year (though this doesn't preclude long-term investments), and you have to justify executive salaries and perks. Imagine a health care industry driven not by the need to satisfy investor but the need to make people healthy
There are US health care systems that are non-profit; many are faith based such as Habitat; others are run by government or educational institutions, some are simply non-profits. In the end, however, they need to make enough money to survive; just as Habitat needs donations to continue its mission. Some do that well; others don't. And unlike Habitat; they need to serve whoever walks into an emergency room; they can't simply say we don't have a house for you. If non-profits work better than they will become more prevalent than for profits; OTOH being a 501c3 doesn't automatically mean you are efficient or well run. Choice is better in the long run.
Doomed argument. It doesn't matter how 'well' the government runs things, as long as everyone gets the same mediocre product. The real reason is 'health-care activity' is goods and services produced by men and women who have the right to dispose of those goods and services in trade as they see fit. To distribute them to the 'needy' under threat of physical force is a horrendous violation of their individual rights.
I think you missed my tag
Remind me again why ANY health-care activity should be for-profit. ANY. Band-aids to heart surgery.
Because the government is so good at running things?
The real issue here is a poor educational system. Teachers need to be paid based on merit. Students with poor discipline need to flunk. Instead, educators think flunking a student is a sign of a bad school, or a bad teacher. Parents can't believe that they are responsible for their childrens' inability to learn. They coddle their children, blaming everyone but themselves or their children.
We've grown into an age where kids don't care. Teachers are not given the power to teach properly, nor are they incented to do so. They go through the motions, and whatever happens, happens.
There are many causes, not the least of which is parents who either don't care so if their kid is suspended he or she just sits at home playing video games for a few days; or who come screaming and blame the teacher when their precoius spawn is punished. Guess what, at some point teachers stop caring and don't waste their time on the losers - push them through and forget about them.
The teachers unions have crippled the entire process. The unions protect the worst teachers. Unions also drive the best teachers out of the system, leaving us with a system that gradually deteriorates.
It's a shame that local teacher's unions aren't as powerful as some believe; then maybe teachers could exert authority and maintain discipline instead of worrying that parents complaints will result in a bad review and not being rehired.
Good teachers leave because they are good - and can make a lot more money with a lot less hassle in another job.
Unions always blame lack of funding. They line up the poor kids, pointing at how little money is spent on kids' educations. Yet most of the funding increases don't go to teachers' salaries. It goes to administrative costs, new buildings, and golden parachutes for administrators.
That's because the unions don't have the power to control spending - in our district (rather well off one) I don't know a single teacher who wouldn't like to be able to direct spending so they wouldn't run out of copy paper 2 months before the end of the year or buying textbooks so each student has their own copy. (Real cases).
What we need is for teachers to be held accountable. And for those students that refuse to do the work, disciplinary action. Flunk them.
Accountability without authority is useless. Take away a kid's cellphone because they're texting during a test - Mom or Dad will come screaming at the administrator and teacher "How dare you do that to my little darling" instead of saying "Tough luck, child; you knew the rules and broke them"
There are a lot of great teachers, who care and whose main reward is to see some kid discover they can learn. Personally, that would not be enough for me to put up with all the other crap.
Don't even get started on "No Child Left Behind."
THere is protection for people in your position called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower#Legal_p rotection_for_whistleblowerswhistleblower laws that can help protect you against any retaliation.
Nice concept, but most whistle blowers go through hell for a long time before they get protection, if they get it at all.
Job loss, unemployability, marital problems, etc. are all the price they pay for doing the right thing. I'm not saying we should simply go along with what we know is wrong but to expect the legal system to protect you is a pipe dream. It may, but not until you've been beaten pretty badly.
I would suggest Legal department/counsel, if your company has one, is where you should be going if you are concerned with legal ramifications -- that's their job, they are the ones paid to determine what is and isn't the best legal way to proceed.
Remember, the legal department's job is to protect the company, not you.
Talk t a lawyer; but be sure it is your lawyer - get help from one familiar with employment law.
Also, I'd echo the sentiments of others - start looking for a new job.
I have the right to free speech. That means I could say, for example, "people with brown eyes are champagne-sipping bums!" Under your flawed reasoning, the government could not stop me from saying that, but they could arrest me "as a result of my actions."
Not "as a", "for the"; as my OP stated.
Civilians working for the military, Army contractors -- even soldiers' families -- are all subject to the directive as well, though many of the people affected by these new regulations can't even access them because they are being kept on the military's restricted Army Knowledge Online intranet
Army Knowledge Online (AKO) is pretty easy to get access to if you are an Army civilian, family member, or contractor. The Army wants AKO to be one of its main information sources and pretty much gives anyone who has any connection to the Army an account. For contractors all you need is a sponsor; civilians get one as part of their job. Not sure how a dependent gets an account. Active duty, reserve, guard and retirees all get accounts.
Hardly a "restricted" site.
this is more about consumer behavior than straight economics. the optimizations referred to aren't just adjusting pricing to supply and demand, but, as noted in the article, address perceived value as well. I'm no economist, nor do I want to be, but it seems to me that such analysis can uncover otherwise unexpected responses to price adjustments.
/.'rs who say "It won't work on me because I..." they miss the point that while individual behavior varies widely group behavior is rather predictable.
Exactly, though I'd argue that even straight economics has a large behavioral component. What this does is let organizations maximize profits by tuning price to demand by optimizing the pricing mix; understanding the covariance between demand to set optimal price points; and uncovering correlations between complimentary goods.
While there will be many
Of course, they haven't come anywhere close to US universities ability to price discriminate although stores would love to be able to base your scholarship I mean discount based on family income.
Huh? Are you arguing that because you have a right to do something you are somehow exempt from the results of your actions. That would be an interesting defense.
No, I am not arguing anything. I am stating the fact that because you have the constitutional right to do something, the government (sworn to defend the constitution) can not punish you for exercising that right.
And in this case they didn't - they punished him for the results of his act - not for exercising his free speech rights. Did they overact? - possibly. Did they violate his right to free speech? - no.
I am seriously concerned that some of of the people on this site don't understand this fundamental legal concept, yet they vote. FFS! Do I really need to explain this? Have you graduated high school?
I suggest you should be more concerned with your not having a clue about what you are talking about. Try reading for comprehension:
1. You have certain fundamental rights that the government cannot infringe.
2. You are responsible for the results of your actions; even if they are an outcome from your exercising one of your rights.
You have grasped 1 but fail to understand 2.
Yes, but that does not exempt you from the consequences of exercising that right.
That's total bullshit! You really are a consultant, aren't you?
Huh? Are you arguing that because you have a right to do something you are somehow exempt from the results of your actions. That would be an interesting defense.