I messed that up a bit. Sitting alone for 30 minutes is fine, you just can't have anyone with you. Add another person and you need a permit.
"Filming, photography, production, television or radio remotes occurring on City property, as described in subdivision (a) of this section, involving an interaction among two or more people at a single site for thirty or more minutes"
While they claim it's not targeted at amateurs and tourists, it clearly applies directly to them. For example, a tour group of 5 or more people where at least one is holding a camera cannot stay in a single area for more than 10 minutes. The way it's written no one even has to be taking photographs for it to apply. One member of the group merely having a camera visible is enough to trigger these new rules.
How about if you're sitting on a bench reviewing the day's photos? If you're by yourself and have been there for 30 minutes, you better have a permit and $1 million insurance coverage. Add in the fact that they're saying the permits may take as many as 30 days to acquire plus proof of insurance and what you've done is effectively outlawed amateur and tourist photography.
Blocking sidewalks and streets is a serious issue, but commercial photography that impedes traffic already requires permits. No changes are required for that. Chances are good that the people you're complaining about have secured all the necessary permits. I rarely if ever see an amateur causing traffic problems. Tourists often do, but they can cause problems whether they're taking pictures or not.
Despite their stated intentions, this appears squarely aimed at either deterring amateur photography or providing a reason to question and detain anyone with a camera.
Yes, that appears to be what they're trying to say. I hope they're prepared for a lawsuit, because somebody's going to see an opportunity to win a lawsuit against them. Interpreting any law to mean your customers can't resell their property is bound to get either the law overturned, you sued, or both.
Thanks for the link. I was cracking up listening to "Sad Sad Toaster Made of Glass." The guy will even make the song free if he likes your idea. Pretty cool site.
I wouldn't be all that surprised if changes like that were requested, though I'm sure there's an approval process for the custom lyrics. I doubt they're going to perform just any old stuff.
Like your other reply said, another major group that would be interested is advertisers, but I wouldn't be surprised if changes that advertised products would be denied as well to keep the song at least semi-legitimate.
I can agree with this. I rarely visit blogs for anything, but will often consult forums for just about everything. Tech support-type stuff is particularly well-suited to the forum/newsgroup format. This is especially true if you have a question you can't find a pre-existing answer for. Just the other day I had a non-trial question about Ruby On Rails, so I went over to RailsForum and had an answer within a few hours. So forums do have specific advantages over both blogs and traditional media.
Perhaps the biggest advantage for blogs over traditional tech magazines would be product reviews, in my opinion. An online reviewer with dozens of user-posted comments is more reliable than a single possibly advertiser-paid reviewer.
Sure, but doctors have almost all of those exact same costs, except for maybe the secretaries. And the paralegal research stuff is all billed separately.
Certainly all of that is not take-home cash. I agree with your point, but they probably take home around 25%-50% of that, which is still well above occupations with similar amounts of schooling. Especially if they get away with double billing for the same work like the guys in this case tried to do.
While this does seem a bit low for hourly rates, even in this area, why is it interesting to consider a surgeon's compensation? A surgeon typically has at least 6 more years of training than a lawyer. I wouldn't expect their salaries to be comparable, just as I wouldn't expect someone with an undergraduate degree to be making as much as a lawyer. On average, of course. There are always exceptions.
I would be inclined to argue that lawyers are overpaid, especially if you go by skilled or professional workers with equivalent amounts of schooling. At $200/hr, that's at least $400,000 a year... far more than you could make with most other degrees you put the same amount of work into. It's a lucrative career path, to be sure.
It's sad when it costs you $70,000 to defend yourself against an RIAA suit. At least in this case the RIAA had to pay for the defense's lawyers, but there have been plenty of others were the defendants were on their own when all was said and done. On top of that, the RIAA is well aware of the costs of defending against their lawsuit and uses this cost to force people into settlements.
I see. As you can tell I wasn't intimately familiar with the protocol. Thanks for explaining it.
The design does make sense, then, and Apple's device is just misbehaving. It seems like a smart idea to check those kind of things, though, especially if trusting that a possibly rogue device follows the protocol can result in the consumption of every available address.
Shouldn't the DHCP server be able to gracefully accept declines? It seems to me that getting a lease declined and then marking it unusable is a very poor implementation in the first place.
You'd think that it would have occurred to them that they were putting a Flash ad on a page discussing a major flaw in Flash. Of course, they just want to get paid and don't really care about you, so I can't say I'm all that surprised.
Yea. I think you're right, it would have made sense. I don't know what I was thinking.
Although I think the original usage was acceptable as I was not discussing the findings of the case, but rather her thought process on the matter. Still, using 'liable' would have been clearer. Apologies all around, hehe.
Wow, that was a pretty in-depth how-to. It even has a mechanism (via cron) to notify you within 15 minutes if a drive fails. This sounds like a pretty interesting solution. I think I may have to give it a try with a spare box I have laying around. Thanks mistermark. I'm impressed.
Nowhere in the entire post did I say either that I didn't think they could prove their claims or that I thought the defendant was guilty. You should re-read the post.
I said that since I don't know the details of the case I have no idea if it was possible for the RIAA to prove their claims, and that the defendant may have been guilty and wanted to end the suit. Neither is unreasonable given the posted article and the case's resolution.
True, but on the other hand it's entirely possible she was guilty, knew she was guilty, and thus saw this as the cheapest way out. Which is not to say that the RIAA could have proved it to the satisfaction of the judge, but rather that the defendant knew she was wrong and owned up to her mistake.
Seems like a reasonable resolution for the defendant. $300 to make a lawsuit like this go away could be worth it if you don't really have the financial means to mount a decent defense and there's no way the RIAA had spent less than $300 to that point, so they lost money on the deal. This a very low settlement amount for the RIAA, so it's possible others may be able to utilize this.
It'll be interesting to see if the RIAA accepts it if anyone else tries it.
You know, this was marked as Funny but I wouldn't be surprised if this was suggested as a solution at some point. "Hell, just wrap it in another (insecure) layer and it'll be fine."
It's true. Unfortunately it seems that a pretty significant rewrite of the current OSs would be required to achieve this level of responsiveness. Since it hasn't been done to date, here almost 10 years later, my hope is not high for such a feature any time soon.
Just because your copy works doesn't mean there isn't a problem. At least a few others are complaining of the same problem, so there seems to be some merit to the claim.
Slashdot Mirror
I messed that up a bit. Sitting alone for 30 minutes is fine, you just can't have anyone with you. Add another person and you need a permit.
"Filming, photography, production, television or radio remotes occurring on City property, as described in subdivision (a) of this section, involving an interaction among two or more people at a single site for thirty or more minutes"
The way it's written it applies to everyone with a camera.
While they claim it's not targeted at amateurs and tourists, it clearly applies directly to them. For example, a tour group of 5 or more people where at least one is holding a camera cannot stay in a single area for more than 10 minutes. The way it's written no one even has to be taking photographs for it to apply. One member of the group merely having a camera visible is enough to trigger these new rules.
How about if you're sitting on a bench reviewing the day's photos? If you're by yourself and have been there for 30 minutes, you better have a permit and $1 million insurance coverage. Add in the fact that they're saying the permits may take as many as 30 days to acquire plus proof of insurance and what you've done is effectively outlawed amateur and tourist photography.
Blocking sidewalks and streets is a serious issue, but commercial photography that impedes traffic already requires permits. No changes are required for that. Chances are good that the people you're complaining about have secured all the necessary permits. I rarely if ever see an amateur causing traffic problems. Tourists often do, but they can cause problems whether they're taking pictures or not.
Despite their stated intentions, this appears squarely aimed at either deterring amateur photography or providing a reason to question and detain anyone with a camera.
Yes, that appears to be what they're trying to say. I hope they're prepared for a lawsuit, because somebody's going to see an opportunity to win a lawsuit against them. Interpreting any law to mean your customers can't resell their property is bound to get either the law overturned, you sued, or both.
Thanks for the link. I was cracking up listening to "Sad Sad Toaster Made of Glass." The guy will even make the song free if he likes your idea. Pretty cool site.
I wouldn't be all that surprised if changes like that were requested, though I'm sure there's an approval process for the custom lyrics. I doubt they're going to perform just any old stuff.
Like your other reply said, another major group that would be interested is advertisers, but I wouldn't be surprised if changes that advertised products would be denied as well to keep the song at least semi-legitimate.
I can agree with this. I rarely visit blogs for anything, but will often consult forums for just about everything. Tech support-type stuff is particularly well-suited to the forum/newsgroup format. This is especially true if you have a question you can't find a pre-existing answer for. Just the other day I had a non-trial question about Ruby On Rails, so I went over to RailsForum and had an answer within a few hours. So forums do have specific advantages over both blogs and traditional media.
Perhaps the biggest advantage for blogs over traditional tech magazines would be product reviews, in my opinion. An online reviewer with dozens of user-posted comments is more reliable than a single possibly advertiser-paid reviewer.
Sure, but doctors have almost all of those exact same costs, except for maybe the secretaries. And the paralegal research stuff is all billed separately.
Certainly all of that is not take-home cash. I agree with your point, but they probably take home around 25%-50% of that, which is still well above occupations with similar amounts of schooling. Especially if they get away with double billing for the same work like the guys in this case tried to do.
While this does seem a bit low for hourly rates, even in this area, why is it interesting to consider a surgeon's compensation? A surgeon typically has at least 6 more years of training than a lawyer. I wouldn't expect their salaries to be comparable, just as I wouldn't expect someone with an undergraduate degree to be making as much as a lawyer. On average, of course. There are always exceptions.
I would be inclined to argue that lawyers are overpaid, especially if you go by skilled or professional workers with equivalent amounts of schooling. At $200/hr, that's at least $400,000 a year... far more than you could make with most other degrees you put the same amount of work into. It's a lucrative career path, to be sure.
It's sad when it costs you $70,000 to defend yourself against an RIAA suit. At least in this case the RIAA had to pay for the defense's lawyers, but there have been plenty of others were the defendants were on their own when all was said and done. On top of that, the RIAA is well aware of the costs of defending against their lawsuit and uses this cost to force people into settlements.
The whole situation makes me sick.
I see. As you can tell I wasn't intimately familiar with the protocol. Thanks for explaining it.
The design does make sense, then, and Apple's device is just misbehaving. It seems like a smart idea to check those kind of things, though, especially if trusting that a possibly rogue device follows the protocol can result in the consumption of every available address.
Shouldn't the DHCP server be able to gracefully accept declines? It seems to me that getting a lease declined and then marking it unusable is a very poor implementation in the first place.
You'd think that it would have occurred to them that they were putting a Flash ad on a page discussing a major flaw in Flash. Of course, they just want to get paid and don't really care about you, so I can't say I'm all that surprised.
True enough. I certainly don't want to be doing them any favors.
Yea. I think you're right, it would have made sense. I don't know what I was thinking.
Although I think the original usage was acceptable as I was not discussing the findings of the case, but rather her thought process on the matter. Still, using 'liable' would have been clearer. Apologies all around, hehe.
Wow, that was a pretty in-depth how-to. It even has a mechanism (via cron) to notify you within 15 minutes if a drive fails. This sounds like a pretty interesting solution. I think I may have to give it a try with a spare box I have laying around. Thanks mistermark. I'm impressed.
There are other definitions of the term 'guilty' than merely the legal definitions. You'll notice the sentence doesn't even make sense using 'liable.'
Nowhere in the entire post did I say either that I didn't think they could prove their claims or that I thought the defendant was guilty. You should re-read the post.
I said that since I don't know the details of the case I have no idea if it was possible for the RIAA to prove their claims, and that the defendant may have been guilty and wanted to end the suit. Neither is unreasonable given the posted article and the case's resolution.
True, but on the other hand it's entirely possible she was guilty, knew she was guilty, and thus saw this as the cheapest way out. Which is not to say that the RIAA could have proved it to the satisfaction of the judge, but rather that the defendant knew she was wrong and owned up to her mistake.
Seems like a reasonable resolution for the defendant. $300 to make a lawsuit like this go away could be worth it if you don't really have the financial means to mount a decent defense and there's no way the RIAA had spent less than $300 to that point, so they lost money on the deal. This a very low settlement amount for the RIAA, so it's possible others may be able to utilize this.
It'll be interesting to see if the RIAA accepts it if anyone else tries it.
You know, this was marked as Funny but I wouldn't be surprised if this was suggested as a solution at some point. "Hell, just wrap it in another (insecure) layer and it'll be fine."
It's true. Unfortunately it seems that a pretty significant rewrite of the current OSs would be required to achieve this level of responsiveness. Since it hasn't been done to date, here almost 10 years later, my hope is not high for such a feature any time soon.
Just because your copy works doesn't mean there isn't a problem. At least a few others are complaining of the same problem, so there seems to be some merit to the claim.
Maybe it's just me, but didn't we have this conversation 3 days ago?
Samba Adopts GPLv3 For Future Releases
Sounds dead-on to me.