You are correct. However, as Schneier points out, the number of rounds with a better than brute force attack, or 10 rounds in this case, is uncomfortably close to the number of rounds, 14, specified in the implemented standard. This margin of error is, in the opinion of Bruce Schneier, too close for comfort. He also mentions that the key schedule in the 256 bit version of the algorithm is kind of lousy and could probably be improved. The nice thing about TrueCrypt is that there are several other algorithm choices, including Serpent, which finished in second place to Rijndael in the original competition, and TwoFish which was designed by a team including Bruce.
TrueCrypt not only encrypts but also authenticates.
As far as I know, TrueCrypt has never made any claims about authentication. They promise quality encryption, nothing more and nothing less. Everyone who knows anything about security knows that encryption and authentication are separate issues; although they may be combined in a particular system as they are in certificates and public-key cryptography.
One interesting thing to note are the recent higher quality attacks on 10 round AES, as discussed here on/. TrueCrypt defaults to 256 bit AES for the default algorithm which was among those identified as having a substantially better than brute force attack (although still very impractical) at 2^119 power which is actually worse than using the 128 bit key in AES (which still requires 2^128) so the longer key version of AES is actually weaker now than its shorter 128 bit counterpart (Schneier says that this is mainly due to a poorly designed key schedule in the 256 bit version).
If you release something under GPL at some point in time and someone takes that program, modifies it and then sells it, which everyone agrees is allowed subject to the terms of the license (in practice we all know that it is difficult to sell GPLd software for anything other than $0 since anyone else could simply post their purchased copy online gratis) then can you as the developer revoke your original grant of license under GPL retroactively? I have to think that the answer to that is no because once you pass the program on and other people continue to modify the program, perhaps even selling it subject to the terms of the license, do the rights of any one previous contributor, even if he is the creater, trump all subsequent contributors? What if Linus suddenly decided that the original Linux kernel GPL license was revoked, does that invalidate all subsequent versions and their contributor's right to use and distribute under the original grant of license?
What makes this case even more complicated is the App store and the closed nature of the "official" system for loading software onto an iPhone. Perhaps you might want to consider using GPLv3 in the future which forbids use of the software in an environment where DRM limits the ability to independently modify and re-install or reload the software? GPLv3 was designed to better address some of the problems that have occurred in recent years with tethered hardware and DRM locks effectively rendering GPL rights granted under prior versions of the license moot.
However, I think that I am going to have to agree with Sean and Michael on this one; You licensed under the terms of GPL and GPL allows selling or does not forbid it as long as the source code is freely available with the program and both can be redistributed by any further recipients, whether they want to charge or not. I would say that in the future you might want to use a different license or write your own if you disagree with selling; which is not prohibited under GPL.
I realize that you have already thought long and hard about what can be done to counter students' cell phone use, but how difficult would it be, especially in a math or science course, to have a program randomly generate custom tests, complete with answer key, for each student? Surely this type of software already exists? I suppose that it might be a pain to grade that many tests, but you are already grading up to 12 different versions so how much more work would it be to use the software? In a non-science course, the exam should probably consist of essay questions or lengthy written exam papers, with different topics and questions in each period, so that there isn't enough time to look up enough information for a substantial answer and still finish the exam. Finally, why not simply base 75% or more of the grade on a midterm and a final as they do in college (higher stakes make cheating less attractive)? That is where most of these kids want to go eventually so why not prepare them for what they will face?
let kids know that if they drop out they will live in poverty and follow that up by demonstrating that we are more than willing to toss kids out of school.
Which will only encourage them to join gangs and become career criminals since that is the only way up the economic ladder for them. This is already happening in every major city in America. No need to make things even worse.
That may sound cruel but it could stop the current loss of lives and futures that now are consequences of a broken educational system.
You cannot deter someone who feels that they have nothing left to lose or only something to gain by killing you. In some parts of Los Angeles for example, there are street gang members who wouldn't think twice about killing armed police; what do you suppose that they will do to you when they break into your home for an invasion style robbery? The level of violence is really quite incredible, the vast majority of law abiding citizens have no clue. Think it couldn't happen in your neighborhood? Just wait, the problems of the inner cities will not stay in the inner cities. If you want a preview of the end result of this cycle look at Rio in Brazil. The wealthy live in fortress-like estates on the surrounding hills patrolled by guards armed with machine guns.
Now, tomorrow the physical distribution model evaporates, we're all buying direct, and the publishers refuse to take advantage of the opportunity to undercut one another to gain a competitive advantage. This is obviously not free-market behavior
Actually, it's not because game A is almost never a perfect substitute for game B. If game A and game B are not very comparable then it does not make as much sense to talk about a competitive advantage because most people will either decide to buy a game or not. I have never heard someone say, "I really wanted game A, but because game B was $20 cheaper I bought game B instead". The concepts of competitive, comparative, and absolute advantage are most apparent in commodity markets where goods and services are fungible, but games are not really all that fungible.
Don't kid yourself, power multinationals bought off that Swedish judge and make this into a kangaroo court. It's probably one of the biggest travesties of justice of all time, the slope is so fucking slippery. They may as well sue the IETF or ARIN for giving out IP addresses to enable piracy. That's how egregious the law was twisted for the interests of powerful capitalists.
That could end up being their biggest mistake. In Europe there is a long tradition of socialist and egalitarian thinking, especially when private companies are perceived to be crushing the little guys. This could end up backfiring on them big-time. The Pirate Bay trial has already catapulted the Pirate Party from unknown to third largest political party in Sweden with a seat in the European Parliament. Even the major social democratic parties in Europe are beginning to align with Pirate Party positions on copyright to prevent defections of younger members. If the multinationals continue to be pushy with the EU, they may see an even more serious backlash.
Do I really need to drive two hours a day to sit inside a Baltimore office and type code all day? I can do the exact-same work at home.
Unfortunately, management types refuse to believe that. If they cannot see you looking "busy" in your cube then in their minds you are not working. These are the same people who continue to insist, despite numerous scientific studies and much evidence to the contrary, that multitasking is a desirable worker trait that leads to superior results or at least no loss of quality over doing the same tasks sequentially. The Peter Principle is apparently still alive and well in American business these days.
Microsoft has a long history of courting developers because they know that more developers means more software for their platform and more software for their platform means more users and more sales. Apple doesn't care about 3d party Apps, they prefer to sell their own iApp instead, and historically hasn't treated 3d party developers very well. The Mac developer community is almost non-existent compared to the Windows and even Linux developer communities. Apple doesn't care about 3d party apps and their developers because they don't care about offering a wide variety of software on their devices or at best they will tolerate 3d parties only so long as they don't cost Apple one penny in lost sales. Who in their right mind wants to develop for Mac? Actions like removing competing apps makes Apple look even worse. The iPhone is just about the only platform from Apple that 3d party developers want to develop for right now and apple is disrespecting them...again. It's a wonder that anyone outside of Apple writes software for their platform considering how they treat 3d party developers.
for example, you can't fire someone because of race, sex, etc. even in an at-will state.
technically that is true (it is also illegal to NOT hire a job applicant for the same reasons). However, in practice you will simply be fired or never get the job in the first place and you will never be told the real reason for the decision. In fact, the whole thing has become so toxic and litigious that most employers will do nothing more than confirm dates of employment; so in practice it can be very difficult to prove that you were fired or not hired for an illegal reason, particularly on an individual basis.
When everyone else is lying, how do you prove you are not just another sleazy liar?
The honest broker will have to endure some start-up period operating at a loss or with fewer customers until word spreads and credibility gradually increases until you word is worth more than that of your lying competitors. Look at Toyota and Honda, tt took them decades (1970s-1990s) to win over the trust of American consumers from GM and Chrysler, but eventually the did capture "quality brand" status from GM and Chrysler and now look where we are. The US auto companies, with the exception of Ford which was run somewhat better, are bankrupt and Toyota and Honda have reputations for quality and large head starts in green vehicle technology while GM and Chrysler, after taking the taxpayers' bailout monies, are scrambling to play catch-up and begin the long march towards improving quality and "the perception of quality" in their tarnished brands. The Japanese are not likely to make the same mistakes that the complacent American auto companies made in the 1970s; in fact, Toyota is likely to twist the knife and kick GM while they are getting up by continuing to beat them on quality and squeeze GMs recovery by lowering their prices.
How about instead of suing him they offer him a job? Seriously, there are marketing professionals out there, some apparently working for Nintendo, who cannot create this kind of viral buzz (to use their awful words) even when the try deliberately.
All the more reason for a small business, and particularly one NOT engaged in IT as their core business, to outsource the entire server(s) infrastructure to an external virtualization provider who offers all of these services for a reasonable contracted fee. It is all about cost, benefit, and the probability of particular events. It may even be justifiable to purchase additional insurance against certain events, like the aforementioned server crash, to provide additional protection. This isn't rocket science, its just good business; On the other hand, there are always small business that, for a variety of reasons including incompetence, will always be small.
The problem with that these days is that an "infected" computer is rarely cleaned up completely, even with expert assistance, because of the increasingly destructive rootkits being employed by Russian bot net masters and others. These rootkits are becomming more sophisticated all of the time with many cloaking and active security measures that resist attempts at removal and hide from tools run externally, even when run in other operating systems. No, it is generally best to salvage their data, format the drive, and send them on their way. To paraphrase the Aliens films: dust off and nuke the site from orbit; its the only way to be sure.
Re:It's actually kind of scary
on
Lost In the Cloud
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
iPhone have developed completely closed programming environments with barely a peep of protest from the normally pretty libertarian tech crowd.
Maybe because a substantial group of us don't really give a flying fuck about the iPhone (ooohhh shiny). Steve jobs can keep his overpriced iCandy, I don't need it. That being said it is Steve's platform and like so much else from the Cult of Mac; Steve gets the final say and doesn't have to explain himself to anyone. If you don't like that then don't write software for the iPhone or at least don't complain when Steve bricks your jailbroken phone or breaks your hacked apps. If you want an open source software libre phone then get a G1 instead and write software for that. No doubt the Cultists of Mac will waste no time in modding down this blasphemous post, but that doesn't make me wrong.
The myriad of anti-business laws in California, including insurance laws, already results in a very high number of uninsured motorists driving around this state. These are the cash-only no-credit people (frequently illegal aliens) who buy some $300 beater car and just drive it until it quits with no insurance and no drivers license. They don't care if the car gets impounded for no insurance, they just go find another junk car and drive that instead. These people don't give a damn about our laws, so those of us who have credit, a mortgage, and actually have some skin the in the game have to pay more for our insurance for the "uninsured motorist protection" (i.e. our insurance company pays medical or disability and gets the car fixed or totaled out even though they will have essentially no recourse and never be able to track down the uninsured party to collect the debt). If the goal of California legislators is to expand the illegal underclass, increase the level of crime in this state, and reduce the amount of business then they certainly are doing a fine job.
So, given that insurance companies have such skilled statisticians, call actuaries, and others who fiddle over mountains of data to decide how much to charge who in order to maximize profit while still being able to offer comeptitive premiums; why not simply let the private market decide who gets insured and for how much? The insurance companies are under no obligation to insure anyone. I think that the real reason why some people, probably the anti-car green hippie types, support this is because it would place further government non-voluntary restrictions on driving while at the same time cloaking the hand of the government behind "mandated insurance company policies". If the environmentalists want to charge people for C02 emissions, then just come right out and say so, but this law will NOT reduce accidents.
As others on this thread have already pointed out, How can someone who drives less and is therefore less experienced and less regularly practiced be a better driver than a regular daily driver? I think, all other things being equal, less experienced drivers, who are incentivized to drive less by what amounts to a tax, will be more dangerous on those occasions where they do get out on the roads. Every accident I have ever been involved in has always been the other driver's fault (generally some inexperienced knuckle-dragging idiot who has no business being behind the wheel).
This whole safety-scissors, namby-pamby, wussy mindset that is permeating California these days is one of the prime factors, IMHO, in the economic death spiral engulfing this state. The idiots are in charge and instead of actually putting the public finances in order they are worried about C02 emissions and people "driving too much" instead of using the craptastic public transportation system (nobody with serious employment actually uses it). The Chinese, Indians, and sensible people everywhere are laughing at the idiots running the State of California.
So, it is your opinion that Tolkien was 'naive' to not have spelled out in detail who would be entitled to what percentage of the DVD sales revenue when he negotiated the deal in 1969?
No, it is not. Anyway, the DVD sales are probably covered under the original agreement which specified 7.5% of "sales", but who can be sure without litigating the issue in court which is where the parties will probably end up if they cannot reach an agreeable settlement.
but he did permit certain expenses to be deducted which were then gamed by Hollywood accounting.
IANAL, but that sounds like it could be a real thorny mess with much debate over what an "expense" is or to what extent an "expense" is reasonable or not. That could take a while and much argument to untangle.
Yes, but surely the Tolkien estate knew this before they began negotiations with New Line, Jackson, and anyone else in the Hollywood, right? As you have said, Hollywood is infamous and notorious for this type of dealing, which is why everyone who gets a percentage gets a percentage of the gross sales rather than the "net profits" (which are always zero or as close to zero as they can possibly be for IRS and state tax purposes). I find it hard to believe that the Tolkien estate could be so naive about how Hollywood works. No, they probably did negotiate a share of the gross and some other merchandising percentage (which is where Jackson had his disagreement if I recall correctly), but now New Line is probably saying that the gross from merchandising or other non-dvd and box office sources, which may be harder to quantify, is smaller than expected. A lawsuit, with some sort of settlement, may be a foregone conclusion now just so that each side can say that they did their best to get the best deal they could for their shareholders or trustees on an amount that was uncertain.
Give your dollars to companies that are demonstrably "less bad" whenever possible.
It seems that Apple is on the short list for "less bad" in the minds of many Slashdotters.
Accept that you'll have to go without some of the bling until the market catches up.
Yeah, good luck with that one. We all know what happens to the masses when someone takes away their candy. Not many of us can live like RMS, enduring technical hardships (i.e. religiously using the free software, even if it is not as good) and being inconvenienced for the sake of our personal beliefs and philosophy.
Slashdot Mirror
You are correct. However, as Schneier points out, the number of rounds with a better than brute force attack, or 10 rounds in this case, is uncomfortably close to the number of rounds, 14, specified in the implemented standard. This margin of error is, in the opinion of Bruce Schneier, too close for comfort. He also mentions that the key schedule in the 256 bit version of the algorithm is kind of lousy and could probably be improved. The nice thing about TrueCrypt is that there are several other algorithm choices, including Serpent, which finished in second place to Rijndael in the original competition, and TwoFish which was designed by a team including Bruce.
TrueCrypt not only encrypts but also authenticates.
As far as I know, TrueCrypt has never made any claims about authentication. They promise quality encryption, nothing more and nothing less. Everyone who knows anything about security knows that encryption and authentication are separate issues; although they may be combined in a particular system as they are in certificates and public-key cryptography.
One interesting thing to note are the recent higher quality attacks on 10 round AES, as discussed here on /. TrueCrypt defaults to 256 bit AES for the default algorithm which was among those identified as having a substantially better than brute force attack (although still very impractical) at 2^119 power which is actually worse than using the 128 bit key in AES (which still requires 2^128) so the longer key version of AES is actually weaker now than its shorter 128 bit counterpart (Schneier says that this is mainly due to a poorly designed key schedule in the 256 bit version).
If you release something under GPL at some point in time and someone takes that program, modifies it and then sells it, which everyone agrees is allowed subject to the terms of the license (in practice we all know that it is difficult to sell GPLd software for anything other than $0 since anyone else could simply post their purchased copy online gratis) then can you as the developer revoke your original grant of license under GPL retroactively? I have to think that the answer to that is no because once you pass the program on and other people continue to modify the program, perhaps even selling it subject to the terms of the license, do the rights of any one previous contributor, even if he is the creater, trump all subsequent contributors? What if Linus suddenly decided that the original Linux kernel GPL license was revoked, does that invalidate all subsequent versions and their contributor's right to use and distribute under the original grant of license?
What makes this case even more complicated is the App store and the closed nature of the "official" system for loading software onto an iPhone. Perhaps you might want to consider using GPLv3 in the future which forbids use of the software in an environment where DRM limits the ability to independently modify and re-install or reload the software? GPLv3 was designed to better address some of the problems that have occurred in recent years with tethered hardware and DRM locks effectively rendering GPL rights granted under prior versions of the license moot.
However, I think that I am going to have to agree with Sean and Michael on this one; You licensed under the terms of GPL and GPL allows selling or does not forbid it as long as the source code is freely available with the program and both can be redistributed by any further recipients, whether they want to charge or not. I would say that in the future you might want to use a different license or write your own if you disagree with selling; which is not prohibited under GPL.
I realize that you have already thought long and hard about what can be done to counter students' cell phone use, but how difficult would it be, especially in a math or science course, to have a program randomly generate custom tests, complete with answer key, for each student? Surely this type of software already exists? I suppose that it might be a pain to grade that many tests, but you are already grading up to 12 different versions so how much more work would it be to use the software? In a non-science course, the exam should probably consist of essay questions or lengthy written exam papers, with different topics and questions in each period, so that there isn't enough time to look up enough information for a substantial answer and still finish the exam. Finally, why not simply base 75% or more of the grade on a midterm and a final as they do in college (higher stakes make cheating less attractive)? That is where most of these kids want to go eventually so why not prepare them for what they will face?
let kids know that if they drop out they will live in poverty and follow that up by demonstrating that we are more than willing to toss kids out of school.
Which will only encourage them to join gangs and become career criminals since that is the only way up the economic ladder for them. This is already happening in every major city in America. No need to make things even worse.
That may sound cruel but it could stop the current loss of lives and futures that now are consequences of a broken educational system.
You cannot deter someone who feels that they have nothing left to lose or only something to gain by killing you. In some parts of Los Angeles for example, there are street gang members who wouldn't think twice about killing armed police; what do you suppose that they will do to you when they break into your home for an invasion style robbery? The level of violence is really quite incredible, the vast majority of law abiding citizens have no clue. Think it couldn't happen in your neighborhood? Just wait, the problems of the inner cities will not stay in the inner cities. If you want a preview of the end result of this cycle look at Rio in Brazil. The wealthy live in fortress-like estates on the surrounding hills patrolled by guards armed with machine guns.
Heresy! Do you not know that VI VI VI is the Number of the Beast?
Now, tomorrow the physical distribution model evaporates, we're all buying direct, and the publishers refuse to take advantage of the opportunity to undercut one another to gain a competitive advantage. This is obviously not free-market behavior
Actually, it's not because game A is almost never a perfect substitute for game B. If game A and game B are not very comparable then it does not make as much sense to talk about a competitive advantage because most people will either decide to buy a game or not. I have never heard someone say, "I really wanted game A, but because game B was $20 cheaper I bought game B instead". The concepts of competitive, comparative, and absolute advantage are most apparent in commodity markets where goods and services are fungible, but games are not really all that fungible.
Don't kid yourself, power multinationals bought off that Swedish judge and make this into a kangaroo court. It's probably one of the biggest travesties of justice of all time, the slope is so fucking slippery. They may as well sue the IETF or ARIN for giving out IP addresses to enable piracy. That's how egregious the law was twisted for the interests of powerful capitalists.
That could end up being their biggest mistake. In Europe there is a long tradition of socialist and egalitarian thinking, especially when private companies are perceived to be crushing the little guys. This could end up backfiring on them big-time. The Pirate Bay trial has already catapulted the Pirate Party from unknown to third largest political party in Sweden with a seat in the European Parliament. Even the major social democratic parties in Europe are beginning to align with Pirate Party positions on copyright to prevent defections of younger members. If the multinationals continue to be pushy with the EU, they may see an even more serious backlash.
Do I really need to drive two hours a day to sit inside a Baltimore office and type code all day? I can do the exact-same work at home.
Unfortunately, management types refuse to believe that. If they cannot see you looking "busy" in your cube then in their minds you are not working. These are the same people who continue to insist, despite numerous scientific studies and much evidence to the contrary, that multitasking is a desirable worker trait that leads to superior results or at least no loss of quality over doing the same tasks sequentially. The Peter Principle is apparently still alive and well in American business these days.
Microsoft has a long history of courting developers because they know that more developers means more software for their platform and more software for their platform means more users and more sales. Apple doesn't care about 3d party Apps, they prefer to sell their own iApp instead, and historically hasn't treated 3d party developers very well. The Mac developer community is almost non-existent compared to the Windows and even Linux developer communities. Apple doesn't care about 3d party apps and their developers because they don't care about offering a wide variety of software on their devices or at best they will tolerate 3d parties only so long as they don't cost Apple one penny in lost sales. Who in their right mind wants to develop for Mac? Actions like removing competing apps makes Apple look even worse. The iPhone is just about the only platform from Apple that 3d party developers want to develop for right now and apple is disrespecting them...again. It's a wonder that anyone outside of Apple writes software for their platform considering how they treat 3d party developers.
for example, you can't fire someone because of race, sex, etc. even in an at-will state.
technically that is true (it is also illegal to NOT hire a job applicant for the same reasons). However, in practice you will simply be fired or never get the job in the first place and you will never be told the real reason for the decision. In fact, the whole thing has become so toxic and litigious that most employers will do nothing more than confirm dates of employment; so in practice it can be very difficult to prove that you were fired or not hired for an illegal reason, particularly on an individual basis.
When everyone else is lying, how do you prove you are not just another sleazy liar?
The honest broker will have to endure some start-up period operating at a loss or with fewer customers until word spreads and credibility gradually increases until you word is worth more than that of your lying competitors. Look at Toyota and Honda, tt took them decades (1970s-1990s) to win over the trust of American consumers from GM and Chrysler, but eventually the did capture "quality brand" status from GM and Chrysler and now look where we are. The US auto companies, with the exception of Ford which was run somewhat better, are bankrupt and Toyota and Honda have reputations for quality and large head starts in green vehicle technology while GM and Chrysler, after taking the taxpayers' bailout monies, are scrambling to play catch-up and begin the long march towards improving quality and "the perception of quality" in their tarnished brands. The Japanese are not likely to make the same mistakes that the complacent American auto companies made in the 1970s; in fact, Toyota is likely to twist the knife and kick GM while they are getting up by continuing to beat them on quality and squeeze GMs recovery by lowering their prices.
How about instead of suing him they offer him a job? Seriously, there are marketing professionals out there, some apparently working for Nintendo, who cannot create this kind of viral buzz (to use their awful words) even when the try deliberately.
All the more reason for a small business, and particularly one NOT engaged in IT as their core business, to outsource the entire server(s) infrastructure to an external virtualization provider who offers all of these services for a reasonable contracted fee. It is all about cost, benefit, and the probability of particular events. It may even be justifiable to purchase additional insurance against certain events, like the aforementioned server crash, to provide additional protection. This isn't rocket science, its just good business; On the other hand, there are always small business that, for a variety of reasons including incompetence, will always be small.
Just another example of the sort of automatic fraud from vendors that you have to constantly be aware of in China (and elsewhere).
Ignorance has never been cheap and it is getting more expensive all the time; this is nothing new.
The problem with that these days is that an "infected" computer is rarely cleaned up completely, even with expert assistance, because of the increasingly destructive rootkits being employed by Russian bot net masters and others. These rootkits are becomming more sophisticated all of the time with many cloaking and active security measures that resist attempts at removal and hide from tools run externally, even when run in other operating systems. No, it is generally best to salvage their data, format the drive, and send them on their way. To paraphrase the Aliens films: dust off and nuke the site from orbit; its the only way to be sure.
iPhone have developed completely closed programming environments with barely a peep of protest from the normally pretty libertarian tech crowd.
Maybe because a substantial group of us don't really give a flying fuck about the iPhone (ooohhh shiny). Steve jobs can keep his overpriced iCandy, I don't need it. That being said it is Steve's platform and like so much else from the Cult of Mac; Steve gets the final say and doesn't have to explain himself to anyone. If you don't like that then don't write software for the iPhone or at least don't complain when Steve bricks your jailbroken phone or breaks your hacked apps. If you want an open source software libre phone then get a G1 instead and write software for that. No doubt the Cultists of Mac will waste no time in modding down this blasphemous post, but that doesn't make me wrong.
Indeed, let's return to those halcyon days of our youth.
When dinosaurs roamed the earth and slide rules were all the computer that a "real geek" needed.
Meaning more uninsured motorists.
The myriad of anti-business laws in California, including insurance laws, already results in a very high number of uninsured motorists driving around this state. These are the cash-only no-credit people (frequently illegal aliens) who buy some $300 beater car and just drive it until it quits with no insurance and no drivers license. They don't care if the car gets impounded for no insurance, they just go find another junk car and drive that instead. These people don't give a damn about our laws, so those of us who have credit, a mortgage, and actually have some skin the in the game have to pay more for our insurance for the "uninsured motorist protection" (i.e. our insurance company pays medical or disability and gets the car fixed or totaled out even though they will have essentially no recourse and never be able to track down the uninsured party to collect the debt). If the goal of California legislators is to expand the illegal underclass, increase the level of crime in this state, and reduce the amount of business then they certainly are doing a fine job.
So, given that insurance companies have such skilled statisticians, call actuaries, and others who fiddle over mountains of data to decide how much to charge who in order to maximize profit while still being able to offer comeptitive premiums; why not simply let the private market decide who gets insured and for how much? The insurance companies are under no obligation to insure anyone. I think that the real reason why some people, probably the anti-car green hippie types, support this is because it would place further government non-voluntary restrictions on driving while at the same time cloaking the hand of the government behind "mandated insurance company policies". If the environmentalists want to charge people for C02 emissions, then just come right out and say so, but this law will NOT reduce accidents.
As others on this thread have already pointed out, How can someone who drives less and is therefore less experienced and less regularly practiced be a better driver than a regular daily driver? I think, all other things being equal, less experienced drivers, who are incentivized to drive less by what amounts to a tax, will be more dangerous on those occasions where they do get out on the roads. Every accident I have ever been involved in has always been the other driver's fault (generally some inexperienced knuckle-dragging idiot who has no business being behind the wheel).
This whole safety-scissors, namby-pamby, wussy mindset that is permeating California these days is one of the prime factors, IMHO, in the economic death spiral engulfing this state. The idiots are in charge and instead of actually putting the public finances in order they are worried about C02 emissions and people "driving too much" instead of using the craptastic public transportation system (nobody with serious employment actually uses it). The Chinese, Indians, and sensible people everywhere are laughing at the idiots running the State of California.
I bought games that I haven't yet got around to playing. Did that with Fallout 3.
You should play Fallout 3 first, its the bomb .
Picked it up not long after release since I love Fallout and it was on special.
By Grapthar's Hammer, what a savings!
So, it is your opinion that Tolkien was 'naive' to not have spelled out in detail who would be entitled to what percentage of the DVD sales revenue when he negotiated the deal in 1969?
No, it is not. Anyway, the DVD sales are probably covered under the original agreement which specified 7.5% of "sales", but who can be sure without litigating the issue in court which is where the parties will probably end up if they cannot reach an agreeable settlement.
but he did permit certain expenses to be deducted which were then gamed by Hollywood accounting.
IANAL, but that sounds like it could be a real thorny mess with much debate over what an "expense" is or to what extent an "expense" is reasonable or not. That could take a while and much argument to untangle.
Yes, but surely the Tolkien estate knew this before they began negotiations with New Line, Jackson, and anyone else in the Hollywood, right? As you have said, Hollywood is infamous and notorious for this type of dealing , which is why everyone who gets a percentage gets a percentage of the gross sales rather than the "net profits" (which are always zero or as close to zero as they can possibly be for IRS and state tax purposes). I find it hard to believe that the Tolkien estate could be so naive about how Hollywood works. No, they probably did negotiate a share of the gross and some other merchandising percentage (which is where Jackson had his disagreement if I recall correctly), but now New Line is probably saying that the gross from merchandising or other non-dvd and box office sources, which may be harder to quantify, is smaller than expected. A lawsuit, with some sort of settlement, may be a foregone conclusion now just so that each side can say that they did their best to get the best deal they could for their shareholders or trustees on an amount that was uncertain.
You can settle your debt for pennies on the dollar and get out of debt fast
What a relief, now you can settle your $23 quadrillion debt for mere trillions. By Grapthar's hammer, what a savings!
Give your dollars to companies that are demonstrably "less bad" whenever possible.
It seems that Apple is on the short list for "less bad" in the minds of many Slashdotters.
Accept that you'll have to go without some of the bling until the market catches up.
Yeah, good luck with that one. We all know what happens to the masses when someone takes away their candy. Not many of us can live like RMS, enduring technical hardships (i.e. religiously using the free software, even if it is not as good) and being inconvenienced for the sake of our personal beliefs and philosophy.