Bear in mind that they have had 2 2:1 splits since 2000, meaning if you owned 1 share in 1999, you now own 4. Translated, their actual total value of ownership is roughly equal today what it was in late 1999, which is a lot more than most companies can say. How many companies do you know that can claim their shareholders have not lost any money in the last four years?
They got you. You have fallen for conservative propaganda.
Take they Mass. case for instance.
From boston.com:
The SJC case began in 2001 after seven same-sex couples from Boston to Northampton to Orleans went to their local city or town offices and applied for marriage licenses. When their requests were rejected, they filed a lawsuit in Suffolk Superior Court.
This is a no-brainer. The judges ruled that this action was unconstitutional. Period. No "orders" were given to force the state to change its behavior. They simply ruled that what they were currently doing was against the law - being that there was no law, anywhere, that explicitly forbade the practice; so therefore, under the US 10th amemdment, (or the Mass. equivalent), because no right had explicitly been denied anywhere in Mass. law, it had to be granted. The "Gap in the law" you refer to is covered by the 10th amendment -
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Since the state had not restricted by law a gay couple's right to marry, that right belonged to the people. Ergo, they have that right if they wish.
Your view that judges can't find a "gap" in a law shows your ignorance of the judicial process, or case law in specific. It isn't really your fault, though. It is common practice by conservatives to label judges who make decisions they don't like "activist judges", implying action on the part of the judge. You have just fallen for conservative propaganda.
While I was in college, I worked construction for a Harvestore agent in Nebraska. You know, those blue and white grain silos you see all over the Midwest.
One time the construction crew was required to go take down two silos that had been used to store bone meal (basically all parts of an animal you can't feed to humans ground up to be made into dog food) at a defunct rendering plant so they could be moved to the plant's new location. Off we went.
We arive at the sight, and drive down what looks like a gravel road, next to a nice little lake. Evrything was fine until I stepped out of the car. When I did, I realized that the road wasn't gravel; it was bone, and the lake was blood red. I was so shocked I stepped off of the road and into six inches of rotten grease that had turned rancid in the Nebraska summer sun. I won't even bother to describe the smell.
It averaged 102 the three days I was there. Everything looked like I was watching a bad TV with static on it, because flies were everywhere. You couldn't walk without tripping over a horse's leg, or a cow's tail. Part of my job was to be inside the silo (omg the smell of rotten bone meal) pulling out bolts while another member of the team used a blowtorch to burn the carcinogenic caulking off of the outside to loosen the bolts. Inisde the silo it was probably 130 degrees, filled with black choking smoke, and the stink...
Those three days, more than any other, convinced me to finish my college degree.
I would like to see your crendtials. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.
My fiance has a six year old son with ADHD (let's call him Mike). She lives at home with her parents, so the single mom thing really isn't an issue. Mike did not sit up until he was almost a year old (six months late), and could not walk until he was two (a year late). At 4 he was placed in an Early Childhood program because he was so far behind developmentally that it was questionable whether he would be able to enter Kindergarten on time.
Early Childhood helped quite a bit. Mike's test scores came up into the average range by the middle of the second year. However, his behavior was still a serious issue. He could not chain instructions together (take off your coat and put it in the closet, and come back here), and his lack of concentration was so bad that he could not learn the alphabet, which they recommend a child know before they start Kindergarten. His behavior caused serious disruptions in the classroom which would not be tolerated in Kindergarten.
Mike was put on a low dose of Concerta. He was finally able to focus long enough to follow instructions, and learn the alphabet.
Now he is six and a half. He is just now starting to read, though he seems to be limited to four letters or less per word. He has been on Concerta for a year now, and the results have been satisfacory, not great. He stills has problems with concentration, even on the medication, and when it wears off he can't focus for more than a couple of seconds at a time. We have had to increase the dosage because he is growing so fast (he is already sixty pounds, and has grown two inches in the last three months), and since we aren't thrilled with Concerta's effectiveness for him, we have switched to Strattera (sp?).
The point of all this is that everyone with ADHD isn't just an undisciplined brat. And certainly everyone with ADHD isn't smart and bored. I've seen Mike both on and off the medication and there is not a doubt in my mind that it isn't helping him; in learning, social situations, and general happiness. For some people, the medication really helps.
Every child is different. Some respond to medication, some don't. Some don't need it. Some do. It's your job as a parent to figure out what is best for your child as an individual. That means researching, asking questions, getting a second or third opinion, talking to lots of professionals before deciding on a course of therapy that may or may not include medication, but always bearing in mind the nature and character of the person whose fate you are deciding. You've got to know your kid, and decide what's best for them.
And in closing to the parent, you really are in no place to pass judgement from on high without the slightest trace of informed opinion. You try making these decisions for your child, and see how heart-wrenching it is. You go tell a dozen health professionals that you love your son, but dear god you think he's fucked up somehow, and you want to help him, and listen to what they have to say. Then come back and tell us all what lousy parents we are because we decided to medicate our kids.
Because in the last century, more people were killed by their own governments than in all of the wars combined.
History teaches that you have far more to fear from people running your government than anyone else. Some of us read history books, and don't have to learn the hard way.
If this is true, then there is a hole in US copyright laws you can drive a truck through. Anyone want to make a bazillion dollars?
1. Get a country who is recognized by the US government to set a ridiculously low legnth of copyright protection - say one year.
2. In one year, all copyrighted works enter the public domain. Set up a company that mass produces records, and set it to work. Sell them retail for $1.
3. Set up another company in, another country, who buys the CD's at retail price from the first company, and turn around and import them to the US.
4. Sell them to Wal-Mart at $3 per.
5. Repeat.
Having a robot asking me questions about how I feel really wouldn't ease any of my anxiety.
Yeah, but think about how much better you will feel after you shoot it.
First, I'm willing to bet that your development organization is too large. The best code is usually produced by a small team of developers. Too many cooks spoil the soup kind of thing.
Second, yes, there is such a thing as too much testing. QA Managers have a real problem to deal with - they can catch 85% of bugs with x amount of effort. However, getting that last 15% becomes exponentially harder. QA Managers often have to make the decision to let the last 10% go, because the effort to find them just is not cost effective (i.e. to test a build to 85% takes three weeks, to 99% takes a year kind of thing).
Without knowing jack about your situation, I'd guess the problem is in your process somewhere - too much of it most likely. Too many developers, too bureaucratic of a QA process, could be many things.
just my $.02
"The most recent, clearest sign of the Second Deluge came last Thursday, when a tersely worded press statement from God's angelic hosts ominously stated, 'If there are any species native to the area that you would prefer not to see go extinct, we strongly suggest you begin gathering them two by two.'"
American Football (as your light version of rugby is called everywhere else) on the other hand is just a bad substitute for the Roman Circus' gladiators (since it loses a lot without the weapons).
Light? Jesus Christ, have you seenTampa Bay's defensive line?!?
You're right about the weapons, though. Seems a shame that all the players use them off the field, but can't bring them on.
You're right. I haven't worked for an actual manufacturer. I've worked for people who buy from those manufacturers, and spray those chemicals on the ground to control weeds. Who have pits out back to bury the waste that is too expensive to be disposed of properly.
What planet are you from? One lawsuit can't do jack shit to a company with deep enough pockets. Hell, Union Carbide killed 50,000 people in Bhopal, India and they are still doing fine. Those lawsuits don't seem to be bothering them.
The tobacco industry just paid out nearly a quater trillion dollars in lawsuits, and they are still showing a profit. Doesn't sound like they are really hurting, now, does it? Fact is, tobacco is a 46 billion dollar a year business. They discovered cigarettes were harmful in what, 1968? Sounds like paying the fine was the right way to go.
How many lawsuits has Monsanto survived? Dow? I come from the country of Times Beach and Doe Run. I know exactly how much damage an EPA lawsuit does - it might shut you down in 20 years.
Wake up man. Sounds like you either work for a company that actually cares - but more likely is just too small to surivive the EPA.
Manufacturing industries are highly regulated for all emissions, be they air, water, or solid. Everything must be disposed of properly (however "properly" is defined). This is especially true for toxic materials.
And if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.
Truth is, that it is often far, far cheaper to just dump toxics into the environment and deal with an ineffective EPA. The agency is so hamstrung that it takes years to bring an effective action, and once an action is brought, the fines don't even come close to covering the cost of initial disposal, much less being punative.
I mean, ask yourself: you are CEO of ABC chemicals. It costs $50 per year to dispose of your waste be environmental regs. But, you know you can just dump it in some poor people's (meaning minority, usually) backyard, and it will take them 10 years to figure it out. Once they do, it will take the EPA 5 years to bring action against your company, and when they finally do, you will pay $100 for lawyers and $200 in fines.
So, in short, it will cost you $750 to do it by the books, or $300 to dump it. Now what are you going to do?
Check out Zodiac by Neal Stephenson for a good novel on the subject. One of my favorite books ever.
In their old terms of use they claimed ownership of all contend they were hosting for you. So it became their property, and they were possibly making money of it.
If this is true, then this court case is absolutely on the money. We should give our German friends the benefit of the doubt.
MS can't have it both ways. I assume they demanded ownership of the content so that they could remove content they did not want posted - like anti-MS rants etc. However, when they were held responsible for the "property" they demanded, they tried to claim it was the website "owner's" responsibility.
This is not a frightening precedent at all, and it doesn't apply to any ISP with normal terms of service. MS just got exactly what it deserved.
I repeat - SHOULD NOT APPLY TO THE REST OF THE NET. Move along. Nothing to see here.
As for individual cable channels, Lifetime finished first in households for the month with a 2.2 primetime rating, up 16% from a year ago. The rest of the top 15 are: Nickelodeon (a 1.9 rating, up 19%), TBS (1.7, up 13%), TNT (1.7, up 13%), USA (1.7, flat), Cartoon Network (1. 6, down 6%) and Fox News Channel (1.1, up 71%).
Also: MTV (1.2, up 33%), A&E (1.1, down 8%), Discovery (1. 1, down 8%), Learning Channel (1.0, up 11%), TV Land (1.0, up 43%), CNN (0.9, up 50%), ABC Family (0.9, up 29%) and FX (0.9, up 13%).
As you can see, Lifetime is the highest rated cable network. As far as FoodTV is concerned, Iron Chef specials brought them into the range of the big three networks, with 8.4 million viewers for the Bobby Flay episode last summer. Food TV
Face it - Sci-Fi is a very small niche channel that could not survive without the support of the other "parasite" channels around it. It is obvious that your tastes run contrary to the rest of the nation. Get a clue and take it as a compliment.
The original poster wanted something more economical, and then iterated what he meant by that. He wanted the ability to pay for *JUST* the channels he actually wants to watch. He didn't say he wanted to get them for free. He just didn't want to subsidize the 95% of the channels that he gets no use out of whatsoever. That seems perfectly capitalist in its thinking.
Hate to break it to you, but it sounds like the parent poster should be grateful for this system. It's the people who want ESPN who subsidize Sci-Fi, not the other way around. I sincerely suspect if Cable/Sat TV were truly capitalist, there would be nothing on worth watching at all. Everyone with a brain to entertain would have to go back to books.
Interesting comment - especially since this seems to be how a lot of the rest of the world works.
Heard a report on NPR the other day about the Egyptian record industry - turns out that piracy has become a fact of life there - such that when an album is released, the record company expects about two weeks of sales before the pirates hit, and legit sales trickle to zero. Records are much less profitable there. Thus, bands tend to release new albums every six months, and support themselves through touring.
Personally, I've always thought it to be the measure of an artist if they sound better live than on the album. Those are always my favorites. For example, take Lenny Kravitz. Every album he puts out is OK, but I've never bought one. I do go see him every time he comes into town tho, because live he is fscking magic. Really lights up the stage.
Ever heard Axel Rose actually try to sing live? Don't get me started about Brittany...point is, if you can't really play it, you shouldn't try to sell it.
I'd say people have problems with science because if they are not professional sceptics - if they profess to believe in something that cannot be measured - then they are immediately branded as idiots by scientists.
In other words, people turn into torch wielding mobs not because they are afraid of what they don't understand, but because scientists are generally a bunch of arrogant assholes. Nobody likes to be made to feel stupid.
Did anyone else want to reach inside their TV and smack Halle Berry, not just for completely losing it, but for thanking her lawyer.
That was the most significant award given all evening. In case you weren't paying atttention, that was the first Best Actress award to go to an African-American. Ever.
You're right about the lawyer bit, but you are begging for flames here. She, more than anyone else, had the right to completely lose it.
In this country we do have freedom of religion, but the Christian Bible is without doubt the age-old moral code.
MUST...RESIST...TEMPTATION...TO FLAME...ZEALOT...
Now to behave intelligently...
I think that whether you are religious or not - whether you are Christian or not it is tuff to argue the Bible as one of the best sources for a moral base.
Sure it is. I'll just mention an anecdote about children, old men, and bears...oh, it's just to easy. Always remember this about the bible...for every one passage you find to "prove" something, someone else will find two to "prove" the opposite.
That is what the founders chose even though some of them were arguably less religious than others and I think they hit right on, in that regard.
That's just plain false. The (arguably) most important part of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, comes straight from Humanist philosophy and Natural Law (Locke, Swift, Paine et. al.). It's about as non-religious as you can get. Please read some legitimate history before you do this again.
The US Constitution and Bill of Rights must must must trump ALL other laws and regulations - for US citizens. YOUR country's constitution should be the sole definer or YOUR rights too.
Sorry people, but I need to point something out here. From the United States Declaration of Independence..."We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights..."
The United States was founded with the idea that certain things transcend all terrestrial law. In other words, from the US point of view, certain US laws apply to everyone in the world. We don't care if your government doesn't recognize them - from our point of view such governments are not legitimate..."that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it".
I'm sure this will really piss some people off. I (and I am sure many other Americans) simply don't care. The world would be a better place if these principles were followed.
And before I am accused of being an American zealot, kudos to the French for authoring this line of thought. Truth and good ideas have no nationality.
Re:Should I send this to my congressmen?
on
SSSCA Hearing
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Here is mine. Credit to all whose post I have ripped off.:)
Senator Kit Bond 274 Russel Senate Office Building Washington, DC. 20510
Senator Bond:
I am writing to express my deep concerns over recent trends I see in new intellectual property law, specifically the Security Systems Standards and Certification Act (SSSCA). From what I understand, this law will make it illegal to manufacture and/or sell an interactive digital device that does not have built in "content protection", where an interactive digital device is defined as any hardware or software capable of storing, retrieving, processing, performing, transmitting, receiving or copying information in digital form.
Frankly, I am shocked and deeply alarmed that such a bill is even being considered on the floor of the US Senate. Intellectual Property was created by the framers of our constitution not to ensure that corporations can make money for the span of many human lifetimes, but to ensure that said property would eventually fall into the public domain by providing a (small) window of revenue for content creators. This act would violate both the spirit and the letter of past intellectual property law. Consider, under the SSSCA:
1. Fair use rights have been virtually eliminated. I can no longer make copies of media that I legally bought and own, and am legally entitled to copy. 2. Media that I created (home videos, pictures, etc.) will no longer be viewable on SSSCA compliant hardware. You will lose the home movies of an entire generation. 3. Some greeting cards, credit cards, calculators, picture frames, children's toys, answering machines, cell phones, etc. will now be illegal. (Anything that can store data digitally will have to be manufactured to this standard.)
Perhaps most insidious, however, is the ramifications for who can publish and who cannot. This "content protection" works by the content providers agreeing on a standard for "watermarking" their products, and the hardware manufacturers interpreting said watermark. The watermarking method will have to remain secret; otherwise illegal copies could be watermarked and distributed. Thus, only people with access to this watermarking method will be able to produce media viewable by the American public. In other words, only approved media will be viewable by the American public. As a private citizen, I can no longer distribute digital copies of a video I created with my current camera, because it does not hold an MPAA watermark, and thus all SSSCA compliant hardware will treat it as a pirated copy.
I sincerely doubt that such a law would survive a constitutional test. I urge you to demonstrate that you really do work for us, and not for Hollywood. Vote down this legislation.
Slashdot Mirror
Bear in mind that they have had 2 2:1 splits since 2000, meaning if you owned 1 share in 1999, you now own 4. Translated, their actual total value of ownership is roughly equal today what it was in late 1999, which is a lot more than most companies can say. How many companies do you know that can claim their shareholders have not lost any money in the last four years?
Take they Mass. case for instance.
From boston.com:
The SJC case began in 2001 after seven same-sex couples from Boston to Northampton to Orleans went to their local city or town offices and applied for marriage licenses. When their requests were rejected, they filed a lawsuit in Suffolk Superior Court.
This is a no-brainer. The judges ruled that this action was unconstitutional. Period. No "orders" were given to force the state to change its behavior. They simply ruled that what they were currently doing was against the law - being that there was no law, anywhere, that explicitly forbade the practice; so therefore, under the US 10th amemdment, (or the Mass. equivalent), because no right had explicitly been denied anywhere in Mass. law, it had to be granted. The "Gap in the law" you refer to is covered by the 10th amendment -
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Since the state had not restricted by law a gay couple's right to marry, that right belonged to the people. Ergo, they have that right if they wish.
Your view that judges can't find a "gap" in a law shows your ignorance of the judicial process, or case law in specific. It isn't really your fault, though. It is common practice by conservatives to label judges who make decisions they don't like "activist judges", implying action on the part of the judge. You have just fallen for conservative propaganda.
While I was in college, I worked construction for a Harvestore agent in Nebraska. You know, those blue and white grain silos you see all over the Midwest.
One time the construction crew was required to go take down two silos that had been used to store bone meal (basically all parts of an animal you can't feed to humans ground up to be made into dog food) at a defunct rendering plant so they could be moved to the plant's new location. Off we went.
We arive at the sight, and drive down what looks like a gravel road, next to a nice little lake. Evrything was fine until I stepped out of the car. When I did, I realized that the road wasn't gravel; it was bone, and the lake was blood red. I was so shocked I stepped off of the road and into six inches of rotten grease that had turned rancid in the Nebraska summer sun. I won't even bother to describe the smell.
It averaged 102 the three days I was there. Everything looked like I was watching a bad TV with static on it, because flies were everywhere. You couldn't walk without tripping over a horse's leg, or a cow's tail. Part of my job was to be inside the silo (omg the smell of rotten bone meal) pulling out bolts while another member of the team used a blowtorch to burn the carcinogenic caulking off of the outside to loosen the bolts. Inisde the silo it was probably 130 degrees, filled with black choking smoke, and the stink...
Those three days, more than any other, convinced me to finish my college degree.
I would like to see your crendtials. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.
My fiance has a six year old son with ADHD (let's call him Mike). She lives at home with her parents, so the single mom thing really isn't an issue. Mike did not sit up until he was almost a year old (six months late), and could not walk until he was two (a year late). At 4 he was placed in an Early Childhood program because he was so far behind developmentally that it was questionable whether he would be able to enter Kindergarten on time.
Early Childhood helped quite a bit. Mike's test scores came up into the average range by the middle of the second year. However, his behavior was still a serious issue. He could not chain instructions together (take off your coat and put it in the closet, and come back here), and his lack of concentration was so bad that he could not learn the alphabet, which they recommend a child know before they start Kindergarten. His behavior caused serious disruptions in the classroom which would not be tolerated in Kindergarten.
Mike was put on a low dose of Concerta. He was finally able to focus long enough to follow instructions, and learn the alphabet.
Now he is six and a half. He is just now starting to read, though he seems to be limited to four letters or less per word. He has been on Concerta for a year now, and the results have been satisfacory, not great. He stills has problems with concentration, even on the medication, and when it wears off he can't focus for more than a couple of seconds at a time. We have had to increase the dosage because he is growing so fast (he is already sixty pounds, and has grown two inches in the last three months), and since we aren't thrilled with Concerta's effectiveness for him, we have switched to Strattera (sp?).
The point of all this is that everyone with ADHD isn't just an undisciplined brat. And certainly everyone with ADHD isn't smart and bored. I've seen Mike both on and off the medication and there is not a doubt in my mind that it isn't helping him; in learning, social situations, and general happiness. For some people, the medication really helps.
Every child is different. Some respond to medication, some don't. Some don't need it. Some do. It's your job as a parent to figure out what is best for your child as an individual. That means researching, asking questions, getting a second or third opinion, talking to lots of professionals before deciding on a course of therapy that may or may not include medication, but always bearing in mind the nature and character of the person whose fate you are deciding. You've got to know your kid, and decide what's best for them.
And in closing to the parent, you really are in no place to pass judgement from on high without the slightest trace of informed opinion. You try making these decisions for your child, and see how heart-wrenching it is. You go tell a dozen health professionals that you love your son, but dear god you think he's fucked up somehow, and you want to help him, and listen to what they have to say. Then come back and tell us all what lousy parents we are because we decided to medicate our kids.
Ass.
Because in the last century, more people were killed by their own governments than in all of the wars combined. History teaches that you have far more to fear from people running your government than anyone else. Some of us read history books, and don't have to learn the hard way.
If this is true, then there is a hole in US copyright laws you can drive a truck through. Anyone want to make a bazillion dollars? 1. Get a country who is recognized by the US government to set a ridiculously low legnth of copyright protection - say one year. 2. In one year, all copyrighted works enter the public domain. Set up a company that mass produces records, and set it to work. Sell them retail for $1. 3. Set up another company in, another country, who buys the CD's at retail price from the first company, and turn around and import them to the US. 4. Sell them to Wal-Mart at $3 per. 5. Repeat.
Having a robot asking me questions about how I feel really wouldn't ease any of my anxiety. Yeah, but think about how much better you will feel after you shoot it.
First, I'm willing to bet that your development organization is too large. The best code is usually produced by a small team of developers. Too many cooks spoil the soup kind of thing.
Second, yes, there is such a thing as too much testing. QA Managers have a real problem to deal with - they can catch 85% of bugs with x amount of effort. However, getting that last 15% becomes exponentially harder. QA Managers often have to make the decision to let the last 10% go, because the effort to find them just is not cost effective (i.e. to test a build to 85% takes three weeks, to 99% takes a year kind of thing).
Without knowing jack about your situation, I'd guess the problem is in your process somewhere - too much of it most likely. Too many developers, too bureaucratic of a QA process, could be many things. just my $.02
It's a nice idea, but some of us are aquainted with reality.
I think George Carlin said it best: The reason they call it the American Dream is because you would have to be asleep to believe it.
That one's good, but I also like this one:
God Re-Floods Middle East
Best Quote:
"The most recent, clearest sign of the Second Deluge came last Thursday, when a tersely worded press statement from God's angelic hosts ominously stated, 'If there are any species native to the area that you would prefer not to see go extinct, we strongly suggest you begin gathering them two by two.'"
American Football (as your light version of rugby is called everywhere else) on the other hand is just a bad substitute for the Roman Circus' gladiators (since it loses a lot without the weapons).
Light? Jesus Christ, have you seen Tampa Bay's defensive line?!?
You're right about the weapons, though. Seems a shame that all the players use them off the field, but can't bring them on.
You're right. I haven't worked for an actual manufacturer. I've worked for people who buy from those manufacturers, and spray those chemicals on the ground to control weeds. Who have pits out back to bury the waste that is too expensive to be disposed of properly.
What planet are you from? One lawsuit can't do jack shit to a company with deep enough pockets. Hell, Union Carbide killed 50,000 people in Bhopal, India and they are still doing fine. Those lawsuits don't seem to be bothering them.
The tobacco industry just paid out nearly a quater trillion dollars in lawsuits, and they are still showing a profit. Doesn't sound like they are really hurting, now, does it? Fact is, tobacco is a 46 billion dollar a year business. They discovered cigarettes were harmful in what, 1968? Sounds like paying the fine was the right way to go.
How many lawsuits has Monsanto survived? Dow? I come from the country of Times Beach and Doe Run. I know exactly how much damage an EPA lawsuit does - it might shut you down in 20 years.
Wake up man. Sounds like you either work for a company that actually cares - but more likely is just too small to surivive the EPA.
Manufacturing industries are highly regulated for all emissions, be they air, water, or solid. Everything must be disposed of properly (however "properly" is defined). This is especially true for toxic materials.
And if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.
Truth is, that it is often far, far cheaper to just dump toxics into the environment and deal with an ineffective EPA. The agency is so hamstrung that it takes years to bring an effective action, and once an action is brought, the fines don't even come close to covering the cost of initial disposal, much less being punative.
I mean, ask yourself: you are CEO of ABC chemicals. It costs $50 per year to dispose of your waste be environmental regs. But, you know you can just dump it in some poor people's (meaning minority, usually) backyard, and it will take them 10 years to figure it out. Once they do, it will take the EPA 5 years to bring action against your company, and when they finally do, you will pay $100 for lawyers and $200 in fines.
So, in short, it will cost you $750 to do it by the books, or $300 to dump it. Now what are you going to do?
Check out Zodiac by Neal Stephenson for a good novel on the subject. One of my favorite books ever.
In their old terms of use they claimed ownership of all contend they were hosting for you. So it became their property, and they were possibly making money of it.
If this is true, then this court case is absolutely on the money. We should give our German friends the benefit of the doubt.
MS can't have it both ways. I assume they demanded ownership of the content so that they could remove content they did not want posted - like anti-MS rants etc. However, when they were held responsible for the "property" they demanded, they tried to claim it was the website "owner's" responsibility.
This is not a frightening precedent at all, and it doesn't apply to any ISP with normal terms of service. MS just got exactly what it deserved.
I repeat - SHOULD NOT APPLY TO THE REST OF THE NET. Move along. Nothing to see here.
from Yahoo News
As for individual cable channels, Lifetime finished first in households for the month with a 2.2 primetime rating, up 16% from a year ago. The rest of the top 15 are: Nickelodeon (a 1.9 rating, up 19%), TBS (1.7, up 13%), TNT (1.7, up 13%), USA (1.7, flat), Cartoon Network (1. 6, down 6%) and Fox News Channel (1.1, up 71%). Also: MTV (1.2, up 33%), A&E (1.1, down 8%), Discovery (1. 1, down 8%), Learning Channel (1.0, up 11%), TV Land (1.0, up 43%), CNN (0.9, up 50%), ABC Family (0.9, up 29%) and FX (0.9, up 13%).
As you can see, Lifetime is the highest rated cable network. As far as FoodTV is concerned, Iron Chef specials brought them into the range of the big three networks, with 8.4 million viewers for the Bobby Flay episode last summer. Food TV
Face it - Sci-Fi is a very small niche channel that could not survive without the support of the other "parasite" channels around it. It is obvious that your tastes run contrary to the rest of the nation. Get a clue and take it as a compliment.
The original poster wanted something more economical, and then iterated what he meant by that. He wanted the ability to pay for *JUST* the channels he actually wants to watch. He didn't say he wanted to get them for free. He just didn't want to subsidize the 95% of the channels that he gets no use out of whatsoever. That seems perfectly capitalist in its thinking.
Hate to break it to you, but it sounds like the parent poster should be grateful for this system. It's the people who want ESPN who subsidize Sci-Fi, not the other way around. I sincerely suspect if Cable/Sat TV were truly capitalist, there would be nothing on worth watching at all. Everyone with a brain to entertain would have to go back to books.
On second thought, go capitalism!
Interesting comment - especially since this seems to be how a lot of the rest of the world works.
Heard a report on NPR the other day about the Egyptian record industry - turns out that piracy has become a fact of life there - such that when an album is released, the record company expects about two weeks of sales before the pirates hit, and legit sales trickle to zero. Records are much less profitable there. Thus, bands tend to release new albums every six months, and support themselves through touring.
Personally, I've always thought it to be the measure of an artist if they sound better live than on the album. Those are always my favorites. For example, take Lenny Kravitz. Every album he puts out is OK, but I've never bought one. I do go see him every time he comes into town tho, because live he is fscking magic. Really lights up the stage.
Ever heard Axel Rose actually try to sing live? Don't get me started about Brittany...point is, if you can't really play it, you shouldn't try to sell it.
I'd say people have problems with science because if they are not professional sceptics - if they profess to believe in something that cannot be measured - then they are immediately branded as idiots by scientists.
In other words, people turn into torch wielding mobs not because they are afraid of what they don't understand, but because scientists are generally a bunch of arrogant assholes. Nobody likes to be made to feel stupid.
Somebody mod this up, please. Finally a geek that understands financials.
Did anyone else want to reach inside their TV and smack Halle Berry, not just for completely losing it, but for thanking her lawyer.
That was the most significant award given all evening. In case you weren't paying atttention, that was the first Best Actress award to go to an African-American. Ever.
You're right about the lawyer bit, but you are begging for flames here. She, more than anyone else, had the right to completely lose it.
In this country we do have freedom of religion, but the Christian Bible is without doubt the age-old moral code.
MUST...RESIST...TEMPTATION...TO FLAME...ZEALOT...
Now to behave intelligently...
I think that whether you are religious or not - whether you are Christian or not it is tuff to argue the Bible as one of the best sources for a moral base.
Sure it is. I'll just mention an anecdote about children, old men, and bears...oh, it's just to easy. Always remember this about the bible...for every one passage you find to "prove" something, someone else will find two to "prove" the opposite.
That is what the founders chose even though some of them were arguably less religious than others and I think they hit right on, in that regard.
That's just plain false. The (arguably) most important part of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, comes straight from Humanist philosophy and Natural Law (Locke, Swift, Paine et. al.). It's about as non-religious as you can get. Please read some legitimate history before you do this again.
Please don't throw me into that briar patch, Brer Fox!
The US Constitution and Bill of Rights must must must trump ALL other laws and regulations - for US citizens. YOUR country's constitution should be the sole definer or YOUR rights too.
Sorry people, but I need to point something out here. From the United States Declaration of Independence..."We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights ..."
The United States was founded with the idea that certain things transcend all terrestrial law. In other words, from the US point of view, certain US laws apply to everyone in the world. We don't care if your government doesn't recognize them - from our point of view such governments are not legitimate..."that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it".
I'm sure this will really piss some people off. I (and I am sure many other Americans) simply don't care. The world would be a better place if these principles were followed.
And before I am accused of being an American zealot, kudos to the French for authoring this line of thought. Truth and good ideas have no nationality.
Here is mine. Credit to all whose post I have ripped off. :)
Senator Kit Bond
274 Russel Senate Office Building
Washington, DC. 20510
Senator Bond:
I am writing to express my deep concerns over recent trends I see in new intellectual property law, specifically the Security Systems Standards and Certification Act (SSSCA). From what I understand, this law will make it illegal to manufacture and/or sell an interactive digital device that does not have built in "content protection", where an interactive digital device is defined as any hardware or software capable of storing, retrieving, processing, performing, transmitting, receiving or copying information in digital form.
Frankly, I am shocked and deeply alarmed that such a bill is even being considered on the floor of the US Senate. Intellectual Property was created by the framers of our constitution not to ensure that corporations can make money for the span of many human lifetimes, but to ensure that said property would eventually fall into the public domain by providing a (small) window of revenue for content creators. This act would violate both the spirit and the letter of past intellectual property law. Consider, under the SSSCA:
1. Fair use rights have been virtually eliminated. I can no longer make copies of media that I legally bought and own, and am legally entitled to copy.
2. Media that I created (home videos, pictures, etc.) will no longer be viewable on SSSCA compliant hardware. You will lose the home movies of an entire generation.
3. Some greeting cards, credit cards, calculators, picture frames, children's toys, answering machines, cell phones, etc. will now be illegal. (Anything that can store data digitally will have to be manufactured to this standard.)
Perhaps most insidious, however, is the ramifications for who can publish and who cannot. This "content protection" works by the content providers agreeing on a standard for "watermarking" their products, and the hardware manufacturers interpreting said watermark. The watermarking method will have to remain secret; otherwise illegal copies could be watermarked and distributed. Thus, only people with access to this watermarking method will be able to produce media viewable by the American public. In other words, only approved media will be viewable by the American public. As a private citizen, I can no longer distribute digital copies of a video I created with my current camera, because it does not hold an MPAA watermark, and thus all SSSCA compliant hardware will treat it as a pirated copy.
I sincerely doubt that such a law would survive a constitutional test. I urge you to demonstrate that you really do work for us, and not for Hollywood. Vote down this legislation.
Sincerely,
Missouri Citizen
Try Home of the Underdogs(www.theunderdogs.org), out of Hong Kong. From there it will percolate throughout the abandonware community.