I didn't say the people who loaded the Sandy bill with pork were saints. The person who held up the aid over it is still the problem with getting the aid to the people who damned well needed it. That he then claimed the Texas flood aid was somehow 'different' is fucking hypocrisy
You're of course implying there wasn't ample opportunity for Cruz to oppose pork barrel spending some other way without directly impacting the victims of a natural disaster. Uhuh, sure.....
There's a reason that Pelosi, Reid and Obama had to ram that law through using procedural shenanigans
Indeed and that reason is the not so latent racism in the GOP base over a black president and the lock step opposition to *anything* he proposed. Every major piece of the ACA was *favored* by the GOP, just not 'Obamacare'.
Also note, the meeting with all the GOP players on the night of Obama's inauguration to 'oppose anything he did'. They knew that if they cooperated at all, Obama would get credit for saving the country from depression and become a transformative icon of history; and of course discredit the GOP agenda for decades to come.
So they played politics with basically everything. The extreme of which was Sen. Cruz voting against funding for Hurricane Sandy relief money...and then demanding quick aid when Texas was hit by floods. His argument? The pork in the Sandy Relief bill. While laudable policy wise, playing political football with people's lives to make a point is exactly what's wrong with the GOP these days.
The idea of the DMCA takedown process is that the host takes down the content to avoid liability for copyright infringement
Which is guilty until proven innocent. Someone merely claiming it's copyright infringement isn't anything more than a claim. Why not wait until it's actually RESOLVED to be a valid claim before taking it down.
This is the problem with the DMCA. Copyright specifically and the DMCA slightly less weren't intended to work with digital content and user generated content. It was meant for people actually using infringing work for economic gain. The muddying of the water is that previously people (or companies) posted content on their own sites, now that an independent 3rd party can make money off of personal usage, that's the monetary claim.
It is now absolutely possible to make a close enough number to be infinite number of copies of a digital file at basically no cost and distribute those copies across the globe with very very little effort. Basic economics states that if something is infinitely available at no cost, it has no intrinsic value. Yet copyright is assigning a value on it being a scarce good when it clearly isn't. Please note this is only the value of the 'copy' not the content.
Back when it cost you money to make a copy, infringement wasn't done at any significant scale for personal reasons...precisely because it cost you money to make copies of tapes or albums, etc. Now, what kids did back in the day, recording the radio and trading it with their friends is punishable by $150,000 per instance.
What is still a scarce good is a concert - it's why bands from literally 50 years ago are touring rather than making new music. You can't make a copy of the concert experience.
How to fix it - at the VERY least make it a counter process BEFORE the content has to come down.
Or
as prince just found out, a baby dancing with your song in the background is GOOD advertising for you. Screaming like a little girl to a judge and having people look at you like a whining spoiled brat isn't.
claiming you'd do something is all well and good, except there's no law giving you any standing to sue beyond the basically toothless DMCA wrongful filing. You'll spend far far more on lawyers than you'd ever get back.
And when it's you, Joe Schmo, against Univeral Music and the statutory infringement fines of $150 THOUSAND DOLLARS per instance
linky you'd be insane to leave it up to the decision of a judge.
The problem is the DMCA's shoot first ask questions later incentives. When a DMCA takedown request is received you HAVE to take down the content. There's no counter process that allows 'due process' to happen while the issue is sorted out. Youtube took down Justin Bieber's ENTIRE CHANNEL over a bogus request, linky.
If a prank can result in a world-wide multi-million dollar star's content being removed without someone questioning the validity of it. The system is fundamentally flawed.
Or how about this. Jay Leno sees a video on Youtube and shows it on the Tonight Show. After the show airs, that video is pulled from Youtube. Why? Becuase, amazingly enough, it matched the 'signature' of what was played on the Tonight Show and NBC *automatically* had it pulled. linky
Not so much. The same ruling allows companies to use a 'good faith belief' that something is infringing. And more importantly, it explicitly says they don't need to do ANY research to develop this 'belief'. So it's absolutely useless from a Fair Use standpoint.
No close air support platform is your first plane into theater. The stealth assets take out the air defenses and then A-10s come in and support.
The sensor suite will be next to useless for GROUND targets as there isn't anything to distinguish one clump of trees from another they way the F-35 can see a plane in the empty empty sky.
The A-10 will likely wipe the F-35 all over the map in this testing
I could tell the difference between 'good' 87 octane and bad. Back when Amoco still existed, I had an older car that was starting to knock on regular 87. Amoco's always fixed that issue. When ever I got anything else the car knocked. It really was 'better' gas as this was over multiple years of observation.
contractor or not is irrelevant to how the systems are accessed. It does *not* have to be over the open internet. A private network connects the machines and you run that to the managing company and then the contractors remote into *that* system if you don't want to put the private connections out to the contractors.
Moral of the story, it's only cheaper to contract out if you aren't doing the full security required for the job.
Having it *accessible* on a private network is quite reasonable. Having it on the public internet, firewall or not, is simply asking for it to be hacked and misused.
yeah I was asking more about other game alternatives:)
Tried LORTO and while I *love* the Tolkien universe it just didn't click for me. EQ2 just didn't seem as polished. Haven't tried SWToR or DDO....me thinks I should then:)
I've never gotten into 1st person shooters and that seems to be the plethora these days.
There may not be 'incentive' for them to lower rates, other than you know, the competition of multiple companies.
But what there is plenty of is resistance by regulators to those same companies trying to increase their rates just because they can. It's not legally mandated without significant regulation.
niche market with many unknowns.
Insurance is one of the most studied and detailed fields out there. Because if the companies plan it wrong they owe a lot of money...
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't say the people who loaded the Sandy bill with pork were saints. The person who held up the aid over it is still the problem with getting the aid to the people who damned well needed it. That he then claimed the Texas flood aid was somehow 'different' is fucking hypocrisy
You're of course implying there wasn't ample opportunity for Cruz to oppose pork barrel spending some other way without directly impacting the victims of a natural disaster. Uhuh, sure.....
There's a reason that Pelosi, Reid and Obama had to ram that law through using procedural shenanigans
Indeed and that reason is the not so latent racism in the GOP base over a black president and the lock step opposition to *anything* he proposed. Every major piece of the ACA was *favored* by the GOP, just not 'Obamacare'.
Also note, the meeting with all the GOP players on the night of Obama's inauguration to 'oppose anything he did'. They knew that if they cooperated at all, Obama would get credit for saving the country from depression and become a transformative icon of history; and of course discredit the GOP agenda for decades to come.
So they played politics with basically everything. The extreme of which was Sen. Cruz voting against funding for Hurricane Sandy relief money...and then demanding quick aid when Texas was hit by floods. His argument? The pork in the Sandy Relief bill. While laudable policy wise, playing political football with people's lives to make a point is exactly what's wrong with the GOP these days.
or they could host their own ads rather than 3rd party stuff than can and is blocked with ease.
You want to make money using ads? put some actual effort into it...
The idea of the DMCA takedown process is that the host takes down the content to avoid liability for copyright infringement
Which is guilty until proven innocent. Someone merely claiming it's copyright infringement isn't anything more than a claim. Why not wait until it's actually RESOLVED to be a valid claim before taking it down.
This is the problem with the DMCA. Copyright specifically and the DMCA slightly less weren't intended to work with digital content and user generated content. It was meant for people actually using infringing work for economic gain. The muddying of the water is that previously people (or companies) posted content on their own sites, now that an independent 3rd party can make money off of personal usage, that's the monetary claim.
It is now absolutely possible to make a close enough number to be infinite number of copies of a digital file at basically no cost and distribute those copies across the globe with very very little effort. Basic economics states that if something is infinitely available at no cost, it has no intrinsic value. Yet copyright is assigning a value on it being a scarce good when it clearly isn't. Please note this is only the value of the 'copy' not the content.
Back when it cost you money to make a copy, infringement wasn't done at any significant scale for personal reasons...precisely because it cost you money to make copies of tapes or albums, etc. Now, what kids did back in the day, recording the radio and trading it with their friends is punishable by $150,000 per instance.
What is still a scarce good is a concert - it's why bands from literally 50 years ago are touring rather than making new music. You can't make a copy of the concert experience.
How to fix it - at the VERY least make it a counter process BEFORE the content has to come down.
Or
as prince just found out, a baby dancing with your song in the background is GOOD advertising for you. Screaming like a little girl to a judge and having people look at you like a whining spoiled brat isn't.
claiming you'd do something is all well and good, except there's no law giving you any standing to sue beyond the basically toothless DMCA wrongful filing. You'll spend far far more on lawyers than you'd ever get back.
And when it's you, Joe Schmo, against Univeral Music and the statutory infringement fines of $150 THOUSAND DOLLARS per instance linky you'd be insane to leave it up to the decision of a judge.
The problem is the DMCA's shoot first ask questions later incentives. When a DMCA takedown request is received you HAVE to take down the content. There's no counter process that allows 'due process' to happen while the issue is sorted out. Youtube took down Justin Bieber's ENTIRE CHANNEL over a bogus request, linky.
If a prank can result in a world-wide multi-million dollar star's content being removed without someone questioning the validity of it. The system is fundamentally flawed.
Or how about this. Jay Leno sees a video on Youtube and shows it on the Tonight Show. After the show airs, that video is pulled from Youtube. Why? Becuase, amazingly enough, it matched the 'signature' of what was played on the Tonight Show and NBC *automatically* had it pulled. linky
Not so much. The same ruling allows companies to use a 'good faith belief' that something is infringing. And more importantly, it explicitly says they don't need to do ANY research to develop this 'belief'. So it's absolutely useless from a Fair Use standpoint.
linky
No close air support platform is your first plane into theater. The stealth assets take out the air defenses and then A-10s come in and support.
The sensor suite will be next to useless for GROUND targets as there isn't anything to distinguish one clump of trees from another they way the F-35 can see a plane in the empty empty sky.
The A-10 will likely wipe the F-35 all over the map in this testing
Apparently not...
A free market system with no regulation was gamed by the participants?
I'm SHOCKED, SHOCKED I tell you!
It's a drone, it's an upside down lawn mower with faulty height sensor!
This was a 92 Infiniti so I'm assuming it was not exactly a 'modern' car in the sense you're describing
I could tell the difference between 'good' 87 octane and bad. Back when Amoco still existed, I had an older car that was starting to knock on regular 87. Amoco's always fixed that issue. When ever I got anything else the car knocked. It really was 'better' gas as this was over multiple years of observation.
contractor or not is irrelevant to how the systems are accessed. It does *not* have to be over the open internet. A private network connects the machines and you run that to the managing company and then the contractors remote into *that* system if you don't want to put the private connections out to the contractors.
Moral of the story, it's only cheaper to contract out if you aren't doing the full security required for the job.
having gas metering equipment online is sensible
Having it *accessible* on a private network is quite reasonable. Having it on the public internet, firewall or not, is simply asking for it to be hacked and misused.
yeah I was asking more about other game alternatives :)
:)
Tried LORTO and while I *love* the Tolkien universe it just didn't click for me. EQ2 just didn't seem as polished. Haven't tried SWToR or DDO....me thinks I should then
I've never gotten into 1st person shooters and that seems to be the plethora these days.
as a serious question, what alternatives?
Please calculate how much it costs to remove a ton(lbs) of CO2 out of the air. You'll then have your answer in terms of the subsidy.
Being allowed to pollute the environment *should* come at a cost.
Or it's not enough yet. What does it cost to pull a metric ton of CO2 out of the air?
renewables don't cost more, fossil fuels are just heavily subsidized - as in they should cost more right now.
But what there is plenty of is resistance by regulators to those same companies trying to increase their rates just because they can. It's not legally mandated without significant regulation.
niche market with many unknowns.
Insurance is one of the most studied and detailed fields out there. Because if the companies plan it wrong they owe a lot of money...
they invest the premiums on the open market
So what you're saying, is that the coming downsizing of the auto-insurance industry could, ahem, *crash* the stock market...
It only works from the Sprint network. Not enough coverage or reliability ;-)