THE PRESIDENT: Well, what's happening is a lot of these banks are keeping it in the bank because their balance sheets had gotten so bad that they decided, you know what, for us to stay solvent we need to maintain certain capital ratios; we've got to have a certain amount of capital in the bank -- and they haven't started lending it yet."
In other words the Banks are using tax payer money to pay off their debts. Lovely.
No, in other words the banks are using taxpayer money to maintain their reserve ratios. Without it they'd be insolvent, and if they loan it out they'd be insolvent. What else can they do with the money?
Note that if a bank falls below statutory mandated ratios, it can be seized and liquidated by the FDIC, as happened to Washington Mutual and over a dozen other banks last year.
It was in the late 70's where inflation became a problem and the feds had to increase interest rates to control it.
Only it didn't work. Interest rates rose and inflation went right on up with them. It's accepted dogma that there's an inverse relationship between interest rates and inflation, but I have my doubts if it would stand up to historical scrutiny.
Well, since the amount a bank is permitted to loan (which contributes to the money supply) is based on its reserves, which are based on the value of its assets, if the value of a whole bunch of assets shrinks dramatically, the money supply also shrinks dramatically.
Also note, this is moronic -- performance and battery life are what they're trying to address, whether the data needs to be committed immediately or not is something the application is supposed to tell the system.
The paradigm of writing out a new file and renaming it to the old name has been around for longer than the oh-so-holy POSIX standard. The data doesn't need to be committed immediately; it just needs to be committed in order, before the old file is destroyed. It's just as acceptable, in this scenario, for the file system to delay writing out the rename as it is for it to immediately write out the data. There's no way for the application to tell the system that.
That's only one end of the scale. What are the other reference points for Fahrenheit? For Celsius, you have 0 == freezing, 100 == boiling for pure water. For Fahrenheit you have 0 == freezing saltwater, 32 == freezing pure water, and 212 == boiling pure water. According to Wikipedia, that isn't even the original Fahrenheit scale.
The freezing temperature of saturated brine was as cold as Fahrenheit could get, by mixing snow and salt. I believe it's also more repeatable than the freezing point of water without difficult purification methods, but I'm not 100% sure on that. Fahrenheit's other reference (at 100) was body temperature; whoever he used must have been warmer than normal. The reference point 212 degrees for boiling water at 1 atm was a later addition.
But if you think that was bad, the original centigrade scale had 100 as freezing and 0 as boiling. What were you thinking, Dr. Celcius???
As long as the claims are filed in the proper manner, the ISP has no choice but to comply.
No, the ISP can ignore DMCA takedowns. However, by doing so they lose the "safe harbor" and could be sued themselves. Some claim that by ignoring any DMCA takedowns the ISP loses the "safe harbor" for ALL copyright infringement; IMO that's not a sensible reading and the ISP only loses "safe harbor" for the ignored takedown, but I don't think that issue has ever been litigated.
Never mind that before the DMCA, several court decisions had already established immunity for copyright violations without any takedown provision; it's rather likely that despite the DMCAs explicit language to the contrary, courts will take the DMCA as overriding those earlier immunities.
Sorry, but that is just stupid. Below zero I expect ice on the road when driving to work.
Around here, there won't typically be ice on the road unless it's in the low 20s. Because they treat them with salt and, yes, brine. But below zero, salt is totally ineffective.
In winter time that is a daily issue; I have never ever worried about if saturated brine is freezing. Same with the boiling point of water, which is an issue every day when making dinner.
Just boil the water; you don't need to measure the temperature to do so.
It is strange that US nerds can't understand that standards are needed to communicate efficiently and that national pride is stupid when dealing with an international standard.
If the metric system wasn't so poorly designed for every day use (Celcius is the worst, but the other units are terrible for estimating and for reasonably-spaced whole-number units), maybe there wouldn't be so much resistance to it.
Soleley responsible, no. But consider this (purely hypothetical, couldn't happen) example: some one eyed, hook handed loony who lives at taxpayers expense preaches in his mosque to kill all the jews, and that afternoon two of his congregation burn a synagogue down. I think there's a strong case for considering him an accessory.
A very weak case, if he was limited to generalities like "kill all the jews". A strong case if he'd said "go burn down that synagogue down the street".
Either way, the woman has the right to feed her baby anywhere she happens to be. If that means giving her baby a bottle of milk or a breast filled with milk, it doesn't matter. If your eyes are so fragile that you will suffer irreparable damage seeing a small portion of a real woman's breast being used to feed a baby, then there's a really simple solution: Look away!
It's not that the man who sees the breast will suffer harm from the sight. It's that he's going to be made to feel like a creep if he sees it. It's not really reasonable that women both
1) Get to breastfeed in public and 2) Judge men harshly when men see them do it.
Re:Were nerds here... use the f'ing metric system
on
The 100 Degree Data Center
·
· Score: 1, Informative
The zero of Fahrenheit -- the freezing point of saturated brine -- is no less sensible than the Celcius zero of the freezing point of water. Fahrenheit is also more precise with fewer digits in the ranges most people deal with day to day.
And if you did that you would not be able to confirm that the site in question actually was violating your copyright, and assuming the host wasn't incompetent your take down notice would be rejected. Unless I'm misreading the scenario you're depicting.
The DMCA encourages (by providing safe harbor) the host to take the material down based on the takedown notice, even if the takedown notice is bogus. Some hosts check to see if it is sensible or not, most don't. My point is that there's no perjury provision preventing me from demanding a bogus takedown. That is, if I claim a file containing a copy of the essay "On Civil Disobedience" on someone's website is infringing my copyright on an essay I wrote called "Copyright Forever", then as long as I really did write "Copyright Forever", I'm not committing perjury, even though I'm lying my ass off.
The parties that are abused can file counter-notices and get their service reinstated (theoretically) according to the terms of the DMCA, unless and until further legal action is taken by the accusing party.
Actually, the accusing party only has to SAY they are taking legal action. But the counter-notice is still an invitation to be sued.
IIRC, without a court order mandating a suspension of service, service to the allegedly infringing party is supposed to be restored during the pendency of a court proceeding over the dispute.
Nope, if the complainer says he's suing, the material remains taken down. See 17 USC 512(g)(2)(c).
That's a good question. I think the penalty of perjury clause serves as a mild deterrent, and I think to an extent it does work. It takes a pretty dishonest person to sign on the dotted line, under the penalty of perjury, things to which the person is attesting falsely.
The perjury clause is so useless as to be limited. I could send a DMCA request to anyone's provider, claiming that file X on their website infringed my copyright on work Y, and as long as I actually owned work Y, I would not have committed perjury -- even if I knew damn well file X had nothing to do with it.
Every once in a while my organization has to send out a DMCA take down notice against those who are using our trademarks to sell counterfeit merchandise.
Congratulations, your organization is a DMCA abuser. DMCA takedowns are for copyright violation, not trademark violation.
it is very helpful to have a method within the law for protecting ownership rights short of always involving lawyers at substantial and on-going costs
Indeed, it is helpful -- for abusers. The people abused, on the other hand, are shut down with no recourse other than to involve lawyers at substantial cost; the counternotice basically says "Meet me at high noon in Federal Court". Furthermore, if the abuser does sue, the DMCA provides the equivalent of an automatic restraining order, which, given the length of court cases, means the abuser essentially wins regardless of the outcome.
A BSCS is almost as difficult as a degree in engineering, but it's as worthless as a degree in Liberal Arts.
At the school I went to (University of Maryland, College Park), engineering was definitely harder -- a BSEE was typically a 5 year degree whereas CS was a normal 4 year degree. There was no Computer Engineering at the time.
Look at the job ads, employers don't give a damn about your silly BSCS, they want experience - many years of professional, verifiable, recent experience, and in many different technologies, and no jobs have the same requirements.
Recent graduates rarely get jobs through the job ads; they get them through college recruiting offices. But most of the job ads in the field DO call for a BSCS, BSEE, or BSCE (Computer Engineering) in addition to the experience. A few are even calling for advanced computer science degrees.
If they can break the cipher they probably won't have a problem in CS. But most larval geeks won't care about the cipher if they can just get the blowjob. I mean, can you imagine the challenge?
Natasha: I think you cannot break cipher in 15 minutes while I give you blow job and Boris points gun at your head. Larval geek: You're on! (15 minutes later) Larval geek: Sorry, you were right.
This makes perfect sense. Engineers make more money than any other Bachelors degrees can get you. Many students don't realize that it is damn hard to get an engineering degree compared to other degrees, though. At least, that's true of good colleges.
And that is where the CS degree comes in. Much easier than any engineering degree (at least where I went to school), and gets you full access to software jobs.
The big threat of outsourcing isn't that we'll suddenly discover a new country with excellent developers and ridiculously cheap rates, but rather we'll discover how to effectively manage offshore teams. It's going to happen eventually, and no amount of whining is going to stop it.
Not if the offshore teams figure out how to develop their own products first, and become competitors rather than contractors.
As government jobs which don't require being shot at or handling NBC waste go, the job of Facebook snoop is pretty lousy. Most of it is content-free chatter, but at least it's chatter by people you know. Having to monitor the content-free chatter of tons of strangers must be incredibly mind-numbing.
Freedom and liberty come at the price of responsibility.
Real responsibility, not a formalized thing meaning "paying an insurance company." If, while I was driving uninsured, I had caused someone damage and failed to compensate them for it, THEN you could say I was shirking my responsibility. But just not paying the insurance company as required by law? Doesn't cut it.
You're shirking yours if you're not insured and are driving. The rules are for you, and for everyone else that lives in a civil society. Don't like them? Vote, participate.
Show me who I can vote for who opposes mandatory insurance laws...oh, wait, that would be no one. The sort of responsibility which is the price of freedom is inherent. It is not something politicians can create at the stroke of a pen; they can only remove freedom and liberty that way.
In Illinois, proof of insurance is now a requirement to register your vehicle and get valid plates. The information is required on the form. So uninsured drivers don't even have legally registered vehicles or valid plates.
Right, because someone willing to break one law would never break another.
In Philadelphia, the free market has come up with a solution to that in the form of counterfeit and fraudelently obtained registration stickers. I bet that's true in Illinois too.
Then you take public transportation, walk, ride a bike, catch a ride with someone.
I'll not have rapacious insurance companies reduce me to the shank's mare.
You must take responsibility, which includes insurance, to drive a motorized vehicle.
Insurance is not "responsibility" except in a formal legal sense.
To not do so jeopardizes all of us. Civility mandates concern for everyone else.
Incivility begets incivility. When the only insurance organization in Pennsylvania willing to insure a new resident under age 25 wanted $4100/year (liability only, payable in full in advance) to insure me, I found that rather uncivil. Particularly because in my previous state I'd been paying an also-rapacious $1500/year.
But I'm convinced that those that drive with insurance are time bombs.
Another driver's lack of insurance will not cause you any more risk or injury, so they are no more "time bombs" than anyone else. It may mean that you won't be financially compensated for any injury which they do cause, if they are also without assets.
Liberal application of 30 or 90 day contempt charges would fix this pretty quickly.
You can do that to witnesses and lawyers. But the US system has a long history of not punishing jurors for anything short of out-and-out corruption, possibly because of the experience of William Penn (who was acquitted despite pressure on the jurors). Anyway, if you think it's hard getting people to show up for jury duty now, imagine what it would be like if they knew they could face contempt charges at the judge's whim?
Without copyrights the GPL would be unenforceable.
But so would most of the ills GPL is meant to prevent, which is what everyone who makes this argument misses. Yes, companies would be able to distribute closed-source software, even that based on open-source software. But without the law to prevent it, that has simple technical solutions.
Slashdot Mirror
No, in other words the banks are using taxpayer money to maintain their reserve ratios. Without it they'd be insolvent, and if they loan it out they'd be insolvent. What else can they do with the money?
Note that if a bank falls below statutory mandated ratios, it can be seized and liquidated by the FDIC, as happened to Washington Mutual and over a dozen other banks last year.
Only it didn't work. Interest rates rose and inflation went right on up with them. It's accepted dogma that there's an inverse relationship between interest rates and inflation, but I have my doubts if it would stand up to historical scrutiny.
Well, since the amount a bank is permitted to loan (which contributes to the money supply) is based on its reserves, which are based on the value of its assets, if the value of a whole bunch of assets shrinks dramatically, the money supply also shrinks dramatically.
Sound familar?
The paradigm of writing out a new file and renaming it to the old name has been around for longer than the oh-so-holy POSIX standard. The data doesn't need to be committed immediately; it just needs to be committed in order, before the old file is destroyed. It's just as acceptable, in this scenario, for the file system to delay writing out the rename as it is for it to immediately write out the data. There's no way for the application to tell the system that.
How about this? We keep Port 80, but they get all the IPV4 ports above 70000.
The freezing temperature of saturated brine was as cold as Fahrenheit could get, by mixing snow and salt. I believe it's also more repeatable than the freezing point of water without difficult purification methods, but I'm not 100% sure on that. Fahrenheit's other reference (at 100) was body temperature; whoever he used must have been warmer than normal. The reference point 212 degrees for boiling water at 1 atm was a later addition.
But if you think that was bad, the original centigrade scale had 100 as freezing and 0 as boiling. What were you thinking, Dr. Celcius???
No, the ISP can ignore DMCA takedowns. However, by doing so they lose the "safe harbor" and could be sued themselves. Some claim that by ignoring any DMCA takedowns the ISP loses the "safe harbor" for ALL copyright infringement; IMO that's not a sensible reading and the ISP only loses "safe harbor" for the ignored takedown, but I don't think that issue has ever been litigated.
Never mind that before the DMCA, several court decisions had already established immunity for copyright violations without any takedown provision; it's rather likely that despite the DMCAs explicit language to the contrary, courts will take the DMCA as overriding those earlier immunities.
Around here, there won't typically be ice on the road unless it's in the low 20s. Because they treat them with salt and, yes, brine. But below zero, salt is totally ineffective.
Just boil the water; you don't need to measure the temperature to do so.
If the metric system wasn't so poorly designed for every day use (Celcius is the worst, but the other units are terrible for estimating and for reasonably-spaced whole-number units), maybe there wouldn't be so much resistance to it.
A very weak case, if he was limited to generalities like "kill all the jews". A strong case if he'd said "go burn down that synagogue down the street".
It's not that the man who sees the breast will suffer harm from the sight. It's that he's going to be made to feel like a creep if he sees it. It's not really reasonable that women both
1) Get to breastfeed in public and
2) Judge men harshly when men see them do it.
The zero of Fahrenheit -- the freezing point of saturated brine -- is no less sensible than the Celcius zero of the freezing point of water. Fahrenheit is also more precise with fewer digits in the ranges most people deal with day to day.
The DMCA encourages (by providing safe harbor) the host to take the material down based on the takedown notice, even if the takedown notice is bogus. Some hosts check to see if it is sensible or not, most don't. My point is that there's no perjury provision preventing me from demanding a bogus takedown. That is, if I claim a file containing a copy of the essay "On Civil Disobedience" on someone's website is infringing my copyright on an essay I wrote called "Copyright Forever", then as long as I really did write "Copyright Forever", I'm not committing perjury, even though I'm lying my ass off.
Actually, the accusing party only has to SAY they are taking legal action. But the counter-notice is still an invitation to be sued.
Nope, if the complainer says he's suing, the material remains taken down. See 17 USC 512(g)(2)(c).
I hate her because she's beautiful.
The perjury clause is so useless as to be limited. I could send a DMCA request to anyone's provider, claiming that file X on their website infringed my copyright on work Y, and as long as I actually owned work Y, I would not have committed perjury -- even if I knew damn well file X had nothing to do with it.
Congratulations, your organization is a DMCA abuser. DMCA takedowns are for copyright violation, not trademark violation.
Indeed, it is helpful -- for abusers. The people abused, on the other hand, are shut down with no recourse other than to involve lawyers at substantial cost; the counternotice basically says "Meet me at high noon in Federal Court". Furthermore, if the abuser does sue, the DMCA provides the equivalent of an automatic restraining order, which, given the length of court cases, means the abuser essentially wins regardless of the outcome.
At the school I went to (University of Maryland, College Park), engineering was definitely harder -- a BSEE was typically a 5 year degree whereas CS was a normal 4 year degree. There was no Computer Engineering at the time.
Recent graduates rarely get jobs through the job ads; they get them through college recruiting offices. But most of the job ads in the field DO call for a BSCS, BSEE, or BSCE (Computer Engineering) in addition to the experience. A few are even calling for advanced computer science degrees.
What about the one with the "young lady with the Uzi"? _Sneakers_, I think.
If they can break the cipher they probably won't have a problem in CS. But most larval geeks won't care about the cipher if they can just get the blowjob. I mean, can you imagine the challenge?
Natasha: I think you cannot break cipher in 15 minutes while I give you blow job and Boris points gun at your head.
Larval geek: You're on!
(15 minutes later)
Larval geek: Sorry, you were right.
And that is where the CS degree comes in. Much easier than any engineering degree (at least where I went to school), and gets you full access to software jobs.
Not if the offshore teams figure out how to develop their own products first, and become competitors rather than contractors.
As government jobs which don't require being shot at or handling NBC waste go, the job of Facebook snoop is pretty lousy. Most of it is content-free chatter, but at least it's chatter by people you know. Having to monitor the content-free chatter of tons of strangers must be incredibly mind-numbing.
Real responsibility, not a formalized thing meaning "paying an insurance company." If, while I was driving uninsured, I had caused someone damage and failed to compensate them for it, THEN you could say I was shirking my responsibility. But just not paying the insurance company as required by law? Doesn't cut it.
Show me who I can vote for who opposes mandatory insurance laws...oh, wait, that would be no one. The sort of responsibility which is the price of freedom is inherent. It is not something politicians can create at the stroke of a pen; they can only remove freedom and liberty that way.
Right, because someone willing to break one law would never break another.
In Philadelphia, the free market has come up with a solution to that in the form of counterfeit and fraudelently obtained registration stickers. I bet that's true in Illinois too.
I'll not have rapacious insurance companies reduce me to the shank's mare.
Insurance is not "responsibility" except in a formal legal sense.
Incivility begets incivility. When the only insurance organization in Pennsylvania willing to insure a new resident under age 25 wanted $4100/year (liability only, payable in full in advance) to insure me, I found that rather uncivil. Particularly because in my previous state I'd been paying an also-rapacious $1500/year.
Another driver's lack of insurance will not cause you any more risk or injury, so they are no more "time bombs" than anyone else. It may mean that you won't be financially compensated for any injury which they do cause, if they are also without assets.
You can do that to witnesses and lawyers. But the US system has a long history of not punishing jurors for anything short of out-and-out corruption, possibly because of the experience of William Penn (who was acquitted despite pressure on the jurors). Anyway, if you think it's hard getting people to show up for jury duty now, imagine what it would be like if they knew they could face contempt charges at the judge's whim?
But so would most of the ills GPL is meant to prevent, which is what everyone who makes this argument misses. Yes, companies would be able to distribute closed-source software, even that based on open-source software. But without the law to prevent it, that has simple technical solutions.