What about if someone trespasses in my business or residence while the heat is on? Can I get them charged with theft for taking the thermal energy from the air that I paid to put there (along with trespassing charges/etc)? Or adding their body heat and thus incrementally increasing my cooling costs in the summer? What if they use a solar charger in my (let's say windowless for the sake of argument) building while the lights are on? Can I have them charged for stealing my photons?
One of the articles today covering this compared the royalty rates to those paid by radio, which were about 10x what spotify pays. The problem is a) how many indie artists get ANY radio play and b) Radio royalties are per play, spotify royalties are per play per user. Sounds to me like radio stations are the ones giving them the shaft.
Why would it need a data connection once it took off (other than to phone home to let Amazon know where it was)? All it needs is a robust GPS antenna. The trip would be pre-loaded before it left the warehouse.
As for range, TFA says 10 miles out from the warehouse.
I would say spend some time on the 23 & Me discussion forums. They are rife with bad interpretations and information. Giving people data without properly informing them how to interpret the data can be a dangerous thing. I do NOT advocate locking the information away, only making sure that the end user fully understands what it does and does not mean. Otherwise you are creating a situation where, at the very least, undue stress and worry is put on the end user.
I know Florida has had a law on the books like this for a while and I'm sure other states do as well. I get why they think they need it but it's a serious abuse of our individual rights as it essentially makes it so you are assumed guilty.
So I just logged in and noticed a new drug trait posted for my profile:
Proton Pump Inhibitor (PPI) Metabolism: Ultrarapid or rapid metabolizer. Someone with this genotype typically metabolizes PPIs at a rapid rate. Although the standard dose is usually effective, some people with this genotype may benefit from a different dose, especially if being treated for an H. pylori infection. If you are currently taking a PPI, it is important to talk to your doctor if your symptoms do not improve.
Now, I don't take PPI's but I know enough to not mess with my dosage (if I did) base solely on this info. However I don't trust most others to have the same response, especially since PPIs are now over the counter drugs. The correct response to this info would be to discuss it with your doctor but how many people would see this and just up their dose themselves, based on one test that may indicate that you may metabolize the drug faster than the average population?
I really hope this post is subtle sarcasm, otherwise you are just proving the FDA's point. You MAY be RESISTANT to most COMMON strains of norovirus (which, btw, has nothing to do with influenza, aka the flu virus, or your ability to get infected by it). You did read the data for the error rates for the chip they use to do the test with right?
I think part of the problem is the results from these test can scare the shit out of the average Joe, and there really is no one sitting there with you explaining that your genetic results do not doom you to all these diseases you may have an increased risk for, according to the test. Sure, the site tries but I can see people freaking out, and how it could lead to unnecessary diagnostics and procedures when they batter their primary with the info.
Don't get me wrong, I think the inexpensive availability of these types of test has value, not to mention the research value of all of the data that they collect. However, I do get where the FDA is coming from. There should be an option to send these to your doctor* or at the very least a phone call before you get the results from a genetic councilor working for the company to walk you through what the tests really mean.
For the record I am a 23 & Me customer. My educational background is such that I understood how to interpret the data they provided (and then some, you can get your full results in a raw form from them as well).
*While protecting that data from being used by your current or future insurance companies. They are barred, in most states, from using it against you UNLESS you volunteer the information (i.e. you get the test yourself and it goes into your medical record vs a doctor orders the test).
I think that's part of his point. Big "cloud" providers seem to like OpenStack, but "cloud" is their bread and butter, so they can hire around it. Enterprises are a totally different use case, and that is the area his paper is addressing. They don't want to re-invent the wheel to roll out their infrastructure, they want an off the shelf solution that is as easy to maintain and implement as possible*. Most enterprises are not in the IT business, they are in the [insert business sector here] business. An enterprise is going to try to compare OpenStack to VMWare or maybe Hyper-V and that's where the narrative really starts to break down.
*These are usually the infrastructure or operations groups, not development groups, within enterprise IT that are dealing with hypervisors. We all know enterprise development does NOT often share that mentality and that usually never works out well in the end.
If I can't get be post-paid for my work, hoping to build an audience and further fund my career, why would anyone know who I (or any other author) was in order to know if they wanted to pay them in advance? I couldn't wast time trying to become an author. Or a musician. Or painter.
You don't have to jump straight into writing books, or painting murals. You could begin with lesser works, and build a reputation.
Of course I have other options in this world. Since I have no legal protections for my work, I'm sure outfits will pop up offering to distribute it wrapped up so tight in DRM that piracy wouldn't be much of an issue.
They have to offer the work at a price which the customer is willing to pay, and the conditions are part of the payment. People are not going to dance the hokey pokey to see a movie. They'll see a different movie, or read a book, or fuck.
What books? No one is going to publish physical books in this world, there is no money in it. As soon as you try, your competition will take the content and make a cheaper version. Run to the bottom. No advantage, no industry. You can read an ebook with heavy DRM, maybe, or go to a private library and pay to rent one (that you will need to read there, of course). Movies? Sure. You'll just need an always on internet connection so we can validate your equipment so we know you are not copying our content, because if it gets out it's worthless to us. If you take away copyright, large companies will find ways to make the content scarce. Fuck? Yea, just be prepared: the product of your fucking will be worthless to you once you raise it. People are not scarce.
That's grand, but it creates a chicken and egg problem. If I can't get be post-paid for my work, hoping to build an audience and further fund my career, why would anyone know who I (or any other author) was in order to know if they wanted to pay them in advance?
Because of the free earlier releases you used to make your name.
A lot of comic artists and musicians already do this.
I couldn't wast time trying to become an author. Or a musician. Or painter.
And this is why you aren't one.
You have to do this anyway, even under the current system
Except in your system, I'm still screwed because your system gives all the power to those with all the resources. If I publish my work for free today I am protected from someone (say Harper Collins, Sony music, Paramount) from slurping up my content, repackaging it, and profiting from it without my consent. This gives me leverage with them. If they want to use my book/song/screenplay/etc. to turn a profit, great: let's make a deal. Under you system they can just take it and do what they want. They have more resources than I do and it costs them nothing to acquire it. Let's say I write something people like. Paramount turns it into a hit film (here's your hospital gown, enjoy the show) and I get... nothing. They don't even have to give me credit for the source material. Sure, I could turn it into a movie too, but I don't have their resources, or any way to acquire them (thanks for that). I have zero leverage to negotiate a deal with them so that's out too.
Your world greatly favors large corporations over individuals. They have the resources to protect their content, creating scarcity, without having to rely on the force of law if they needed to. I don't. They can take my work, profit from it, and I'm not only powerless to stop them I can't even compete with them. You could not build a career out of creating content that would support yourself. So, why bother trying?
That's grand, but it creates a chicken and egg problem. If I can't get be post-paid for my work, hoping to build an audience and further fund my career, why would anyone know who I (or any other author) was in order to know if they wanted to pay them in advance? I couldn't wast time trying to become an author. Or a musician. Or painter.
Of course I have other options in this world. Since I have no legal protections for my work, I'm sure outfits will pop up offering to distribute it wrapped up so tight in DRM that piracy wouldn't be much of an issue. Want to see that movie? Great, here's a ticket. Just slip on this hospital gown and enjoy the show. Don't like it, well every theater does it so... Want to read this new novel? Great, come to one of our private reading rooms and you can read it on premises. Here's your hospital gown. Library? Yea, fuck that.
Wow, I love that you seem to feel that because something has no cost to replicate, it has no value. Aside from the fact that your world would essentially be void of most creative works, let's look at another side effect: In a world where knowledge has no value protection, it becomes a VERY scarce resource. If I have a software company, I'm not going to sell you software (because, I can't), I'm going to sell you hardware that runs the software. Hardware so locked down that you will never within reason be able to get to the software. It will be a figurative and literal black box (I'll paint it black, just for show. You know, as a creative outlet since I can't sell my creative works for much). I'll pay, bribe, threaten, or kill the developers so they do not share their knowledge with others outside the company. I'll play as dirty as possible to prevent that knowledge you want to be free from ever leaving it's cage
And so will every other company that relies on any type of R&D to maintain competitive advantages over the competition. The knowledge you want to be free will be locked away, because that's the only way it now has any value. Sure, there will be leaks, but overall it would be a much more closed world.
I'm not fond of the abuses in our current system, but yours is a much bleaker world to live in.
Yes, but with software you can provide not only the code, but services to install and support it. There are no add-on services in the case of writers. The other option is you have community and commercial versions of software. That model for anything is out the window with in this school of thought, no need to even try to apply it to a different field like writing.
Get paid for that work once. Ask for enough up front to cover your expenses for the work just like in ANY other market: See also, Mechanics. Bid, do the work, get paid; No fee each time you start the car and benefit from the work. You want more money? Do more work.
OK, I'm an author who self publishes. How, exactly, in your utopia do I get paid for my work? Who pays me? People off the street walk up and ask me to write a book they never thought of? Or in your world, and I beholden to big publishing to pay me to do "work". In that case, WHY ARE THEY PAYING ME? For a book that they will then give away? Not a very sound business practice that. The usual answer to this question from your type is "They sell the hard copy of course!" except that makes no sense either. For one, hard copy book sales are not exactly trending up. For another, their competition can go, buy one copy, wholesale copy it, and print their own version, for less since they didn't pay me to write it, so their costs are lower. That is a quick and terminal race to the bottom.
Or do you propose that I just write for free and get a job at McDonald's to keep a roof over my head?
Yes, but at worse that puts me on par with using HTTP (again, assuming we accept that these connections are not authenticated). I'm not saying it's great, or even good security, but it would be a sight better than the plain text that we have today.
Why not separate the "here is proof I am who I say I am" from "let's encrypt our conversation"? Web servers could easily use self-generated random certs to encrypt traffic. If you want to validate you are who you say you are, then you add a cert from a "trusted" CA to do just that. It's no different that what we have today with HTTP vs HTTPS. If I go HTTP to a site I have no assurance that they are who they say they are. At least this way the traffic is encrypted even at the lowest trust tier.
Slashdot Mirror
What about if someone trespasses in my business or residence while the heat is on? Can I get them charged with theft for taking the thermal energy from the air that I paid to put there (along with trespassing charges/etc)? Or adding their body heat and thus incrementally increasing my cooling costs in the summer? What if they use a solar charger in my (let's say windowless for the sake of argument) building while the lights are on? Can I have them charged for stealing my photons?
One of the articles today covering this compared the royalty rates to those paid by radio, which were about 10x what spotify pays. The problem is a) how many indie artists get ANY radio play and b) Radio royalties are per play, spotify royalties are per play per user. Sounds to me like radio stations are the ones giving them the shaft.
So the police would not consider this theft? Or care about the illegal discharge of a firearm?
Why would it need a data connection once it took off (other than to phone home to let Amazon know where it was)? All it needs is a robust GPS antenna. The trip would be pre-loaded before it left the warehouse.
As for range, TFA says 10 miles out from the warehouse.
If the content's viewable in a regular Web browser without needing special plug-ins...
It is not. It requires a browser plugin.
I know you're joking, but CowboyNeal died from a heart attack 3 or 4 years back.
Somebody should probably let him know
I would say spend some time on the 23 & Me discussion forums. They are rife with bad interpretations and information. Giving people data without properly informing them how to interpret the data can be a dangerous thing. I do NOT advocate locking the information away, only making sure that the end user fully understands what it does and does not mean. Otherwise you are creating a situation where, at the very least, undue stress and worry is put on the end user.
No, as long as you can prove it was there when you bought the car and you knew nothing of it. Good luck with that.
I know Florida has had a law on the books like this for a while and I'm sure other states do as well. I get why they think they need it but it's a serious abuse of our individual rights as it essentially makes it so you are assumed guilty.
Proton Pump Inhibitor (PPI) Metabolism: Ultrarapid or rapid metabolizer. Someone with this genotype typically metabolizes PPIs at a rapid rate. Although the standard dose is usually effective, some people with this genotype may benefit from a different dose, especially if being treated for an H. pylori infection. If you are currently taking a PPI, it is important to talk to your doctor if your symptoms do not improve.
Now, I don't take PPI's but I know enough to not mess with my dosage (if I did) base solely on this info. However I don't trust most others to have the same response, especially since PPIs are now over the counter drugs. The correct response to this info would be to discuss it with your doctor but how many people would see this and just up their dose themselves, based on one test that may indicate that you may metabolize the drug faster than the average population?
I really hope this post is subtle sarcasm, otherwise you are just proving the FDA's point. You MAY be RESISTANT to most COMMON strains of norovirus (which, btw, has nothing to do with influenza, aka the flu virus, or your ability to get infected by it). You did read the data for the error rates for the chip they use to do the test with right?
I think part of the problem is the results from these test can scare the shit out of the average Joe, and there really is no one sitting there with you explaining that your genetic results do not doom you to all these diseases you may have an increased risk for, according to the test. Sure, the site tries but I can see people freaking out, and how it could lead to unnecessary diagnostics and procedures when they batter their primary with the info.
Don't get me wrong, I think the inexpensive availability of these types of test has value, not to mention the research value of all of the data that they collect. However, I do get where the FDA is coming from. There should be an option to send these to your doctor* or at the very least a phone call before you get the results from a genetic councilor working for the company to walk you through what the tests really mean.
For the record I am a 23 & Me customer. My educational background is such that I understood how to interpret the data they provided (and then some, you can get your full results in a raw form from them as well).
*While protecting that data from being used by your current or future insurance companies. They are barred, in most states, from using it against you UNLESS you volunteer the information (i.e. you get the test yourself and it goes into your medical record vs a doctor orders the test).
They didn't invent the wheel here, they are using a bead chip from Illumina. I imagine accuracy information is already readily available.
I think that's part of his point. Big "cloud" providers seem to like OpenStack, but "cloud" is their bread and butter, so they can hire around it. Enterprises are a totally different use case, and that is the area his paper is addressing. They don't want to re-invent the wheel to roll out their infrastructure, they want an off the shelf solution that is as easy to maintain and implement as possible*. Most enterprises are not in the IT business, they are in the [insert business sector here] business. An enterprise is going to try to compare OpenStack to VMWare or maybe Hyper-V and that's where the narrative really starts to break down.
*These are usually the infrastructure or operations groups, not development groups, within enterprise IT that are dealing with hypervisors. We all know enterprise development does NOT often share that mentality and that usually never works out well in the end.
In the US that law would be the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). A favorite of the feds since it can be used to make just about anyone a felon.
If I can't get be post-paid for my work, hoping to build an audience and further fund my career, why would anyone know who I (or any other author) was in order to know if they wanted to pay them in advance? I couldn't wast time trying to become an author. Or a musician. Or painter.
You don't have to jump straight into writing books, or painting murals. You could begin with lesser works, and build a reputation.
Of course I have other options in this world. Since I have no legal protections for my work, I'm sure outfits will pop up offering to distribute it wrapped up so tight in DRM that piracy wouldn't be much of an issue.
They have to offer the work at a price which the customer is willing to pay, and the conditions are part of the payment. People are not going to dance the hokey pokey to see a movie. They'll see a different movie, or read a book, or fuck.
What books? No one is going to publish physical books in this world, there is no money in it. As soon as you try, your competition will take the content and make a cheaper version. Run to the bottom. No advantage, no industry. You can read an ebook with heavy DRM, maybe, or go to a private library and pay to rent one (that you will need to read there, of course). Movies? Sure. You'll just need an always on internet connection so we can validate your equipment so we know you are not copying our content, because if it gets out it's worthless to us. If you take away copyright, large companies will find ways to make the content scarce. Fuck? Yea, just be prepared: the product of your fucking will be worthless to you once you raise it. People are not scarce.
That's grand, but it creates a chicken and egg problem. If I can't get be post-paid for my work, hoping to build an audience and further fund my career, why would anyone know who I (or any other author) was in order to know if they wanted to pay them in advance?
Because of the free earlier releases you used to make your name.
A lot of comic artists and musicians already do this.
I couldn't wast time trying to become an author. Or a musician. Or painter.
And this is why you aren't one.
You have to do this anyway, even under the current system
Except in your system, I'm still screwed because your system gives all the power to those with all the resources. If I publish my work for free today I am protected from someone (say Harper Collins, Sony music, Paramount) from slurping up my content, repackaging it, and profiting from it without my consent. This gives me leverage with them. If they want to use my book/song/screenplay/etc. to turn a profit, great: let's make a deal. Under you system they can just take it and do what they want. They have more resources than I do and it costs them nothing to acquire it. Let's say I write something people like. Paramount turns it into a hit film (here's your hospital gown, enjoy the show) and I get... nothing. They don't even have to give me credit for the source material. Sure, I could turn it into a movie too, but I don't have their resources, or any way to acquire them (thanks for that). I have zero leverage to negotiate a deal with them so that's out too.
Your world greatly favors large corporations over individuals. They have the resources to protect their content, creating scarcity, without having to rely on the force of law if they needed to. I don't. They can take my work, profit from it, and I'm not only powerless to stop them I can't even compete with them. You could not build a career out of creating content that would support yourself. So, why bother trying?
That's grand, but it creates a chicken and egg problem. If I can't get be post-paid for my work, hoping to build an audience and further fund my career, why would anyone know who I (or any other author) was in order to know if they wanted to pay them in advance? I couldn't wast time trying to become an author. Or a musician. Or painter.
Of course I have other options in this world. Since I have no legal protections for my work, I'm sure outfits will pop up offering to distribute it wrapped up so tight in DRM that piracy wouldn't be much of an issue. Want to see that movie? Great, here's a ticket. Just slip on this hospital gown and enjoy the show. Don't like it, well every theater does it so... Want to read this new novel? Great, come to one of our private reading rooms and you can read it on premises. Here's your hospital gown. Library? Yea, fuck that.
Wow, I love that you seem to feel that because something has no cost to replicate, it has no value. Aside from the fact that your world would essentially be void of most creative works, let's look at another side effect: In a world where knowledge has no value protection, it becomes a VERY scarce resource. If I have a software company, I'm not going to sell you software (because, I can't), I'm going to sell you hardware that runs the software. Hardware so locked down that you will never within reason be able to get to the software. It will be a figurative and literal black box (I'll paint it black, just for show. You know, as a creative outlet since I can't sell my creative works for much). I'll pay, bribe, threaten, or kill the developers so they do not share their knowledge with others outside the company. I'll play as dirty as possible to prevent that knowledge you want to be free from ever leaving it's cage
And so will every other company that relies on any type of R&D to maintain competitive advantages over the competition. The knowledge you want to be free will be locked away, because that's the only way it now has any value. Sure, there will be leaks, but overall it would be a much more closed world.
I'm not fond of the abuses in our current system, but yours is a much bleaker world to live in.
Yes, but with software you can provide not only the code, but services to install and support it. There are no add-on services in the case of writers. The other option is you have community and commercial versions of software. That model for anything is out the window with in this school of thought, no need to even try to apply it to a different field like writing.
Get paid for that work once. Ask for enough up front to cover your expenses for the work just like in ANY other market: See also, Mechanics. Bid, do the work, get paid; No fee each time you start the car and benefit from the work. You want more money? Do more work.
OK, I'm an author who self publishes. How, exactly, in your utopia do I get paid for my work? Who pays me? People off the street walk up and ask me to write a book they never thought of? Or in your world, and I beholden to big publishing to pay me to do "work". In that case, WHY ARE THEY PAYING ME? For a book that they will then give away? Not a very sound business practice that. The usual answer to this question from your type is "They sell the hard copy of course!" except that makes no sense either. For one, hard copy book sales are not exactly trending up. For another, their competition can go, buy one copy, wholesale copy it, and print their own version, for less since they didn't pay me to write it, so their costs are lower. That is a quick and terminal race to the bottom.
Or do you propose that I just write for free and get a job at McDonald's to keep a roof over my head?
So make HTTP encrypted, and HTTPS encrypted with authentication. How long do you want to ride this merry-go-round?
Yes, but at worse that puts me on par with using HTTP (again, assuming we accept that these connections are not authenticated). I'm not saying it's great, or even good security, but it would be a sight better than the plain text that we have today.
Why not separate the "here is proof I am who I say I am" from "let's encrypt our conversation"? Web servers could easily use self-generated random certs to encrypt traffic. If you want to validate you are who you say you are, then you add a cert from a "trusted" CA to do just that. It's no different that what we have today with HTTP vs HTTPS. If I go HTTP to a site I have no assurance that they are who they say they are. At least this way the traffic is encrypted even at the lowest trust tier.
The trouble is that VLHC does not enrich the friends of the politicans and so will not be looked on favourably.
Oh, yea of little faith. I'm fairly certain anything that involves land acquisition and construction contracts will benefit SOME politician somewhere.