Excellent response. One of the first things you learn in a good tactical shooting class is that you're not going to be able to control every situation and that there are times when it's best to just boogie. The idea is to keep yourself and your family safe, and if running away like a little girl is tactically the best choice, then toss that pride aside and do it even if you're armed to the teeth.
This is my point - the statutory damages for copyright infringement are merely a range of numbers that Congress pulled out of its collective butt and stuck into the U.S. Code, and bear little to no resemblance to the actual nature or value of the copyright that has actually been infringed.
However, I would think that in your example the courts would consider each copy of Office to be a separate offense subject to the $750 minimum, unless Microsoft wanted to get really snarky and say that each individual file on the disk should be counted as a single work, which they could probably get away with.:-)
In the real world, where damages for copyright violations in the US are based upon *market value* for the copied item, my analogy is actually correct.
Damages for copyright infringement are absolutely NOT based on market value, unless you can somehow explain how the market value for something that sells for less than a dollar via a legal online vendor somehow gets turned into a value between $750 and $150,000. I suggest that it is *you* and not the parent that are speaking from the "make-believe world".
Would you buy a Metallica online album despite their former views?
Until they issue a formal apology (preferably in a major magazine like Rolling Stone) for their previous comments and a repudiation of the RIAA's business model, Lars Ulrich and his band of has-beens can go suck an egg. I think they're just coming to the realization that they're becoming less and less relevant in today's music market, and this is a sad attempt to stem that. "Enter night" indeed, Lars.
So the deceit did not give Rambus the monopoly, it just gave it better licensing rates.
...which in turn resulted in higher memory prices, which cost the consumer more money than if Rambus had been forthright from the start. Doesn't unnecessarily being charged higher prices due to Rambus' actions constitute "harm to consumers"?
Of course, it can sometimes be a daunting task to actually collect on a judgement. Every so often, the consumer advocate column of our local newspaper runs a story about someone who wins against a store or other company in small claims, only to be unable to get his hands on the money he's owed.
As I understand it, you cannot use a patented technology for commercial use. Personal use is still free and clear - you just can't sell it or use it in commerce.
Unfortunately, I don't think there's anything to that effect in 25 USC 271. Practically, I doubt a patent holder would spend the money to sue for unauthorized use unless it was costing them a lot of money, but my totally-non-lawyer opinion is that they still could successfully pursue action if they chose to.
Part of the problem here is the way patents work, at least in the US. You don't have to be distributing/selling the invention, or making money off it in any way - merely *using* it without permission is against the law.
No, it isn't. I've seen the stacks of resumes myself, and I've personally recommended quite a few domestic candidates that were qualified for the open positions, only to have their resumes round-filed in favor of less-skilled and cheaper help from overseas. I've had this same experience at multiple companies over the past 9 years, incidentally.
That video is about how a company, after it has spent years getting an application to that point, doesn't want to see it torpedoed by an unqualified US code monkey.
I suppose you worked closely with Cohen & Grigsby and know this for a fact, as opposed to them simply recommending ways to skirt labor law in order to bring in a cheaper and more pliable candidate?
The brake pads sliding on the rotors can make heat much faster than tires sliding on pavement.
You're absolutely right, and just proved my point for me.
In fact an ABS-assisted stop can be over twice as long as an unassisted, non-skidding stop, especially in the wet.
Did you read my previous post at all? We're NOT talking about a non-skidding stop, because people will lock the wheels up during a panic stop without ABS. ABS keeps the wheels rolling, which will SHORTEN the stopping distance for a straight-line stop when compared to an all-wheels locked slide. About the only time ABS *won't* be preferable in that situation is when you have an idiot driver that freaks when the system starts chattering and lets up on the pedal.
In general, Californians have learned it's better
to bolt their houses to their foundation, secure large and/or flamable objects, and take the good with the bad.
I tend to hold a similar outlook regarding living in Florida. Living 40 miles inland does a *lot* to mitigate potential hurricane damage, even for really strong storms like Andrew. I don't get to see a really pretty sunrise every morning, but then again I don't worry every summer about what a 15 foot storm surge might do to my house. If a storm threatens, I park the cars in the garage, board up the windows, and accept that there will probably be some degree of re-shingling in my future.
And, yes, I raised my hand, and I call myself a software engineer because it's the common term, but I don't think what we do is disciplined enough to really be called engineering, yet.
This is why I prefer to call myself a "software developer" instead of "software engineer". In fairness to us software guys however, the MEs where I work sometimes design stuff that has to be reworked because they failed to account for one minor thing or another, like the additional width that screws and washers may add to a part.
The answer is, of course, that they were a lot more justified in raising their premiums than you give them credit for
Then Allstate should have no problems whatsoever providing the subpoenaed documentation to the state which should clearly demonstrate the need for the higher rates. Apparently Allstate feels it's more profitable to be unable to be barred from writing any new policies of any kind rather than give the Florida insurance commissioner the information to which he's legally entitled. I might also point out that any private citizen would be in jail for flouting a subpoena the way Allstate has.
ABS increases stopping distance only if you assume an ideal world where the driver will expertly apply the maximum amount of braking possible while keeping the wheels rolling (i.e. threshold braking). Most people can't/won't do that. Instead, they'll mash the pedal to the floor in panic when presented with an emergency stop situation, sliding to a stop on four locked wheels. In that scenario (which is what I was alluding to), ABS most definitely *will* shorten the stopping distance.
The insurance companies in Florida got a pretty nice 12-year run of luck after Andrew where they weren't paying out substantial claims but were still collecting inflated premiums,. There was a lot of whining from insurers about "we need increases so we can replenish our reserves", but absolutely nothing mentioned about the billions that were collected between 1992 and 2004 that went straight into shareholders' pockets, the billions collected in the 70's and 80's prior to Andrew, or the billions in profit they've seen since 2004. They're insurance companies, they're paid to assume risk, so pardon me for not feeling their pain when they have to pay out the claims they agreed to. The fact that one of them is getting their knuckles rapped because they're willfully refusing to provide documents subpoenaed by the state isn't helping their relationship with the state either.
I'm looking forward to the unimaginable degree of whining we're going to hear from this industry once the San Andreas Fault has its next big slip.
According to the Cop that pulled me over a couple years ago, Yellow means stop if you are more than 2 car lengths from the stop line when it turns yellow.
Let's say two car lengths is about 40 feet (we're generously assuming really big cars). At 35, you *might* be able to come to a stop if you have ABS and lay on the brakes as hard as you can, but it's hardly an optimal condition. At 45 mph, there aren't too many cars that will do it, period. Above that, it's simply not reasonable.
The officer that pulled you over doesn't know what he's talking about, and is probably confusing the "two second" rule that applies when following because stopping distance naturally changes with speed. At 45 mph, that two seconds equates to more than 130 feet, or about seven car lengths, and that assumes that you're not dealing with a fixed limit (a gradually slowing car vs. a static stop line). I guess this all just goes to prove that traffic enforcement has always been and will likely always be a cash cow for municipalities, safety be damned.
It'll be interesting to see how much it will cost to have the next satellite insured, particularly given that the loss could have been avoided. It's not the insurance company's concern that SES Americom had stakes in another lawsuit against Boeing that prevented it from fixing the orbit - all the insurer knows is that they had to pay out a buttload of money for a total loss that was preventable but was willfully allowed to happen. If I were them, I'd consider that a significant risk factor worthy of a much larger premium.
On the other hand, if the insurance company hadn't been a bunch of wusses and had been willing to assume ownership of the lost property like any other insurance company does with insured items, they could have sold the sat to another company that hadn't pissed Boeing off and thus could have fixed things quickly.
To be honest, I see no evidence that it was MediaSentry that used the IP addresses belonging to MediaSentry. Allowing the IP address as evidence here is either saying that you want IP addresses to be permissible evidence in general, or you use double standards.
*Someone* performed the investigative work for the RIAA using their network, and this is irrefutable. So, MediaSentry either did the work themselves (most likely, and illegal), someone did it using their network with permission (still illegal), or they had no knowledge of it. I'm perfectly fine with MediaSentry totally invalidating any expectation of ever again being taken seriously in a courtoom by admitting to ridiculously lax network security policies (which really seems their only workable defense), but I think what will probably happen is that if the state chooses to pursue this, they'll subpoena every last bit of information regarding how MediaSentry runs their network. I expect that MediaSentry actually does run a pretty tight ship with regards to security, and that fact will be used to hoist them by their own IP addresses in court, particularly when the results of this break-in were coincidentally used for the benefit their best customers instead of for personally beneficial reasons like almost every other computer break-in.
Most residential users don't know the first thing about how networking works, much less effective security practices, so it's quite proper to claim that there's no provable connection between the IP address itself and the user at the time in question. Claiming unauthorized use is much less effective when you're an organization that has a competent IT staff whose job it is to protect against such things, and firewall and other logs documenting the network's use at any given point in time.
My experience with Google is that the way they handle mail often doesn't make sense. For instance, last week I received a delivery status notification from Google where someone had sent an e-mail to an invalid GMail account (same address in both the To: and From: fields), but put my e-mail address in the Return-Path: field. Google invalidated the original e-mail because it saw that the SPF record for the domain in Return-Path: did not match the address of the SMTP server it received the original mail from. Now, at this point *knowing for a fact* that the e-mail wasn't legitimate by virtue of the failed SPF test, why then did their server choose to bounce it back to me? What's the point of going to the trouble of an SPF check if they're going to totally disregard the results anyway?
Try setting up a static (i.e. non-roaming) WPA configuration with a non-broadcasting SSID. I ended up having to create/etc/wpa_supplicant.conf myself, and pre-up wpa_supplicant in the/etc/network/interfaces file in order to get the card in my ThinkPad to connect. Not a big deal for me, but totally unacceptable just the same.
Now go and look in Kubuntu and see if you can find WPA *at all* without having to depart from the stock installed configuration.
Slashdot Mirror
Excellent response. One of the first things you learn in a good tactical shooting class is that you're not going to be able to control every situation and that there are times when it's best to just boogie. The idea is to keep yourself and your family safe, and if running away like a little girl is tactically the best choice, then toss that pride aside and do it even if you're armed to the teeth.
Yes indeed. That must be a really horrible way to live. I really can't imagine having to live in such a climate of fear.
Neither can I. Fortunately, I don't live in a climate of fear, merely preparedness.
This is my point - the statutory damages for copyright infringement are merely a range of numbers that Congress pulled out of its collective butt and stuck into the U.S. Code, and bear little to no resemblance to the actual nature or value of the copyright that has actually been infringed.
:-)
However, I would think that in your example the courts would consider each copy of Office to be a separate offense subject to the $750 minimum, unless Microsoft wanted to get really snarky and say that each individual file on the disk should be counted as a single work, which they could probably get away with.
In the real world, where damages for copyright violations in the US are based upon *market value* for the copied item, my analogy is actually correct.
Damages for copyright infringement are absolutely NOT based on market value, unless you can somehow explain how the market value for something that sells for less than a dollar via a legal online vendor somehow gets turned into a value between $750 and $150,000. I suggest that it is *you* and not the parent that are speaking from the "make-believe world".
Would you buy a Metallica online album despite their former views?
Until they issue a formal apology (preferably in a major magazine like Rolling Stone) for their previous comments and a repudiation of the RIAA's business model, Lars Ulrich and his band of has-beens can go suck an egg. I think they're just coming to the realization that they're becoming less and less relevant in today's music market, and this is a sad attempt to stem that. "Enter night" indeed, Lars.
So the deceit did not give Rambus the monopoly, it just gave it better licensing rates.
...which in turn resulted in higher memory prices, which cost the consumer more money than if Rambus had been forthright from the start. Doesn't unnecessarily being charged higher prices due to Rambus' actions constitute "harm to consumers"?
If Bailey's not there, it's not worth watching. :-)
Or we could be dead already. That'll show them young whippersnappers! Go ahead, stand on my lawn - see if I care!
Of course, it can sometimes be a daunting task to actually collect on a judgement. Every so often, the consumer advocate column of our local newspaper runs a story about someone who wins against a store or other company in small claims, only to be unable to get his hands on the money he's owed.
As I understand it, you cannot use a patented technology for commercial use. Personal use is still free and clear - you just can't sell it or use it in commerce.
Unfortunately, I don't think there's anything to that effect in 25 USC 271. Practically, I doubt a patent holder would spend the money to sue for unauthorized use unless it was costing them a lot of money, but my totally-non-lawyer opinion is that they still could successfully pursue action if they chose to.
Part of the problem here is the way patents work, at least in the US. You don't have to be distributing/selling the invention, or making money off it in any way - merely *using* it without permission is against the law.
The labor shortage is quite real.
No, it isn't. I've seen the stacks of resumes myself, and I've personally recommended quite a few domestic candidates that were qualified for the open positions, only to have their resumes round-filed in favor of less-skilled and cheaper help from overseas. I've had this same experience at multiple companies over the past 9 years, incidentally.
That video is about how a company, after it has spent years getting an application to that point, doesn't want to see it torpedoed by an unqualified US code monkey.
I suppose you worked closely with Cohen & Grigsby and know this for a fact, as opposed to them simply recommending ways to skirt labor law in order to bring in a cheaper and more pliable candidate?
grr, this is what happens when you don't preview properly. After "just proved my point for me", please insert two BR tags :-)
The brake pads sliding on the rotors can make heat much faster than tires sliding on pavement.
You're absolutely right, and just proved my point for me. In fact an ABS-assisted stop can be over twice as long as an unassisted, non-skidding stop, especially in the wet.
Did you read my previous post at all? We're NOT talking about a non-skidding stop, because people will lock the wheels up during a panic stop without ABS. ABS keeps the wheels rolling, which will SHORTEN the stopping distance for a straight-line stop when compared to an all-wheels locked slide. About the only time ABS *won't* be preferable in that situation is when you have an idiot driver that freaks when the system starts chattering and lets up on the pedal.
In general, Californians have learned it's better to bolt their houses to their foundation, secure large and/or flamable objects, and take the good with the bad.
I tend to hold a similar outlook regarding living in Florida. Living 40 miles inland does a *lot* to mitigate potential hurricane damage, even for really strong storms like Andrew. I don't get to see a really pretty sunrise every morning, but then again I don't worry every summer about what a 15 foot storm surge might do to my house. If a storm threatens, I park the cars in the garage, board up the windows, and accept that there will probably be some degree of re-shingling in my future.
And, yes, I raised my hand, and I call myself a software engineer because it's the common term, but I don't think what we do is disciplined enough to really be called engineering, yet.
This is why I prefer to call myself a "software developer" instead of "software engineer". In fairness to us software guys however, the MEs where I work sometimes design stuff that has to be reworked because they failed to account for one minor thing or another, like the additional width that screws and washers may add to a part.
err because of labor shortages you dumbass, that's why. not enough people to do the work.
The "labor shortage" in the IT world is a myth. Perhaps you've not seen the infamous Cohen & Grigsby video?
The answer is, of course, that they were a lot more justified in raising their premiums than you give them credit for
Then Allstate should have no problems whatsoever providing the subpoenaed documentation to the state which should clearly demonstrate the need for the higher rates. Apparently Allstate feels it's more profitable to be unable to be barred from writing any new policies of any kind rather than give the Florida insurance commissioner the information to which he's legally entitled. I might also point out that any private citizen would be in jail for flouting a subpoena the way Allstate has.
ABS increases stopping distance only if you assume an ideal world where the driver will expertly apply the maximum amount of braking possible while keeping the wheels rolling (i.e. threshold braking). Most people can't/won't do that. Instead, they'll mash the pedal to the floor in panic when presented with an emergency stop situation, sliding to a stop on four locked wheels. In that scenario (which is what I was alluding to), ABS most definitely *will* shorten the stopping distance.
The insurance companies in Florida got a pretty nice 12-year run of luck after Andrew where they weren't paying out substantial claims but were still collecting inflated premiums,. There was a lot of whining from insurers about "we need increases so we can replenish our reserves", but absolutely nothing mentioned about the billions that were collected between 1992 and 2004 that went straight into shareholders' pockets, the billions collected in the 70's and 80's prior to Andrew, or the billions in profit they've seen since 2004. They're insurance companies, they're paid to assume risk, so pardon me for not feeling their pain when they have to pay out the claims they agreed to. The fact that one of them is getting their knuckles rapped because they're willfully refusing to provide documents subpoenaed by the state isn't helping their relationship with the state either .
I'm looking forward to the unimaginable degree of whining we're going to hear from this industry once the San Andreas Fault has its next big slip.
According to the Cop that pulled me over a couple years ago, Yellow means stop if you are more than 2 car lengths from the stop line when it turns yellow.
Let's say two car lengths is about 40 feet (we're generously assuming really big cars). At 35, you *might* be able to come to a stop if you have ABS and lay on the brakes as hard as you can, but it's hardly an optimal condition. At 45 mph, there aren't too many cars that will do it, period. Above that, it's simply not reasonable.
The officer that pulled you over doesn't know what he's talking about, and is probably confusing the "two second" rule that applies when following because stopping distance naturally changes with speed. At 45 mph, that two seconds equates to more than 130 feet, or about seven car lengths, and that assumes that you're not dealing with a fixed limit (a gradually slowing car vs. a static stop line). I guess this all just goes to prove that traffic enforcement has always been and will likely always be a cash cow for municipalities, safety be damned.
It'll be interesting to see how much it will cost to have the next satellite insured, particularly given that the loss could have been avoided. It's not the insurance company's concern that SES Americom had stakes in another lawsuit against Boeing that prevented it from fixing the orbit - all the insurer knows is that they had to pay out a buttload of money for a total loss that was preventable but was willfully allowed to happen. If I were them, I'd consider that a significant risk factor worthy of a much larger premium.
On the other hand, if the insurance company hadn't been a bunch of wusses and had been willing to assume ownership of the lost property like any other insurance company does with insured items, they could have sold the sat to another company that hadn't pissed Boeing off and thus could have fixed things quickly.
To be honest, I see no evidence that it was MediaSentry that used the IP addresses belonging to MediaSentry. Allowing the IP address as evidence here is either saying that you want IP addresses to be permissible evidence in general, or you use double standards.
*Someone* performed the investigative work for the RIAA using their network, and this is irrefutable. So, MediaSentry either did the work themselves (most likely, and illegal), someone did it using their network with permission (still illegal), or they had no knowledge of it. I'm perfectly fine with MediaSentry totally invalidating any expectation of ever again being taken seriously in a courtoom by admitting to ridiculously lax network security policies (which really seems their only workable defense), but I think what will probably happen is that if the state chooses to pursue this, they'll subpoena every last bit of information regarding how MediaSentry runs their network. I expect that MediaSentry actually does run a pretty tight ship with regards to security, and that fact will be used to hoist them by their own IP addresses in court, particularly when the results of this break-in were coincidentally used for the benefit their best customers instead of for personally beneficial reasons like almost every other computer break-in.
Most residential users don't know the first thing about how networking works, much less effective security practices, so it's quite proper to claim that there's no provable connection between the IP address itself and the user at the time in question. Claiming unauthorized use is much less effective when you're an organization that has a competent IT staff whose job it is to protect against such things, and firewall and other logs documenting the network's use at any given point in time.
My experience with Google is that the way they handle mail often doesn't make sense. For instance, last week I received a delivery status notification from Google where someone had sent an e-mail to an invalid GMail account (same address in both the To: and From: fields), but put my e-mail address in the Return-Path: field. Google invalidated the original e-mail because it saw that the SPF record for the domain in Return-Path: did not match the address of the SMTP server it received the original mail from. Now, at this point *knowing for a fact* that the e-mail wasn't legitimate by virtue of the failed SPF test, why then did their server choose to bounce it back to me? What's the point of going to the trouble of an SPF check if they're going to totally disregard the results anyway?
7.10 this morning, thanks.
/etc/wpa_supplicant.conf myself, and pre-up wpa_supplicant in the /etc/network/interfaces file in order to get the card in my ThinkPad to connect. Not a big deal for me, but totally unacceptable just the same.
Try setting up a static (i.e. non-roaming) WPA configuration with a non-broadcasting SSID. I ended up having to create
Now go and look in Kubuntu and see if you can find WPA *at all* without having to depart from the stock installed configuration.