so basically, she made a completely moronic business decision, but the article's slant is that it is the fault of groupon? Is this woman not aware she could have set these at a price that would have been reasonable as opposed to bankrupting?
From TFA:
Mrs Brown, who had only expected a few hundred orders, said that the experience was “without doubt, the worst ever business decision I have made”.
Sounds like she's well aware that she made a bad business decision. What the article doesn't clearly state is what options Groupon provided her in terms of prices she could offer or limitations on the number of groupons sold. At the end of the article, a Groupon representative says that there was no limit placed on the number sold, and that "(w)e approach each business with a tailored, individual approach based on the prior history of similar deals." This doesn't really tell us much, but it is entirely possible that Groupon sold Mrs. Brown on the idea by providing her with unrealistic expectations based on "prior history of similar deals".
It's also possible that she isn't actually blaming Groupon at all. The article makes that claim, but the quotes from Mrs. Brown only talk about her own underestimation of the response to the deal.
I'm sure that part of the reason that it has taken this long for them to do this is precisely because of the possibility of legal troubles. At the same time, whereas it was difficult to argue that a web browser was truly an inherent function of the Operating System, it's difficult to argue that protection from viruses is not. So, while this may appear reminiscent of the Netscape case on the surface, it may be much less of a legal minefield in reality.
As for the anti-virus vendors, realistically they should have known that it was only a matter of time before Microsoft would clean up their act a bit and obsolete the vendors' products. They got to ride on the coattails of Microsoft's laziness for a long time.
Ahh, but you missed the important qualification that GP made when he said "(d)espite what the revisionist historians tell you".
I ask you, have you ever seen the original handwritten version of Rime of the Ancient Mariner? No? Then how do you know the liberal revisionists didn't add that line? And have you seen Shelley's original poem, or just a copy from a textbook produced by some liberal publishing company?
And here's the big question: how do you know your parents and grandparents aren't part of the conspiracy?
I assure you, the conspiracy runs deeper than you or I could even imagine.
A pen and some paper. This method is proven to increase later recall of the subject matter. [too lazy to provide citation]
Not only that, but if you really want/need a digital copy, the act of typing your handwritten notes into your computer later is a great excuse to review the notes and further commit the material to memory.
Without a functioning economy, your entire life may not be that long.
The same can be said of the environment.
As has been said before, you can't eat money. Nor drink it. Nor breathe it. And no amount of economic prosperity will change the fact that you have to eat, drink, and breathe.
You can tell how condescending this site is because their response is written by a former "police chief" the demographic probably most likely to condemn all drugs. I think back to the convention scenes in "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas".>
"Law Enforcement Against Prohibition is an international organization of criminal justice professionals who bear personal witness to the wasteful futility and harms of our current drug policies. Our experience on the front lines of the “war on drugs” has led us to call for a repeal of prohibition and its replacement with a tight system of legalized regulation, which will effectively cripple the violent cartels and street dealers who control the current illegal market."
Actually, I don't think it matters whether Weird Al is doing parody or not, because he isn't using the original copyrighted works. He records his own music with his own band, and makes his own videos as well. Anyone can do that. It's basically the same as recording a cover song. All you need to do that is pay a flat fee to a mechanical rights organization such as The Harry Fox Agency in the US. Since his songs have significant original content, it's likely he doesn't even need to do that, since it could probably be called a derivative work (but I'm only guessing there).
Al gets permission from the original artists only as a professional courtesy. He is under no obligation to do so, whether his songs are parody or not.
For the 10 billionth time, "global warming" and "climate change" are two different, but related, phenomena. "Global warming" is the observation that the global average temperature (note the words "global" and "average") is rising. "Climate change" is the observation that the climate is changing (which includes localized record snowfalls and cold snaps) as a result of global warming. One leads to the other. If you're talking about average temperatures, then "global warming" is the correct term. If you're talking about severe weather phenomena, then "climate change" is the likely subject.
The fact that the media (and the "skeptics") don't understand this says nothing about climate science, and lots about the media (and the "skeptics").
Technically IFRAME and IMG are just links, but would they qualify as a more affirmative action and thus constitute defamation under this ruling?
The point isn't just that it's a link, but a link to someone else's content. If your IFRAME or IMG tags are pointing to someone else's content, then this ruling would apply. If, however, they linked to your own content, then don't try to use this ruling as your defense, because you will lose.
39 year old "pro pagination" camper here. Well, at least "pro this pagination idea". The beauty of it is that it's up to the browser to handle the pagination, which means the browser user can choose to paginate or not. So, you get your scrolling, and the "pro pagination" campers get their pages. Everybody wins.
Actually, what you're describing about Tom's or Wired is exactly why this would be a good idea.
A website can split a document across multiple pages if they want to. But to do that, they're actually creating multiple documents. What Opera seems to be proposing is the idea that a single document could be rendered as a multi-page document. In other words, it's up to the browser to render it as multiple pages.
So, why is that a good idea? Because, if it's up to the browser to render a single document in multiple pages, then the browser could also choose not to render that document in multiple pages. The decision of how to view the document lies on the client side, not the server side.
So, instead of complaining about not having a "view all" option, those commenters would simply select the "view as single page" option in their browser and be happy.
Nobody is saying that legal rights are extended to inanimate objects except you.
And you, apparently.....
What is being said is that only authorized devices are permitted to decode DRM protected media
Yes. Exactly. The law permits the authorized device to decode the DRM protected media, while preventing the owner of the authorized device from doing the same. That was my point. As you said originally, in the context of encryption, B is the device and C is the consumer. In the context of the law, C is specifically prohibited from doing what B is specifically permitted to do, even if C is doing so in the act of doing something otherwise entirely legal, such as simply watching a legally purchased movie (note that circumventing the encryption on a DVD is not necessary when pirating a DVD).
just like only licensed vehicles are permitted on roads
Not quite "just like". It's similar, yes, except for the fact that roads are public spaces, and what vehicle I drive on a road will impact others, whereas what I choose to do with my media in my devices in the privacy of my home with no one else around is significantly different, and should be subject to appropriate laws.
To put it all another way, my real problem with this law (well, one of them), is that it says I cannot decrypt content on my own media, even if I'm doing so as part of an otherwise legal act. And if I'm doing it as part of committing an illegal act, then what I'm doing is already illegal, so why is there a need for a law saying that the manner in which I'm breaking the law is also against the law?
Therefore, if you're going to allow my device to decrypt the DVD so I can watch the movie, then allow me to decrypt it if I feel like doing so. If I decide to do something illegal as a result, well, come after me with the laws that already defined what I'm doing as illegal.
But that is simply not true. Just because you buy and own an gun doesn't mean you have the right to use it to kill somebody. Owning a piece of equipment doesn't grant you the legal right to do whatever you want with it.
I didn't say that the owner of an object has the legal right to do anything they want with that object. I said that, if a legal right is explicitly granted to an object, then that right logically extends to the owner of that object.
I'm not aware of any legal right having been granted to guns allowing them to kill people. There is a practical reality that they're capable of killing people, but no legal right allowing them to do so.
In encryption circles, A is the sender, B is the intended recipient, and C is the one trying to intercept the message. A, B, and C do not have to be people.
I agree that, when discussing encryption, A, B, and C do not have to be people. However, I wasn't discussing encryption. I was discussing legal rights. The issue isn't just that C is prevented from reading what B can read by virtue of the encryption mechanism, but that the law also makes it illegal for C to even attempt to read what B can read.
So, again, from a legal perspective, how can the law grant a legal right to an inanimate object, while denying that right to the legal owner of that inanimate object?
In DRM, B and C are NOT the same person. B is the approved* media player equipment. C is the consumer.
The problem is that B is not a person, but rather a device that is the legal property of C. It makes no sense to grant rights to an inanimate object that are not also granted to the legal owner of that inanimate object. B and C should be, legally speaking, one and the same.
The same is true of any set of tools. Someone who takes the time to learn their IDE of choice will be more productive in it than in other environments. Your tools of choice consist of UNIX shell and the command line. This doesn't mean they're better tools, just that they're better tools for you, because you've learned to be productive in them.
Software development is mostly thinking with a bit of typing thrown in. Tools can help productivity if you're familiar with them, but ultimately what interface a tool uses (ie. CLI vs GUI) is irrelevant. What's relevant in a tool is functionality. What's relevant in a developer is skill and knowledge of their chosen tools.
Does it actually state that anywhere? Because that has to be the most ridiculous part of the law.
No it doesn't. It merely fails to make any kind of exemption for that situation.
Honestly, having read the bill, I found it to be mostly reasonable, but needs a few tweaks here and there. Most of the people who are all up in arms about it are basing their opinion of it on what bloggers have said about it, which is mostly inaccurate.
Then build it using Google App Engine. You get a pretty significant quota for free. And bonus points for getting Google to host their next biggest competitor.;)
In short, it's like java, but a 10x bigger disaster.
And, incidentally, both it and Java are the two primary development platforms in the corporate world today, and still going strong. Pick either one, and you'll find work with little effort. Familiarize yourself with both, and companies will fight over you.
Sure, it's not for everyone. Apparently it doesn't suit your purposes. But it's the right tool for certain jobs— and there are lots of those jobs.
I can't see how that second sentence doesn't ban teachers from using gmail. At least one current or former student likely has a gmail account. You can send an email that is private communication. Gmail is a website. It allows that exclusive access. Hence teachers can't use it.
Well, no, it doesn't prevent them from using GMail at all, but it does prevent them from using GMail to communicate with a student. You can't just focus on the wording of a particular sentence, removed from context. You have to look at the whole of the Bill. That's how laws work. A judge, when interpreting a law, doesn't isolate a single sentence and try to extract the law's meaning from it on its own. Yes, individual sentences and their wording have meaning, but so does context. The Bill is about sexual misconduct between teachers and students, and that particular section is about private communication.
If a teacher wants to email a student, they should be sending the email from their school provided account to the student's school provided account, not using a private GMail account. A teacher's school provided email account is accessible to the administration, and the administration would likely grant parents access to the student's account if they want to check for any indecent communication going on.
That's exactly the point. Keep the communication out in the open, not hidden away. Let me ask you this? What possible legitimate reason can there be for a teacher to send an email to a student that she or he doesn't want either the administration or the student's parents to know about?
The problem is that if a student and teacher are friends on Facebook, that is largely out in the open. It's the email messages, the phone calls late at night, the notes passed during school, etc. that are going to be the problem—the stuff that's under the table.... It is just plain arbitrary to single out Facebook and other social networking services while ignoring other Internet services like email and instant messaging, other telecommunications services like phone calls and texting, etc.
Try reading the Bill. It does not single out Facebook friends— in fact, it never even mentions Facebook. What it actually is targeting is precisely what you said: private communication.
What we have here is a TV station claiming the Bill is too vague, then a blogger interpreting the TV station's interpretation as meaning that friending on Facebook will not be allowed, and finally the Slashdot summary writer interpreting that interpretation of the previous interpretation as meaning that students being online friends with teachers will be illegal.
As usual, the Slashdot summary and the reality are only distantly related.
Slashdot Mirror
so basically, she made a completely moronic business decision, but the article's slant is that it is the fault of groupon? Is this woman not aware she could have set these at a price that would have been reasonable as opposed to bankrupting?
From TFA:
Mrs Brown, who had only expected a few hundred orders, said that the experience was “without doubt, the worst ever business decision I have made”.
Sounds like she's well aware that she made a bad business decision. What the article doesn't clearly state is what options Groupon provided her in terms of prices she could offer or limitations on the number of groupons sold. At the end of the article, a Groupon representative says that there was no limit placed on the number sold, and that "(w)e approach each business with a tailored, individual approach based on the prior history of similar deals." This doesn't really tell us much, but it is entirely possible that Groupon sold Mrs. Brown on the idea by providing her with unrealistic expectations based on "prior history of similar deals".
It's also possible that she isn't actually blaming Groupon at all. The article makes that claim, but the quotes from Mrs. Brown only talk about her own underestimation of the response to the deal.
I'm sure that part of the reason that it has taken this long for them to do this is precisely because of the possibility of legal troubles. At the same time, whereas it was difficult to argue that a web browser was truly an inherent function of the Operating System, it's difficult to argue that protection from viruses is not. So, while this may appear reminiscent of the Netscape case on the surface, it may be much less of a legal minefield in reality.
As for the anti-virus vendors, realistically they should have known that it was only a matter of time before Microsoft would clean up their act a bit and obsolete the vendors' products. They got to ride on the coattails of Microsoft's laziness for a long time.
Ahh, but you missed the important qualification that GP made when he said "(d)espite what the revisionist historians tell you".
I ask you, have you ever seen the original handwritten version of Rime of the Ancient Mariner? No? Then how do you know the liberal revisionists didn't add that line? And have you seen Shelley's original poem, or just a copy from a textbook produced by some liberal publishing company?
And here's the big question: how do you know your parents and grandparents aren't part of the conspiracy?
I assure you, the conspiracy runs deeper than you or I could even imagine.
A pen and some paper. This method is proven to increase later recall of the subject matter. [too lazy to provide citation]
Not only that, but if you really want/need a digital copy, the act of typing your handwritten notes into your computer later is a great excuse to review the notes and further commit the material to memory.
Without a functioning economy, your entire life may not be that long.
The same can be said of the environment.
As has been said before, you can't eat money. Nor drink it. Nor breathe it. And no amount of economic prosperity will change the fact that you have to eat, drink, and breathe.
You can tell how condescending this site is because their response is written by a former "police chief" the demographic probably most likely to condemn all drugs. I think back to the convention scenes in "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas".>
Not always.
"Law Enforcement Against Prohibition is an international organization of criminal justice professionals who bear personal witness to the wasteful futility and harms of our current drug policies. Our experience on the front lines of the “war on drugs” has led us to call for a repeal of prohibition and its replacement with a tight system of legalized regulation, which will effectively cripple the violent cartels and street dealers who control the current illegal market."
It does require power, namely gravitational energy.
And a push. And, if you watch the video, someone standing by to stop it from falling over.
Give me a long enough sloped surface, and I'll show you a ball that can go even further, without falling over, and with no need for a push.
This is just an old child's toy embiggened and made out of aluminum.
Actually, I don't think it matters whether Weird Al is doing parody or not, because he isn't using the original copyrighted works. He records his own music with his own band, and makes his own videos as well. Anyone can do that. It's basically the same as recording a cover song. All you need to do that is pay a flat fee to a mechanical rights organization such as The Harry Fox Agency in the US. Since his songs have significant original content, it's likely he doesn't even need to do that, since it could probably be called a derivative work (but I'm only guessing there).
Al gets permission from the original artists only as a professional courtesy. He is under no obligation to do so, whether his songs are parody or not.
So, when exactly did this change occur? Obviously it had to be before the establishment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change back in 1988. Certainly long before Science magazine published Barrett and Gast's article titled Climate Change back in 1971, I assume. Probably even before the publication of Gilbert Plass's study The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change back in 1956.
Please, enlighten us. When did this "name change" occur to avoid all of this ridicule?
For the 10 billionth time, "global warming" and "climate change" are two different, but related, phenomena. "Global warming" is the observation that the global average temperature (note the words "global" and "average") is rising. "Climate change" is the observation that the climate is changing (which includes localized record snowfalls and cold snaps) as a result of global warming. One leads to the other. If you're talking about average temperatures, then "global warming" is the correct term. If you're talking about severe weather phenomena, then "climate change" is the likely subject.
The fact that the media (and the "skeptics") don't understand this says nothing about climate science, and lots about the media (and the "skeptics").
Technically IFRAME and IMG are just links, but would they qualify as a more affirmative action and thus constitute defamation under this ruling?
The point isn't just that it's a link, but a link to someone else's content. If your IFRAME or IMG tags are pointing to someone else's content, then this ruling would apply. If, however, they linked to your own content, then don't try to use this ruling as your defense, because you will lose.
39 year old "pro pagination" camper here. Well, at least "pro this pagination idea". The beauty of it is that it's up to the browser to handle the pagination, which means the browser user can choose to paginate or not. So, you get your scrolling, and the "pro pagination" campers get their pages. Everybody wins.
Actually, what you're describing about Tom's or Wired is exactly why this would be a good idea.
A website can split a document across multiple pages if they want to. But to do that, they're actually creating multiple documents. What Opera seems to be proposing is the idea that a single document could be rendered as a multi-page document. In other words, it's up to the browser to render it as multiple pages.
So, why is that a good idea? Because, if it's up to the browser to render a single document in multiple pages, then the browser could also choose not to render that document in multiple pages. The decision of how to view the document lies on the client side, not the server side.
So, instead of complaining about not having a "view all" option, those commenters would simply select the "view as single page" option in their browser and be happy.
Nobody is saying that legal rights are extended to inanimate objects except you.
And you, apparently.....
What is being said is that only authorized devices are permitted to decode DRM protected media
Yes. Exactly. The law permits the authorized device to decode the DRM protected media, while preventing the owner of the authorized device from doing the same. That was my point. As you said originally, in the context of encryption, B is the device and C is the consumer. In the context of the law, C is specifically prohibited from doing what B is specifically permitted to do, even if C is doing so in the act of doing something otherwise entirely legal, such as simply watching a legally purchased movie (note that circumventing the encryption on a DVD is not necessary when pirating a DVD).
just like only licensed vehicles are permitted on roads
Not quite "just like". It's similar, yes, except for the fact that roads are public spaces, and what vehicle I drive on a road will impact others, whereas what I choose to do with my media in my devices in the privacy of my home with no one else around is significantly different, and should be subject to appropriate laws.
To put it all another way, my real problem with this law (well, one of them), is that it says I cannot decrypt content on my own media, even if I'm doing so as part of an otherwise legal act. And if I'm doing it as part of committing an illegal act, then what I'm doing is already illegal, so why is there a need for a law saying that the manner in which I'm breaking the law is also against the law?
Therefore, if you're going to allow my device to decrypt the DVD so I can watch the movie, then allow me to decrypt it if I feel like doing so. If I decide to do something illegal as a result, well, come after me with the laws that already defined what I'm doing as illegal.
But that is simply not true. Just because you buy and own an gun doesn't mean you have the right to use it to kill somebody. Owning a piece of equipment doesn't grant you the legal right to do whatever you want with it.
I didn't say that the owner of an object has the legal right to do anything they want with that object. I said that, if a legal right is explicitly granted to an object, then that right logically extends to the owner of that object.
I'm not aware of any legal right having been granted to guns allowing them to kill people. There is a practical reality that they're capable of killing people, but no legal right allowing them to do so.
In encryption circles, A is the sender, B is the intended recipient, and C is the one trying to intercept the message. A, B, and C do not have to be people.
I agree that, when discussing encryption, A, B, and C do not have to be people. However, I wasn't discussing encryption. I was discussing legal rights. The issue isn't just that C is prevented from reading what B can read by virtue of the encryption mechanism, but that the law also makes it illegal for C to even attempt to read what B can read.
So, again, from a legal perspective, how can the law grant a legal right to an inanimate object, while denying that right to the legal owner of that inanimate object?
In DRM, B and C are NOT the same person. B is the approved* media player equipment. C is the consumer.
The problem is that B is not a person, but rather a device that is the legal property of C. It makes no sense to grant rights to an inanimate object that are not also granted to the legal owner of that inanimate object. B and C should be, legally speaking, one and the same.
Coz if they did MS would sue, sue and sue again.
Pure FUD. The PowerShell specification was released under the Community Promise specifically so it could be implemented on other platforms.
The same is true of any set of tools. Someone who takes the time to learn their IDE of choice will be more productive in it than in other environments. Your tools of choice consist of UNIX shell and the command line. This doesn't mean they're better tools, just that they're better tools for you, because you've learned to be productive in them.
Software development is mostly thinking with a bit of typing thrown in. Tools can help productivity if you're familiar with them, but ultimately what interface a tool uses (ie. CLI vs GUI) is irrelevant. What's relevant in a tool is functionality. What's relevant in a developer is skill and knowledge of their chosen tools.
Does it actually state that anywhere? Because that has to be the most ridiculous part of the law.
No it doesn't. It merely fails to make any kind of exemption for that situation.
Honestly, having read the bill, I found it to be mostly reasonable, but needs a few tweaks here and there. Most of the people who are all up in arms about it are basing their opinion of it on what bloggers have said about it, which is mostly inaccurate.
Then build it using Google App Engine. You get a pretty significant quota for free. And bonus points for getting Google to host their next biggest competitor. ;)
In short, it's like java, but a 10x bigger disaster.
And, incidentally, both it and Java are the two primary development platforms in the corporate world today, and still going strong. Pick either one, and you'll find work with little effort. Familiarize yourself with both, and companies will fight over you.
Sure, it's not for everyone. Apparently it doesn't suit your purposes. But it's the right tool for certain jobs— and there are lots of those jobs.
I can't see how that second sentence doesn't ban teachers from using gmail. At least one current or former student likely has a gmail account. You can send an email that is private communication. Gmail is a website. It allows that exclusive access. Hence teachers can't use it.
Well, no, it doesn't prevent them from using GMail at all, but it does prevent them from using GMail to communicate with a student. You can't just focus on the wording of a particular sentence, removed from context. You have to look at the whole of the Bill. That's how laws work. A judge, when interpreting a law, doesn't isolate a single sentence and try to extract the law's meaning from it on its own. Yes, individual sentences and their wording have meaning, but so does context. The Bill is about sexual misconduct between teachers and students, and that particular section is about private communication.
If a teacher wants to email a student, they should be sending the email from their school provided account to the student's school provided account, not using a private GMail account. A teacher's school provided email account is accessible to the administration, and the administration would likely grant parents access to the student's account if they want to check for any indecent communication going on.
That's exactly the point. Keep the communication out in the open, not hidden away. Let me ask you this? What possible legitimate reason can there be for a teacher to send an email to a student that she or he doesn't want either the administration or the student's parents to know about?
Read the next sentence in the Bill. It only applies as long as the former student is under 18.
The problem is that if a student and teacher are friends on Facebook, that is largely out in the open. It's the email messages, the phone calls late at night, the notes passed during school, etc. that are going to be the problem—the stuff that's under the table. ... It is just plain arbitrary to single out Facebook and other social networking services while ignoring other Internet services like email and instant messaging, other telecommunications services like phone calls and texting, etc.
Try reading the Bill. It does not single out Facebook friends— in fact, it never even mentions Facebook. What it actually is targeting is precisely what you said: private communication.
What we have here is a TV station claiming the Bill is too vague, then a blogger interpreting the TV station's interpretation as meaning that friending on Facebook will not be allowed, and finally the Slashdot summary writer interpreting that interpretation of the previous interpretation as meaning that students being online friends with teachers will be illegal.
As usual, the Slashdot summary and the reality are only distantly related.