(1) The donations are being requested after the end of the tax year
Most charitable donations occur in October/November/December for tax reasons. This is true of both deductible and non-deductible donations.
(2) Donations are not tax deductible
This isn't a huge problem, if the OpenBSD Foundation were willing to invoice the company for the amount; then it could still be deducted as a business expense, but then the OpenBSD Foundation would have to claim it as income and pay tax on it. This isn't terrifically onerous for them in any case, as they are not a charity, and thus have to pay tax anyway, unless they can just get someone to pay their power bill directly instead (something they've requested).
Another option would be to have a U.S. OpenBSD non-profit that could then support work by OpenBSD under contract, even if that work were something like "provide nightly builds of OpenBSD binaries in exchange for grant funds". They don't seem interested in/able to utilize, this approach.
(3) Invoicing would not exactly require some measure of editorial control, but...
There would be at least an implied expectation of quid-pro-quo, even if none exactly existed, since an audit of the company that was invoiced could require at least a paper justification for the value obtained in exchange for the invoiced amount. It doesn't have to be a great deal for the company, and it could actually be a completely lopsided deal, but there would need to be a token exchange of goods and/or services for the invoiced amount.
(4) If someone is willing to pay their power, they demand they be a Canadian company
I can understand the ramifications for this coming from a non-Canadian company; OpenBSD needs to understand the ramifications of "any port in a storm". There really aren't that many Canadian technology companies in this sector, compared to the U.S.; the highest percentage of OpenBSD-based products are in fact German.
(5) There are not a large number products based directly on OpenBSD
The companies that do have products based on it are generally not hugely profitable, and the small number that there are are listed here: http://www.openbsd.org/products.html which gives you some indication of their market penetration.
(6) The OpenBSD folks don't have the most stellar relationship with the rest of the Open Source community
Without assigning specific blame, this should probably be addressed sooner, rather than later.
--
All in all, it's rather difficult to set up a legal fiction that would let it be advantageous to a business to donate.
It's not that they do not provide valuable software, it's just that most of the value they provide is not in the OpenBSD OS itself, it's in the ancillary projects that are associated with the same people.
Anyone seen any mentions of safe nuclear power technologies?
No. They have a pretty clear anti-nuclear agenda. The people who matter in the nuclear physics community are not really involved in their opinions they rendered on nuclear power, only on Pakistan, India, and China, which are where it matters in terms of creating new weapons.
What startup could even offer 500k salary in the first place?
Some ~$500,000 jobs for an experienced person:
Assuming you have experience and/or the degrees to back it up, Futures Group IT, LLC in NY is offering a starting salary of $250,000-$300,000 for Java/Python developers capable of doing systems architecture for a Quant Trading System.
A similar job for a C#/WPF developer for Westbourne Partners in Chicago, IL is offering $300,000-$350,000 to start.
The Hagan-Ricci Group is offering $300,000-$400,000 to start for a Senior Equities C++ Developer in Chicago with SQL, Java, and Linux experience bumping the number up to the higher number. They are also offering $250,000-$450,000 for a Low Latency Equities C++ Developer, with your choice of NY or Chicago.
There's a UK company offering 250,000 GBP - ~$410,000 at current exchange rates - for trading systems work in London.
A lot for the willingness of the finance industry to part with this level of cash might have something to do with what happened to Sergey Aleynikov, but probably not. It's just the kind of numbers they tend to throw around.
Note that all of the above salaries are starting, and come with discretionary performance bonuses, and for the startups, can include stock options and signing bonuses.
Whether he left for a gun or a manager is irrelevant. If he had been afraid for his life in either circumstances, he would not have gone back in to further the dispute.
You need to read the article DaveV1.0 linked; it clearly states that the physical altercation, and therefore the fear, happened after Reeves returned to the theater, and was confronted by Oulson over Oulson's violation of theater rules having been reported to theater management.
No, it was neither. Depending on the state, it MIGHT be battery, but it would not be assault.
Battery is an unlawful use of force or violence on a person. Some states define force as any kind of touching that is unwanted, so you might be on the hook there, but only if he actually got hit by the popcorn and doesn't live in a state where "force" actually means something. Assault is attempting to cause harm or intentionally creating the fear of harm. Throwing popcorn is a pretty surefire sign that someone is NOT trying to cause you physical harm.
It's harassment, but it's not assault, and it's probably not battery.
Misdemeanor battery in Florida: Florida Statute 784.03 Third degree felony battery in Florida: Florida Statute 784.041
If there was a prior threat, implied or perceived, but no intent to cause physical harm in the popcorn throwing itself, it's up to 5 years in a state penitentiary. Otherwise, it's up to 1 year in the county jail.
That doesn't excuse shooting someone *before* they commit a crime.
Technically, the texter was guilty of assault the moment he wound up to throw the popcorn, and, according to the letter of Florida law, guilty of third degree felony battery when the popcorn hit the ex-cop. This is punishable by up to five years in the state prison system.
They have to actually *do* something violent. Throwing popcorn doesn't qualify under any criteria unless you're a complete psycopath.
It qualifies under Florida law; in most other states, it would be considered a misdemeanor, punishable by up to 1 year in a county jail, unless it was a second offense, at which point it would be a third or second degree felony, depending on whether there was intent to do bodily harm. I'm assuming third degree, non-aggravated battery in my previous statement that the intent was not to blind or otherwise permanently injure the ex-cop, and that the popcorn was just being thrown out of spite because the guy was being a petulant asshole about having been reported to theater management.
I don't see how the alternative - a 43 year old guy beating down a 71 year old man - would be better or less life threatening than the shot that was fired.
There is no indication whatsoever that the 43 year old was hitting or beating the older man, or was threatening to hit or beat him. They were in different rows of the theatre, which makes hitting someone a bit harder, and either there were plenty of people around who could have intervened if there was a fist fight, or the killer should have found a place away from the victim.
They were in adjacent rows, with the retired officer seated behind the person in question. I've seen enough fights in theaters that it's obvious to me that a seat-back isn't an impediment to giving someone a beat-down.
While it's not conclusive, the fact that the shot went through the wives hand and into the texters chest indicates her hand was on his chest, which as other posters here have noted (why are there so many damn ACs in this topic?) is highly suggestive of an attempt on her part to restrain her husband from getting involved in a physical altercation. If this was the intent of the hand being in the way of the bullet, then it's indicative that the husband has been involved in altercations where his wife was present in the past.
Bottom line is that we don't know, but that circumstantial evidence argues strongly for at least two instances of assault, and one instance of battery using a non-lethal weapon (the popcorn) against the ex-cop by the texter, prior to the gun coming into play.
On the other side of things, the currently contemplated charge of second degree murder against the ex-cop indicates that the weapon was brandished prior to its use; ye this also argues that the shooting occurred following additional escalation after the weapon was brandished.
I expect we will find out during or after the trial, depending on how public the proceedings end up being.
``Eventually these models will get sophisticated enough to be able simulate "really odd driver behaviors"``
Well that doesn't explain car pool lanes, where the lane next to the carpool lane is full of people who go slow on the theory you can illegally pass them on the left. If the model could account for that, there'd be a lot fewer of the things.
Can someone explain why they didn't just do this instead? Does this classification require legislation or something?
They typical reason given is that they can't be classified as *BOTH* "common carrier" and "information service", and by virtue of using the same infrastructure and corporate entity for both sets of service, they get to be classified as one or the other, with different rules applied.
As a common carrier, they would be required to allow other cable providers to sell cable TV services over their physical infrastructure, and so they themselves have been objecting to reclassification, not just because of net neutrality, but as an anticompetition lockout.
You're missing the part where the "threatened" 71 year old left the theater, went to his car, retrieved the gun and then came back and shot the 43 year old. At what point was a beatdown by the 43 year old going on there?
Maybe you are not from the U.S., and you believe "left the theater" means "left the building" rather than "left the room in which the movie was being projected to talk to the management in the massive lobby". In the U.S., a movie complex is a huge thing, and "theater" describes the room with the screen in it, not the building containing the room with the screen in it. He didn't leave the building to get his gun, he had a concealed carry permit, and the gun was on him the entire time.
"As a male moviegoer texted, the man seated behind him objected, and asked the texter to put his phone away. They argued several times, according to police and witnesses, and the man who was texting watched as the other man walked out of the theater. Curtis Reeves, a retired police officer, apparently went seeking a theater employee to complain about the texting, police said."... The man who had been texting, Chad Oulson, got up and turned to Reeves to ask him if he had gone to tell on him for his texting. Oulson reportedly said, in effect: I was just sending a message to my young daughter. Voices were raised. Popcorn was thrown."
Assault, with implied threat of battery.
"And then came something unimaginable -- except maybe in a movie. A gunshot.
Not that unimaginable. This is just sensationalist editorializing on the part of ABC.
The shot went through the wife's hand, which is how she sustained her injury. That places her hand on Oulson's chest, which is typical if one is restraining someone, and atypical behavior for the wife, unless Oulson had exhibited similar behavior in the past.
If Reeves were a crazed nut job, he would have not sat and removed his hands from the weapon and waited for the police.
3) If you read the actual news story you'd learn that the texter was not sending a text at the time of the shooting. In fact the texter told the shooter that he was texting his daughter to check on her before the movie started. The shooter got his feelings hurt and walked out of the theater, got his gun and returned to murder the man and injure his wife who was standing next to him.
According to CNN, the 71 year old had the gun in his possession the whole time, had left to tell the theater management, the guy got pissed off for having been told on, the pissed off guy got physical with the 71 year old man by assaulting him by throwing popcorn, and was being physically restrained by his wife's hand on his chest when the 71 year old shot him (through the wife's hand; there was only a single shot).
If you are 71 years old under the threat of physical violence from a 43 year old, it's reasonable to fear for your life.
He was shot as result of an altercation that started over his use of a cellphone.
I don't know if the shooter ever felt that his life was in danger or not but that will likely be his defense. In any case this is another instance where a simple argument turns into a murder because somebody was carrying a gun and either panicked or allowed their anger to get the better of them.
I don't see how the alternative - a 43 year old guy beating down a 71 year old man - would be better or less life threatening than the shot that was fired.
Many people bought a ticket for whatever movie just to see the preview.
I do think killing is a bit excessive but do your texting outside.
If it's the previews, they've already shown the cell phone commercials to tell you to put the thing away or go outside. This doesn't justify the shooting, but probably a 43 year old assaulting a 71 year old because he's pissed off that the management was informed of his violation of theater policy could be; someone a few years over half my age would probably be able to kick my ass, and the wife was injured through her hand by the shot as she had her hand on the husbands chest attempting to restrain him, so it's likely that he's done this sort of flying off the handle before.
And I am fairly certain we will hear over the coming days the couple involved was being obnoxious in other ways as well.
I doubt that, though we may hear more about the husbands temper as third parties come forward with more information. Right now, the media is selling it as a victim story, which doesn't quite jibe with the idea that he was supposedly texting his 3 year old daughter (one has to wonder what kind of cell phone contract discount one can get for being 3 years old).
I just looked at the Aereo website, and it appears that they are actually restricting the service to users who live in the same metro area as the Aereo antenna farm in question. If things are as they seem, it impossible for people in Australia to register for Aereo, and the local ads remain relevant.
I'll first point out that my statements were referring to ABC's claims in their filing brief, rather than Aereo's TOS.
Now I'll point out how easy it is to violate Aereo's TOS:
Credit card address in case they check that: In terms of a U.S. credit card with a NY address: there are mail forwarding services that can be had very cheaply, but most credit card companies pester you to go electronic constantly so that they don't have to pay for paper statements, and so that they can blame your email for losing changes in contracts, meaning it's your fault when they fail to notify you. So either sign up for a month with one of those services or have a friend in NYC let you use their address to get the card in the first place, and then switch everything over to electronic communications immediately. Congratulations, your credit card is now a NY resident.
It's pretty trivial; a lot of people do this so that they can access U.S. iTunes from outside the U.S., as well. It works for pretty much any geographically tied service, including Netflix.
I call that abuse... It is illegal in my country (having a password does not authorize you to enter, similar to finding a key on the street). Second: It is unnice to other people who make a mistake.
Would you do that to someone you know?
In a heartbeat, if it meant they quit registering for crap and giving my email address isntead of their own email address.
Aereo is essentially a leech on the system. They give nothing back to the content producers.
Aren't they expanding the number of folks that have access to that content, and hence, the commercials?
See my other posting; commercial on broadcast television are typically a small percentage national brands, with the remainder being local advertisers within the broadcast area. Unless viewed in the broadcast area, the value of those commercials is Nil, and the network no longer gets paid proportionally to the number of actual viewers, only to the number of viewers within the area where the ads are applicable, and only then if those viewers are not viewing via Aereo (unless they are wiring Nielsen boxes into the receiver units).
Aereo is an online streaming service - among its offering, it enables people who stay very far away from NYC (for example, Sydney Australia) to watch TV stations from NYC.
The argument from the teevee stations is that by allowing the streaming of their broadcast content, Aereo is violating the "copyright".
I dunno about you, but I find this argument utterly preposterous !
Legally speaking, true, the way the copyright laws has been stipulated by those "legal experts" is that a copy of whatever copyrighted content (be it sound, image, book, or the combination of any form) can only be used one time, in one place.
Aero addresses this the same way Slingbox does. They argue that by having one physical receiver per active subscribed user, that they are not in violation; this is the same way it would work if you had a Slingbox at home in your NYC apartment, and were traveling in another country. The major difference is that advertisers that you see for NY products on your Slingbox have a reasonable expectation that you will be returning to the regional purchase market where your Slingbox is located at some point in the future, after your trip is over, while there's no similar expectation that you'll go to the roof where the Aereo receivers are located at some point, and then proceed to "buy local".
But c'mon !
People living in Sydney Australia don't get to watch teevee station beaming from NYC anyway - and by allowing them to watch it via online streaming, how the fuck this going to make the NYC teevee station losing money ?
ABC objects to this because they license content, and make money on commercials.
Commercials tend to be related to a regional market (i.e. you are unlikely to have a Big-O tires or Chick-fil-A or Trader Joe's or other locale centric food chain specific to the U.S. in Australia). Because of this, advertisers in the NY market don't see any benefit to ABC stations streamed outside the NY market, since they aren't applicable in remote markets; the thing that bothers ABC about this is ads tend to get paid by region, an by Nielsen ratings for the broadcast station within the region. So they don't get a higher income for their licensed content for their franchisees.
Assuming they could get franchisees in the local markets in Australia to pick up and license ABC programming, then there would be advertising for the local market in the broadcast area, and they'd see income for those programs within that region.
So Aereo breaks their regional marketing models by moving content + advertisements. This also devalues their properties, unless they agree to simultaneous release in various regions, and it erodes their leverage position of getting a franchisee in another region where there is no franchisee, because they are unable to hold them hostage to in demand content, which would (effectively) blackmail the local stations into taking a full content package, rather than one or two programs, and would cause income sharing for regional advertising back to the parent network (ABC).
This effect is, incidentally, the same reason that various networks have been going after cable and dish networks to get a larger programming package payout (with the exception that the cable and dish networks do regional advertising substitution on the fly into program packages, rather than taking all the advertising from the network). This was the basis of the CBS (network)/Time Warner (cable provider) dispute last year: http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/09/02/cbs-time-warner-resolve-dispute/
If Aereo wins, the networks are going to need to revise their business model, so the most likely outcome is actually that there will be a loss for Aero, with a time period for them and the networks to agree to an implementation of a fetch-model for advertising, at which point Aero doesn't end up actually losing, and the network gets part of
Learn to read. It was a comparison to show just how ridiculous the Google shill's claims are. Of course MS had a monopoly, as do Google now.
You still haven't stated what non-Google services are being displaced by what Google service due to the account unification using G+ authentication as a back end, as opposed to an account unification under GMail or YouTube or Google Docs as the back end instead.
I really do not see G+ or Google Docs getting a lot of traction as a result of your sign-on working across different Google properties. Facebook is still the #1 social network, and Office is still the #1 productivity suite, and the G+ based authentication, instead of having separate account databases that take them more employees to manage and maintain, isn't going to change that.
The only thing I see people getting really pissy about is the inability to comment on YouTube videos, including replying to comments directed at their own videos, without tying the Youtube account used to comment to a real identity, rather than an alias. It's kind of a PITA, but if it matters to you, disable comments and post the YouTube link to Facebook, Twitter, or wherever. Note that FB and Twitter both have "real identity" policies, and had them before Google had one, and none of the three are terrifically religious about enforcing them.
Slashdot Mirror
Problems with donating to OpenBSD
(1) The donations are being requested after the end of the tax year
Most charitable donations occur in October/November/December for tax reasons. This is true of both deductible and non-deductible donations.
(2) Donations are not tax deductible
This isn't a huge problem, if the OpenBSD Foundation were willing to invoice the company for the amount; then it could still be deducted as a business expense, but then the OpenBSD Foundation would have to claim it as income and pay tax on it. This isn't terrifically onerous for them in any case, as they are not a charity, and thus have to pay tax anyway, unless they can just get someone to pay their power bill directly instead (something they've requested).
Another option would be to have a U.S. OpenBSD non-profit that could then support work by OpenBSD under contract, even if that work were something like "provide nightly builds of OpenBSD binaries in exchange for grant funds". They don't seem interested in/able to utilize, this approach.
(3) Invoicing would not exactly require some measure of editorial control, but...
There would be at least an implied expectation of quid-pro-quo, even if none exactly existed, since an audit of the company that was invoiced could require at least a paper justification for the value obtained in exchange for the invoiced amount. It doesn't have to be a great deal for the company, and it could actually be a completely lopsided deal, but there would need to be a token exchange of goods and/or services for the invoiced amount.
(4) If someone is willing to pay their power, they demand they be a Canadian company
I can understand the ramifications for this coming from a non-Canadian company; OpenBSD needs to understand the ramifications of "any port in a storm". There really aren't that many Canadian technology companies in this sector, compared to the U.S.; the highest percentage of OpenBSD-based products are in fact German.
(5) There are not a large number products based directly on OpenBSD
The companies that do have products based on it are generally not hugely profitable, and the small number that there are are listed here: http://www.openbsd.org/products.html which gives you some indication of their market penetration.
(6) The OpenBSD folks don't have the most stellar relationship with the rest of the Open Source community
Without assigning specific blame, this should probably be addressed sooner, rather than later.
--
All in all, it's rather difficult to set up a legal fiction that would let it be advantageous to a business to donate.
It's not that they do not provide valuable software, it's just that most of the value they provide is not in the OpenBSD OS itself, it's in the ancillary projects that are associated with the same people.
Anyone seen any mentions of safe nuclear power technologies?
No. They have a pretty clear anti-nuclear agenda. The people who matter in the nuclear physics community are not really involved in their opinions they rendered on nuclear power, only on Pakistan, India, and China, which are where it matters in terms of creating new weapons.
And those are all startups?
The first 2 and the 4th one are.
What startup could even offer 500k salary in the first place?
Some ~$500,000 jobs for an experienced person:
Assuming you have experience and/or the degrees to back it up, Futures Group IT, LLC in NY is offering a starting salary of $250,000-$300,000 for Java/Python developers capable of doing systems architecture for a Quant Trading System.
A similar job for a C#/WPF developer for Westbourne Partners in Chicago, IL is offering $300,000-$350,000 to start.
The Hagan-Ricci Group is offering $300,000-$400,000 to start for a Senior Equities C++ Developer in Chicago with SQL, Java, and Linux experience bumping the number up to the higher number. They are also offering $250,000-$450,000 for a Low Latency Equities C++ Developer, with your choice of NY or Chicago.
There's a UK company offering 250,000 GBP - ~$410,000 at current exchange rates - for trading systems work in London.
A lot for the willingness of the finance industry to part with this level of cash might have something to do with what happened to Sergey Aleynikov, but probably not. It's just the kind of numbers they tend to throw around.
Note that all of the above salaries are starting, and come with discretionary performance bonuses, and for the startups, can include stock options and signing bonuses.
Whether he left for a gun or a manager is irrelevant. If he had been afraid for his life in either circumstances, he would not have gone back in to further the dispute.
You need to read the article DaveV1.0 linked; it clearly states that the physical altercation, and therefore the fear, happened after Reeves returned to the theater, and was confronted by Oulson over Oulson's violation of theater rules having been reported to theater management.
No, it was neither. Depending on the state, it MIGHT be battery, but it would not be assault.
Battery is an unlawful use of force or violence on a person. Some states define force as any kind of touching that is unwanted, so you might be on the hook there, but only if he actually got hit by the popcorn and doesn't live in a state where "force" actually means something. Assault is attempting to cause harm or intentionally creating the fear of harm. Throwing popcorn is a pretty surefire sign that someone is NOT trying to cause you physical harm.
It's harassment, but it's not assault, and it's probably not battery.
Misdemeanor battery in Florida: Florida Statute 784.03
Third degree felony battery in Florida: Florida Statute 784.041
If there was a prior threat, implied or perceived, but no intent to cause physical harm in the popcorn throwing itself, it's up to 5 years in a state penitentiary. Otherwise, it's up to 1 year in the county jail.
Don't throw things at people in Florida.
That doesn't excuse shooting someone *before* they commit a crime.
Technically, the texter was guilty of assault the moment he wound up to throw the popcorn, and, according to the letter of Florida law, guilty of third degree felony battery when the popcorn hit the ex-cop. This is punishable by up to five years in the state prison system.
They have to actually *do* something violent. Throwing popcorn doesn't qualify under any criteria unless you're a complete psycopath.
It qualifies under Florida law; in most other states, it would be considered a misdemeanor, punishable by up to 1 year in a county jail, unless it was a second offense, at which point it would be a third or second degree felony, depending on whether there was intent to do bodily harm. I'm assuming third degree, non-aggravated battery in my previous statement that the intent was not to blind or otherwise permanently injure the ex-cop, and that the popcorn was just being thrown out of spite because the guy was being a petulant asshole about having been reported to theater management.
I don't see how the alternative - a 43 year old guy beating down a 71 year old man - would be better or less life threatening than the shot that was fired.
There is no indication whatsoever that the 43 year old was hitting or beating the older man, or was threatening to hit or beat him. They were in different rows of the theatre, which makes hitting someone a bit harder, and either there were plenty of people around who could have intervened if there was a fist fight, or the killer should have found a place away from the victim.
They were in adjacent rows, with the retired officer seated behind the person in question. I've seen enough fights in theaters that it's obvious to me that a seat-back isn't an impediment to giving someone a beat-down.
While it's not conclusive, the fact that the shot went through the wives hand and into the texters chest indicates her hand was on his chest, which as other posters here have noted (why are there so many damn ACs in this topic?) is highly suggestive of an attempt on her part to restrain her husband from getting involved in a physical altercation. If this was the intent of the hand being in the way of the bullet, then it's indicative that the husband has been involved in altercations where his wife was present in the past.
Bottom line is that we don't know, but that circumstantial evidence argues strongly for at least two instances of assault, and one instance of battery using a non-lethal weapon (the popcorn) against the ex-cop by the texter, prior to the gun coming into play.
On the other side of things, the currently contemplated charge of second degree murder against the ex-cop indicates that the weapon was brandished prior to its use; ye this also argues that the shooting occurred following additional escalation after the weapon was brandished.
I expect we will find out during or after the trial, depending on how public the proceedings end up being.
Yeah, but a drunk guy on a bike can't kill pedestrians, but with a car, he can.
Guy on bike vs. pedestrian:
San Francisco, US:
http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/2013/07/23/san-francisco-cyclist-pedestrian-death/
Dorsett, UK:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/dorset/8197430.stm
``Eventually these models will get sophisticated enough to be able simulate "really odd driver behaviors"``
Well that doesn't explain car pool lanes, where the lane next to the carpool lane is full of people who go slow on the theory you can illegally pass them on the left. If the model could account for that, there'd be a lot fewer of the things.
Nootropics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nootropic
Not sure if it's the right band-aid for you. Treat the sleep disorder first.
This always seemed like the obvious move.
Can someone explain why they didn't just do this instead? Does this classification require legislation or something?
They typical reason given is that they can't be classified as *BOTH* "common carrier" and "information service", and by virtue of using the same infrastructure and corporate entity for both sets of service, they get to be classified as one or the other, with different rules applied.
As a common carrier, they would be required to allow other cable providers to sell cable TV services over their physical infrastructure, and so they themselves have been objecting to reclassification, not just because of net neutrality, but as an anticompetition lockout.
You're missing the part where the "threatened" 71 year old left the theater, went to his car, retrieved the gun and then came back and shot the 43 year old. At what point was a beatdown by the 43 year old going on there?
Maybe you are not from the U.S., and you believe "left the theater" means "left the building" rather than "left the room in which the movie was being projected to talk to the management in the massive lobby". In the U.S., a movie complex is a huge thing, and "theater" describes the room with the screen in it, not the building containing the room with the screen in it. He didn't leave the building to get his gun, he had a concealed carry permit, and the gun was on him the entire time.
You really need to read more than one biases source for the story:
http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/national/curtis-reeves-set-to-make-first-court-appearance-after-florida-theater-shooting
"As a male moviegoer texted, the man seated behind him objected, and asked the texter to put his phone away. ...
They argued several times, according to police and witnesses, and the man who was texting watched as the other man walked out of the theater. Curtis Reeves, a retired police officer, apparently went seeking a theater employee to complain about the texting, police said."
The man who had been texting, Chad Oulson, got up and turned to Reeves to ask him if he had gone to tell on him for his texting. Oulson reportedly said, in effect: I was just sending a message to my young daughter.
Voices were raised. Popcorn was thrown."
Assault, with implied threat of battery.
"And then came something unimaginable -- except maybe in a movie. A gunshot.
Not that unimaginable. This is just sensationalist editorializing on the part of ABC.
The shot went through the wife's hand, which is how she sustained her injury. That places her hand on Oulson's chest, which is typical if one is restraining someone, and atypical behavior for the wife, unless Oulson had exhibited similar behavior in the past.
If Reeves were a crazed nut job, he would have not sat and removed his hands from the weapon and waited for the police.
3) If you read the actual news story you'd learn that the texter was not sending a text at the time of the shooting. In fact the texter told the shooter that he was texting his daughter to check on her before the movie started. The shooter got his feelings hurt and walked out of the theater, got his gun and returned to murder the man and injure his wife who was standing next to him.
According to CNN, the 71 year old had the gun in his possession the whole time, had left to tell the theater management, the guy got pissed off for having been told on, the pissed off guy got physical with the 71 year old man by assaulting him by throwing popcorn, and was being physically restrained by his wife's hand on his chest when the 71 year old shot him (through the wife's hand; there was only a single shot).
If you are 71 years old under the threat of physical violence from a 43 year old, it's reasonable to fear for your life.
He was shot as result of an altercation that started over his use of a cellphone.
I don't know if the shooter ever felt that his life was in danger or not but that will likely be his defense. In any case this is another instance where a simple argument turns into a murder because somebody was carrying a gun and either panicked or allowed their anger to get the better of them.
I don't see how the alternative - a 43 year old guy beating down a 71 year old man - would be better or less life threatening than the shot that was fired.
Many people bought a ticket for whatever movie just to see the preview.
I do think killing is a bit excessive but do your texting outside.
If it's the previews, they've already shown the cell phone commercials to tell you to put the thing away or go outside. This doesn't justify the shooting, but probably a 43 year old assaulting a 71 year old because he's pissed off that the management was informed of his violation of theater policy could be; someone a few years over half my age would probably be able to kick my ass, and the wife was injured through her hand by the shot as she had her hand on the husbands chest attempting to restrain him, so it's likely that he's done this sort of flying off the handle before.
And I am fairly certain we will hear over the coming days the couple involved was being obnoxious in other ways as well.
I doubt that, though we may hear more about the husbands temper as third parties come forward with more information. Right now, the media is selling it as a victim story, which doesn't quite jibe with the idea that he was supposedly texting his 3 year old daughter (one has to wonder what kind of cell phone contract discount one can get for being 3 years old).
It was a retired cop.
And I do wonder why people would carry a gun when going to the movies.
Aurora, Colorado. If there had been one armed ex cop in the theater, probably less than 12 people would have died.
Why can't you secure it? Do I need to hire someone who will?
Yes. Yes you do. And when they fail, you should know that my contract rate for you, with the negative discount, is $500/hour, in hour increments.
I can haz credit for Everet-Wheeler Hypothesis?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation
I just looked at the Aereo website, and it appears that they are actually restricting the service to users who live in the same metro area as the Aereo antenna farm in question. If things are as they seem, it impossible for people in Australia to register for Aereo, and the local ads remain relevant.
I'll first point out that my statements were referring to ABC's claims in their filing brief, rather than Aereo's TOS.
Now I'll point out how easy it is to violate Aereo's TOS:
VPN for when they check the IP address:
http://watchvideoonlinevpn.wordpress.com/tag/watch-aereo-live-outside-usa/
Credit card address in case they check that:
In terms of a U.S. credit card with a NY address: there are mail forwarding services that can be had very cheaply, but most credit card companies pester you to go electronic constantly so that they don't have to pay for paper statements, and so that they can blame your email for losing changes in contracts, meaning it's your fault when they fail to notify you. So either sign up for a month with one of those services or have a friend in NYC let you use their address to get the card in the first place, and then switch everything over to electronic communications immediately. Congratulations, your credit card is now a NY resident.
It's pretty trivial; a lot of people do this so that they can access U.S. iTunes from outside the U.S., as well. It works for pretty much any geographically tied service, including Netflix.
I call that abuse... It is illegal in my country (having a password does not authorize you to enter, similar to finding a key on the street). Second: It is unnice to other people who make a mistake.
Would you do that to someone you know?
In a heartbeat, if it meant they quit registering for crap and giving my email address isntead of their own email address.
I've often thought the same thing, having a unique name was so convenient!
Now, though, I'm not so sure, as the proliferation of personal information available to anyone means that I don't get lost in the sea of common names.
The weirder your name... the more likely you are to publish an important paper.
Aereo is essentially a leech on the system. They give nothing back to the content producers.
Aren't they expanding the number of folks that have access to that content, and hence, the commercials?
See my other posting; commercial on broadcast television are typically a small percentage national brands, with the remainder being local advertisers within the broadcast area. Unless viewed in the broadcast area, the value of those commercials is Nil, and the network no longer gets paid proportionally to the number of actual viewers, only to the number of viewers within the area where the ads are applicable, and only then if those viewers are not viewing via Aereo (unless they are wiring Nielsen boxes into the receiver units).
Aereo is an online streaming service - among its offering, it enables people who stay very far away from NYC (for example, Sydney Australia) to watch TV stations from NYC.
The argument from the teevee stations is that by allowing the streaming of their broadcast content, Aereo is violating the "copyright".
I dunno about you, but I find this argument utterly preposterous !
Legally speaking, true, the way the copyright laws has been stipulated by those "legal experts" is that a copy of whatever copyrighted content (be it sound, image, book, or the combination of any form) can only be used one time, in one place.
Aero addresses this the same way Slingbox does. They argue that by having one physical receiver per active subscribed user, that they are not in violation; this is the same way it would work if you had a Slingbox at home in your NYC apartment, and were traveling in another country. The major difference is that advertisers that you see for NY products on your Slingbox have a reasonable expectation that you will be returning to the regional purchase market where your Slingbox is located at some point in the future, after your trip is over, while there's no similar expectation that you'll go to the roof where the Aereo receivers are located at some point, and then proceed to "buy local".
But c'mon !
People living in Sydney Australia don't get to watch teevee station beaming from NYC anyway - and by allowing them to watch it via online streaming, how the fuck this going to make the NYC teevee station losing money ?
ABC objects to this because they license content, and make money on commercials.
Commercials tend to be related to a regional market (i.e. you are unlikely to have a Big-O tires or Chick-fil-A or Trader Joe's or other locale centric food chain specific to the U.S. in Australia). Because of this, advertisers in the NY market don't see any benefit to ABC stations streamed outside the NY market, since they aren't applicable in remote markets; the thing that bothers ABC about this is ads tend to get paid by region, an by Nielsen ratings for the broadcast station within the region. So they don't get a higher income for their licensed content for their franchisees.
Assuming they could get franchisees in the local markets in Australia to pick up and license ABC programming, then there would be advertising for the local market in the broadcast area, and they'd see income for those programs within that region.
So Aereo breaks their regional marketing models by moving content + advertisements. This also devalues their properties, unless they agree to simultaneous release in various regions, and it erodes their leverage position of getting a franchisee in another region where there is no franchisee, because they are unable to hold them hostage to in demand content, which would (effectively) blackmail the local stations into taking a full content package, rather than one or two programs, and would cause income sharing for regional advertising back to the parent network (ABC).
This effect is, incidentally, the same reason that various networks have been going after cable and dish networks to get a larger programming package payout (with the exception that the cable and dish networks do regional advertising substitution on the fly into program packages, rather than taking all the advertising from the network). This was the basis of the CBS (network)/Time Warner (cable provider) dispute last year: http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/09/02/cbs-time-warner-resolve-dispute/
If Aereo wins, the networks are going to need to revise their business model, so the most likely outcome is actually that there will be a loss for Aero, with a time period for them and the networks to agree to an implementation of a fetch-model for advertising, at which point Aero doesn't end up actually losing, and the network gets part of
Learn to read. It was a comparison to show just how ridiculous the Google shill's claims are. Of course MS had a monopoly, as do Google now.
You still haven't stated what non-Google services are being displaced by what Google service due to the account unification using G+ authentication as a back end, as opposed to an account unification under GMail or YouTube or Google Docs as the back end instead.
I really do not see G+ or Google Docs getting a lot of traction as a result of your sign-on working across different Google properties. Facebook is still the #1 social network, and Office is still the #1 productivity suite, and the G+ based authentication, instead of having separate account databases that take them more employees to manage and maintain, isn't going to change that.
The only thing I see people getting really pissy about is the inability to comment on YouTube videos, including replying to comments directed at their own videos, without tying the Youtube account used to comment to a real identity, rather than an alias. It's kind of a PITA, but if it matters to you, disable comments and post the YouTube link to Facebook, Twitter, or wherever. Note that FB and Twitter both have "real identity" policies, and had them before Google had one, and none of the three are terrifically religious about enforcing them.