You don't live in Arizona do you?
They've already cut everything they can. There's constitutional restrictions on what they can touch (direct voter mandates cannot be cut) and there's a lot of essentials that cutting will cripple the future of the state if they're cut any farther than they already have been (Education being the most commonly talked about one).
They're out of things to cut and any attempt to raise taxes has been shot out of the water by the legislature. The final compromise sends the tax hike to the voters so the legislature doesn't get their political hands dirty with it.
Should they have saved during the boom more than they did? Yes. Did Arizona save a lot during the boom? Actually yes it did but all of that savings only covered last year's deficit. Now savings is depleted and current tax revenues have fallen by double digit percentages but the population hasn't fallen by much (most areas are actually still growing) so basic services that the government is responsible for still need to be covered.
As is a lot of the state parks are now shut down because there's no money to pay for them. So don't knock the government here for doing everything in their power to fix the problem. At least we haven't had to send out IOU's like California yet.
Do this with X-Wing, Tie Fighter, XvT and XWA and I'd buy the pack in a heartbeat. Better put in TCP/IP networking into XWA and you may have a modern hit on your hands.
Then again almost no one has an FLCS anymore so maybe not. I wonder if they could pull a Guitar Hero and put the joystick in the box?
'Making Available' is a bunch of bullshit. The problem is that there is no log of how many times the music was downloaded from this person. If that log exists then they would prosecute based on 'X copies distributed'. Since there is no way to know what 'X' actually is they created this 'making available' fiction to cover that hole in their case.
Now if you want a real analogy here's one. I copy a CD and put it up for download. This is logically the same as legally being in possession of a work of art owned by someone else (say a museum curator and someone's having an exhibit that is not owned by the museum). I then put that piece of art on the outside of the building and walk away.
Now someone else comes along and makes a copy of that painting. This violates the copyright of the owner of the painting (which legally grants him a monopoly on that representation of that painting). The person walks away and the curator comes back and puts the painting back on the wall in the museum.
Now what crimes have been committed? Well copyright violation is one as the painting has indeed been copied against the will of it's painter. The person who copied it however is the one who committed that crime. Another you can say is 'aiding and abetting copyright violation' which has turned into our new and wonderful term 'making available' because there's actually no laws that I'm aware of that prohibit aiding a non-criminal act (copyright is civil not criminal) being actionable... but IANAL so maybe someone here knows of one.
Forcing release of source would destroy the entire PC gaming market in one fell swoop. It would be like forcing the inclusion of the blueline document with all published books.
It's a win for everyone: larger market = more sales (or rentals in this case) = more money for developers = more developers and more games = win for consumers.
Tell me now who loses and why?
This isn't OnLive - that's the vaporware competitor to this. He's stated that Nintendo has already turned down OnLive but is talking to him about possibly bringing it's games to Gaikai.
You can't trust the client for anything that effects other people - but things like computing rag-doll physics and some special effects there's no issue with doing it on the client. It really doesn't matter to game play if they happen a little differently on each machine, or not at all.
You have this half right. It creates a profit center around lack of carbon. So the less carbon you put put compared to the amount of carbon you could be putting out the more profit (since you sell your extra carbon allowances).
The theory is that the amount you spend to reduce carbon emissions is now offset (and you will even make a profit from it) through the carbon markets.
Is such a thing feasible with existing technology?
Not really. Beam dispersal while beneficial to microwave power renders any kind of weaponization almost impossible. It'd be easier to cart up large DPU spikes and drop them from orbit.
Incorrect - if you can't enter the market without paying the government then it's like any other market - there are barriers to entry. That doesn't make it 'not really capitalism'. If those barriers to entry are 'no because we said so' then that's not capitalism because there cannot be a market.
I disagree only partially here. If you kick out private insurance entirely then you get some of the horror stories Canada grapples with. Instead leave the private insurance industry legally able to operate... then compete against them with the Government. If the Government can do it cheaper and more efficiently then the private insurers will either all go out of business until the government gets bloated and slows down or (more likely) they'll all cut their massive profit margins and start actually operating efficiently.
There's also many who cannot get it at any cost due to various maladies - yet make too much for current government (state or federal) insurance.
My mother and sister are both in this boat.
Up until this verdict I honestly don't think it tripped the 8th amendment. Sure it would be 'unreasonable' to most people and you could make the argument here... but doing so in court it needs to be much more obvious.
$1.92 million is that obvious. Up until now we couldn't really cry 8th Amendment well... now we can.
This case flies directly in the face of the Eighth Amendment and a good legal team could argue that in front of the Supreme Court without too much trouble. There's no shortage of lawyers who would take this up pro-bono to get in front of the Supreme Court so she'd have a much better legal team there.
The semantic difference between 'putative damages' and 'fine' break down when you start talking spirit of the law, which is exactly what the SCOTUS does.
There are two 'rights' in the US you cannot mess with or you face dire circumstances. TV and Entitlements (welfare, SS, Medicare/cade). Also known in times past as 'Bread and Circuses'.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't live in Arizona do you? They've already cut everything they can. There's constitutional restrictions on what they can touch (direct voter mandates cannot be cut) and there's a lot of essentials that cutting will cripple the future of the state if they're cut any farther than they already have been (Education being the most commonly talked about one).
They're out of things to cut and any attempt to raise taxes has been shot out of the water by the legislature. The final compromise sends the tax hike to the voters so the legislature doesn't get their political hands dirty with it.
Should they have saved during the boom more than they did? Yes. Did Arizona save a lot during the boom? Actually yes it did but all of that savings only covered last year's deficit. Now savings is depleted and current tax revenues have fallen by double digit percentages but the population hasn't fallen by much (most areas are actually still growing) so basic services that the government is responsible for still need to be covered.
As is a lot of the state parks are now shut down because there's no money to pay for them. So don't knock the government here for doing everything in their power to fix the problem. At least we haven't had to send out IOU's like California yet.
What they don't get is their 'money for free' SMS charges.
Do this with X-Wing, Tie Fighter, XvT and XWA and I'd buy the pack in a heartbeat. Better put in TCP/IP networking into XWA and you may have a modern hit on your hands.
Then again almost no one has an FLCS anymore so maybe not. I wonder if they could pull a Guitar Hero and put the joystick in the box?
'Making Available' is a bunch of bullshit. The problem is that there is no log of how many times the music was downloaded from this person. If that log exists then they would prosecute based on 'X copies distributed'. Since there is no way to know what 'X' actually is they created this 'making available' fiction to cover that hole in their case.
Now if you want a real analogy here's one. I copy a CD and put it up for download. This is logically the same as legally being in possession of a work of art owned by someone else (say a museum curator and someone's having an exhibit that is not owned by the museum). I then put that piece of art on the outside of the building and walk away.
Now someone else comes along and makes a copy of that painting. This violates the copyright of the owner of the painting (which legally grants him a monopoly on that representation of that painting). The person walks away and the curator comes back and puts the painting back on the wall in the museum.
Now what crimes have been committed? Well copyright violation is one as the painting has indeed been copied against the will of it's painter. The person who copied it however is the one who committed that crime. Another you can say is 'aiding and abetting copyright violation' which has turned into our new and wonderful term 'making available' because there's actually no laws that I'm aware of that prohibit aiding a non-criminal act (copyright is civil not criminal) being actionable... but IANAL so maybe someone here knows of one.
Academic rules against plagiarism have nothing to do with copyright.
Forcing release of source would destroy the entire PC gaming market in one fell swoop. It would be like forcing the inclusion of the blueline document with all published books.
Not always. Life insurance gets denied all the time.
Because radio waves have a limited range.
It's a win for everyone: larger market = more sales (or rentals in this case) = more money for developers = more developers and more games = win for consumers. Tell me now who loses and why?
This isn't OnLive - that's the vaporware competitor to this. He's stated that Nintendo has already turned down OnLive but is talking to him about possibly bringing it's games to Gaikai.
A content company who wants to set up a competitor to Steam - or maybe Steam to prevent such.
The Blackstar (Roadster) was the 'infinite money' car. The White Star (Model S) is proof it can be mass produced.
The Bluestar (Model T?) will be the $20K 'car of the masses'.
You can't trust the client for anything that effects other people - but things like computing rag-doll physics and some special effects there's no issue with doing it on the client. It really doesn't matter to game play if they happen a little differently on each machine, or not at all.
Cap and trade doesn't target oil very much - what it really targets is coal.
You have this half right. It creates a profit center around lack of carbon. So the less carbon you put put compared to the amount of carbon you could be putting out the more profit (since you sell your extra carbon allowances).
The theory is that the amount you spend to reduce carbon emissions is now offset (and you will even make a profit from it) through the carbon markets.
Not really. Beam dispersal while beneficial to microwave power renders any kind of weaponization almost impossible. It'd be easier to cart up large DPU spikes and drop them from orbit.
There's a number of places that offer satellite internet to geosync satellites. http://www.wildblue.com/aboutWildblue/how_it_works_demo.jsp http://www.ussatellite.com/how-satellite-internet-works.html
Incorrect - if you can't enter the market without paying the government then it's like any other market - there are barriers to entry. That doesn't make it 'not really capitalism'. If those barriers to entry are 'no because we said so' then that's not capitalism because there cannot be a market.
'Monopoly' is a capitalistic term.
I disagree only partially here. If you kick out private insurance entirely then you get some of the horror stories Canada grapples with. Instead leave the private insurance industry legally able to operate... then compete against them with the Government. If the Government can do it cheaper and more efficiently then the private insurers will either all go out of business until the government gets bloated and slows down or (more likely) they'll all cut their massive profit margins and start actually operating efficiently.
There's also many who cannot get it at any cost due to various maladies - yet make too much for current government (state or federal) insurance. My mother and sister are both in this boat.
Up until this verdict I honestly don't think it tripped the 8th amendment. Sure it would be 'unreasonable' to most people and you could make the argument here... but doing so in court it needs to be much more obvious.
$1.92 million is that obvious. Up until now we couldn't really cry 8th Amendment well... now we can.
This case flies directly in the face of the Eighth Amendment and a good legal team could argue that in front of the Supreme Court without too much trouble. There's no shortage of lawyers who would take this up pro-bono to get in front of the Supreme Court so she'd have a much better legal team there. The semantic difference between 'putative damages' and 'fine' break down when you start talking spirit of the law, which is exactly what the SCOTUS does.
What court case limits the Eighth Amendment to Criminal cases?
It's been tried, and failed, about a generation ago. I don't think anyone's going to bother again for another generation or two.
There are two 'rights' in the US you cannot mess with or you face dire circumstances. TV and Entitlements (welfare, SS, Medicare/cade). Also known in times past as 'Bread and Circuses'.