She may not have been biased going in to the trial...remember she had already heard the prosecution's argument.
It sounds more like she was just stupid and didn't think there was any way the defense could win (without knowing what evidence the defense intended to present)
And I feel like the nature of it has changed since 2002 or whenever the initial ruling on it was.
The Internet is far more pervasive than it was in 2002--look at the business world. Sure, every office and cubicle had a computer in 2002, and they probably almost all had outward facing internet access. Email was prevalent but probably only the official means of communication across everyone in the most forward offices (I mean between everyone...you email the mail room employees these days at most places--they wouldn't have had individual computers 10 years ago). Now email is everywhere, and there are corporate level IM services all over the place. Even unimportant people have laptops they can use at home or on the train or while traveling. People have blackberries to always access emails and even review documents (now you might not get called in on the weekend but rather emailed in).
I actually am surprised that more big businesses out there are not pushing for big neutrality. Unless your business is providing the data lines or directly being a content provider (e.g. ESPN might live to be able to pay for the privilege of loading faster than fan sports pages), it seems like common carrier status is in your best interest. It would be pretty bad if microsoft decides that sharepoint and RDP connections should be prioritized while citrix and lotus/domino or whatever groupware your company uses gets throttled down.
As to the other replies above...its kind of a tough regulation question. Right now, there isn't really any regulation and things are generally fine. The Google/Verizon deal *IS* regulation, but it is regulation that would allow verizon to do what we are afraid they are going to do. In my mind, I can't see congress passing a sensible "net neutrality" bill. There are just too many ways that it will become loaded with technicalities that will halt innovation or allow bad things to go on. I can see a case for allowing the FCC to cover IP data under existing common carrier rules, but I can't see some big messy legislation working well.
In many places, the wireless carriers are more competitive (despite their similarity) than the broadband carriers. Sure, they usually lock you in to long contracts...but for the most part, in any reasonable sized town, sprint, verizon, at&t, and t-mobile will provide usable coverage. Compare that to broadband...in my old place, the options were Comcast or AT&T DSL but the fastest speed at&t could offer in most buildings was about 1/10 as fast as cable (old buildings and wiring...although even the fastest DSL can't compete with good cable). AT&T could try to compete on features or "openness" but even if comcast was throttling some content to 10% speed, I would be better off. Paid content would come to me 10X as fast as DSL and content that didn't pay the "speed bribe" to the border router guard would still come just as fast as it would have on DSL. There is still room in the wireless industry for the companies to force each other to stay open through competition.
He touches on something I mentioned in a story the other day.
Allowing wireless providers the ability to regulate the flow of information sort of makes sense right this moment. The technology is still week compared to expected usage as smartphones are exploding (see iphones in NYC...hell, even see the fact that I live near wrigley field and have to try several times to connect a call whenever there is a game). The use of mobile devices now is still limited and they are rushing to keep up with it. It might be fair for them to say "no, you can't torrent right now" since you torrenting could kill everybody else trying to share your tower. We may not agree with them on this, but it is a valid point of view.
Problem is that if you pass something that allows this now...what happens when technology matures to the point where everybody in the US has a smartphone that is more capable than todays computers and the provider-side technology exists to feed them all fast data simultaneously? You can bet that verizon isn't going to say "hey guys, we have really fat pipes now so we are done filtering/shaping". You can bet congress won't be in a hurry to repeal something they just recently passed.
My Nokia 6150 (I think...its a S60 folder...runs the same ovi maps that work elsewhere although it was a pain to get it to accept the installation) works fine without data.
That being said, the definition of fine is not very good. My phone does not seem to use cell towers to get an initial lock at all, so the GPS takes a while to get an initial lock but afterwards is fine and this is true whether or not I have the GSM/3G service on or not.
It will definitely be a mess whenever it comes to pass. It *could* be simple but the politicians would never do that.
One benefit to waiting would be that these mobile device exemptions might go away. As it stands now, I think anything relating to specific device classes should only be added to a proposal if it has a mandatory 3-5yr review built in.
I completely understand Verizon's desire to limit what they have to provide to their handsets (though customers should fight back on this and aim for a happy medium). They are a business and need to make money--trying to use a phone like I use my desktop+cable modem is probably going to put too much strain on the system if everybody starts doing it (see: iphone's in NYC). Only problem is that in 5 years, we may well be able to deliver everything people want over 6G wireless without issue--but this legislation will chill out and let them keep limiting connections even though the physical limits are gone. Without some mandatory tech review forcing common-carrier status (when the lines actually become able to carry enough common data), it will be just like the chicago taxi gas surcharge which was implemented when gas was over $4/g and is still added to every fair several years later with gas under $3 (with a review, they could have either decided to raise the taxi rates or remove the surcharge...not tack on an extra $.50 in hidden fees to every ride).
Well, the article is talking about fraud with investment managers...you couldn't exactly short people's fake investment portfolios. That being said, a program like this could be expanded further (although not realy well since public companies are already well audited and their values are not as simple as matching up trading data).
It has been argued that shorts (and any option trade that has a similar effect of paying off on downward movement) are the only real incentive to bring negative information to the market.
Abusing it like you mentioned would be fraud (but it already is fraud, and you can bet that they will investigate any large short positions open at the time they received their anonymous tip). It would also be a big incentive for people to look for discrepancies. It could be a valid investment strategy to search for somebody commiting fraud and sell them short (or even better buy some cheap options that pay off if the stock craters so you don't lose much if there was just an error instead of fraud or something).
Installing any of the Steam games that I own is about the easiest thing in the world (second easiest thing being buying a steam game I don't already own!).
Of course this means I also have zero idea how to troubleshoot TF2. There are some massive.gcf files and other than some standard HL-style config files, everything is so different from what it used to be. Since I didn't have to do anything to install it, I never figured out how anything happened.
I think that is half the of the point of the IPO. The investors put their money at risk a a while ago with the hope that one day they would be able to earn a decent return on it. The IPO will raise new funds for the company, but it will also move ownership of Skype into a liquid market where original (or more, post-ebay interim) investors can choose to increase or decrease their holdings.
Without the IPO (or a buyout by some larger company), it is very hard for the investors to see any gains. Of course with an IPO, it needs to be done at the right time when there is actually a productive use for the capital infusion or there will be little interest in the shares at the IPO price and the stock will soon fall.
Mechanical Turk isn't a job. If I were a regular turker and I stopped filling out turks today and didn't come back for a month, they would say "welcome back, here are some $.01 tasks".
If you did this at a real job they would say "ahh, come to collect your personal effects?".
Being a turker (is this a real term?) is more akin to being a shoeshine boy. You go around taking what you can get for menial tasks--should we pay a minimum wage to the shoe shine boy who can't find any customers (not unlikely due to the glue and plastic crap we call shoes these days)
recaptcha was created to increase the accuracy of normal OCR programs...
so technically the bots solving them would also be helping proof Project Gutenberg texts so long as they are getting both the test word and the book word correct.
The money that isn't spent ends up in banks or invested in stocks or bonds. You may be a "holder" of a ton of wealth but those holdings may well be stocks that are helping keep the stock price up so that a pension fund can meet its payouts or bonds helping the government pay for things or bank deposits enabling banks to make loans.
You could make an argument not to include wealth spent on things like already-built homes since that money is basically a transfer to some other rich dude, but even then, you are supporting resale values which encourages further future purchases. If there is no market for used homes (or used boats), people will be worried about buying new. Even if you have a giant pile of money, you are going to be hesitant to buy a million dollar house without knowing that you could probably get most of that value back if you have to move.
Just because you hold on to the wealth rather than spend it all on things that are not usually factored into net worth calculation (anything other than homes, investments, very large capital purchases), doesn't mean your wealth is doing nothing.
That is because the ultra rich are almost always people who got there by chance. They are the guys who came up with the right idea at the right time. Often it looked so good at the time that they dropped everything to pursue it (I would bet Bill would have gone pretty far in the university system if he hadn't had his big idea).
The people you are thinking of are not the top 500--they are the MBAs who make a few million a year. They will never see a billion dollars or even a hundred million but in the case of this article, they are sure getting paid a lot more than a bunch of PhDs that they oversee.
I wish I could crowdsource the tailoring of expensive suits.
Let a bunch of people make me suits and then decide whose cut I like the best...it will save me so much and I will look so good! Of course the tailors will never be lining up to do this because their work actually has material costs and takes a reasonable amount of time.
This only works because its not hard to crank out a mediocre website layout or a mediocre design or a mediocre how-to guide. If I am a non-working designer and I have a chance to spend a few minutes in photoshop designing some logo for your crappy company Cheapskate Inc., it doesn't cost me anything other than time to make a logo of a roller skate with pennies for wheels. The time can be viewed as practice/portfolio work if my design doesn't get picked. If you wanted me to animate a movie or design a full functioning web app to your specifications, this would not happen--it no longer feels like entering a photoshop contest but more like real work that I should be paid for. Even more so if I am now spending money to make clothing that only fits one specific person...its not useful as a portfolio piece, its not useful to anybody else, and I am sure I could find somebody who was at least willing to pay for materials in exchange for free labor.
People have mentioned sites like shirt.woot and threadless but I don't count these as crowds-for-hire style crowdsourcing. They are more like an art contest gone wild. There are no specific requirements other than people liking their work. They are trying to make art and sell it just like any other artist (although here your price turns into some small amount of money and a free t-shirt). If threadless instead operated on a system of "hey designers, please submit a cool Boeing tshirt", they would not have such inspired designs.
I am imagining that the goal here is that you only post to MSI-branded social networking. They would want you to limit your personal facebook and twitter usage and focus on using the blog that they expect you to maintain and other things that are tied to the MSI.
I would imagine a lot of people would follow this person on twitter or want to friend them on facebook...but you want to present an clean image of the MSI, not their drunken facebook past.
I'd have to say its more along the lines of the WSJ is a standard source for a lot of things.
You can't cite the standard source if you can't read it (also, online access comes with a paid paper subscription).
While I use old WSJ info regularly at work...I don't think I have ever even seen an article from newsday (whose paywall failed as well). Not being from the UK, I can't say for sure...but I would guess that the Times/Sunday times have suitable alternates while the WSJ/FT do not.
When you upload a photo to facebook, it is heavily compressed into a few stock sizes. The focus on compression to speed things up and save bandwidth is probably at the point of removing the few bytes taken by even the most basic EXIF data...facebook photo can be flipped through incredibly quickly (due to optimization and preloading). I am sure they keep that data stored safely away somewhere (and may someday add the ability to view it), but it certainly isn't in the pictures they actually serve up.
If Nokia are going to remain SmartPhone relevant, and they have the phones to do it, they really do need to sort out the stuff that surrounds the phone and hire someone that will just hit the software quality problems. I just can't see it somehow...
Why doesn't nokia take a play from htc's book and start making their top phones run android? All of the investment into s60 and ovi aps is really just a sunk cost (actually it is better than a sunk cost since it will still keep producing on lower end phones).
Nokia has a knack for designing good phones--and they used to have great, simple, to the point software--but I find my s60 phone to be a somewhat clunky platform.
I could score up there when I took it and I could probably score there again now.
My point is that the SAT tests a very basic level of math (this is intentional, they are trying to test your mathematical reasoning ability--not whether you happened to be born into a school district that did or did not have teach pre-calc to 11th graders). Having graduated a year ago with a reasonably math-intensive degree, I do not believe I learned a single new thing that is both something I didn't know in 11th grade AND something that would be on the SAT.
Nothing you learn in college math is touched on in the SATs. As a matter of fact, I think I would do worse on the SATs since it had been years since I had actually taken a math class involving numbers.
SAT math is all within the grasp of 9th graders--it is just the race against the clock that makes it hard.
I have watched stuff accelerated with audio that seemed fine (there is something to correct for the chipmunk effect) and most of their features are platform independent.
Add in the fact that there are probably a bunch of twenty-something white house staffers who sit with a gmail window open all day so they can use gchat in their downtime.
They are not necessarily thinking "I had better communicate this over unofficial means" but rather saying "I prefer to message my buddy on gchat than kludge through my outlook (or god forbid, lotus notes) software and email them"
People are probably even doing stupid shit like forwarding their work email to gmail.
Slashdot Mirror
It sounds more like she was just stupid and didn't think there was any way the defense could win (without knowing what evidence the defense intended to present)
The Internet is far more pervasive than it was in 2002--look at the business world. Sure, every office and cubicle had a computer in 2002, and they probably almost all had outward facing internet access. Email was prevalent but probably only the official means of communication across everyone in the most forward offices (I mean between everyone...you email the mail room employees these days at most places--they wouldn't have had individual computers 10 years ago). Now email is everywhere, and there are corporate level IM services all over the place. Even unimportant people have laptops they can use at home or on the train or while traveling. People have blackberries to always access emails and even review documents (now you might not get called in on the weekend but rather emailed in).
I actually am surprised that more big businesses out there are not pushing for big neutrality. Unless your business is providing the data lines or directly being a content provider (e.g. ESPN might live to be able to pay for the privilege of loading faster than fan sports pages), it seems like common carrier status is in your best interest. It would be pretty bad if microsoft decides that sharepoint and RDP connections should be prioritized while citrix and lotus/domino or whatever groupware your company uses gets throttled down.
As to the other replies above...its kind of a tough regulation question. Right now, there isn't really any regulation and things are generally fine. The Google/Verizon deal *IS* regulation, but it is regulation that would allow verizon to do what we are afraid they are going to do. In my mind, I can't see congress passing a sensible "net neutrality" bill. There are just too many ways that it will become loaded with technicalities that will halt innovation or allow bad things to go on. I can see a case for allowing the FCC to cover IP data under existing common carrier rules, but I can't see some big messy legislation working well.
In many places, the wireless carriers are more competitive (despite their similarity) than the broadband carriers. Sure, they usually lock you in to long contracts...but for the most part, in any reasonable sized town, sprint, verizon, at&t, and t-mobile will provide usable coverage. Compare that to broadband...in my old place, the options were Comcast or AT&T DSL but the fastest speed at&t could offer in most buildings was about 1/10 as fast as cable (old buildings and wiring...although even the fastest DSL can't compete with good cable). AT&T could try to compete on features or "openness" but even if comcast was throttling some content to 10% speed, I would be better off. Paid content would come to me 10X as fast as DSL and content that didn't pay the "speed bribe" to the border router guard would still come just as fast as it would have on DSL. There is still room in the wireless industry for the companies to force each other to stay open through competition.
Allowing wireless providers the ability to regulate the flow of information sort of makes sense right this moment. The technology is still week compared to expected usage as smartphones are exploding (see iphones in NYC...hell, even see the fact that I live near wrigley field and have to try several times to connect a call whenever there is a game). The use of mobile devices now is still limited and they are rushing to keep up with it. It might be fair for them to say "no, you can't torrent right now" since you torrenting could kill everybody else trying to share your tower. We may not agree with them on this, but it is a valid point of view.
Problem is that if you pass something that allows this now...what happens when technology matures to the point where everybody in the US has a smartphone that is more capable than todays computers and the provider-side technology exists to feed them all fast data simultaneously? You can bet that verizon isn't going to say "hey guys, we have really fat pipes now so we are done filtering/shaping". You can bet congress won't be in a hurry to repeal something they just recently passed.
That being said, the definition of fine is not very good. My phone does not seem to use cell towers to get an initial lock at all, so the GPS takes a while to get an initial lock but afterwards is fine and this is true whether or not I have the GSM/3G service on or not.
One benefit to waiting would be that these mobile device exemptions might go away. As it stands now, I think anything relating to specific device classes should only be added to a proposal if it has a mandatory 3-5yr review built in.
I completely understand Verizon's desire to limit what they have to provide to their handsets (though customers should fight back on this and aim for a happy medium). They are a business and need to make money--trying to use a phone like I use my desktop+cable modem is probably going to put too much strain on the system if everybody starts doing it (see: iphone's in NYC). Only problem is that in 5 years, we may well be able to deliver everything people want over 6G wireless without issue--but this legislation will chill out and let them keep limiting connections even though the physical limits are gone. Without some mandatory tech review forcing common-carrier status (when the lines actually become able to carry enough common data), it will be just like the chicago taxi gas surcharge which was implemented when gas was over $4/g and is still added to every fair several years later with gas under $3 (with a review, they could have either decided to raise the taxi rates or remove the surcharge...not tack on an extra $.50 in hidden fees to every ride).
It has been argued that shorts (and any option trade that has a similar effect of paying off on downward movement) are the only real incentive to bring negative information to the market.
Abusing it like you mentioned would be fraud (but it already is fraud, and you can bet that they will investigate any large short positions open at the time they received their anonymous tip). It would also be a big incentive for people to look for discrepancies. It could be a valid investment strategy to search for somebody commiting fraud and sell them short (or even better buy some cheap options that pay off if the stock craters so you don't lose much if there was just an error instead of fraud or something).
I would think you would steal the porn directly and use the stolen CC to buy something not so easily acquired (try pirating gas for your car)
Of course this means I also have zero idea how to troubleshoot TF2. There are some massive .gcf files and other than some standard HL-style config files, everything is so different from what it used to be. Since I didn't have to do anything to install it, I never figured out how anything happened.
Without the IPO (or a buyout by some larger company), it is very hard for the investors to see any gains. Of course with an IPO, it needs to be done at the right time when there is actually a productive use for the capital infusion or there will be little interest in the shares at the IPO price and the stock will soon fall.
If you did this at a real job they would say "ahh, come to collect your personal effects?".
Being a turker (is this a real term?) is more akin to being a shoeshine boy. You go around taking what you can get for menial tasks--should we pay a minimum wage to the shoe shine boy who can't find any customers (not unlikely due to the glue and plastic crap we call shoes these days)
so technically the bots solving them would also be helping proof Project Gutenberg texts so long as they are getting both the test word and the book word correct.
The money that isn't spent ends up in banks or invested in stocks or bonds. You may be a "holder" of a ton of wealth but those holdings may well be stocks that are helping keep the stock price up so that a pension fund can meet its payouts or bonds helping the government pay for things or bank deposits enabling banks to make loans.
You could make an argument not to include wealth spent on things like already-built homes since that money is basically a transfer to some other rich dude, but even then, you are supporting resale values which encourages further future purchases. If there is no market for used homes (or used boats), people will be worried about buying new. Even if you have a giant pile of money, you are going to be hesitant to buy a million dollar house without knowing that you could probably get most of that value back if you have to move.
Just because you hold on to the wealth rather than spend it all on things that are not usually factored into net worth calculation (anything other than homes, investments, very large capital purchases), doesn't mean your wealth is doing nothing.
The people you are thinking of are not the top 500--they are the MBAs who make a few million a year. They will never see a billion dollars or even a hundred million but in the case of this article, they are sure getting paid a lot more than a bunch of PhDs that they oversee.
If you read the linked article in TFA, you will find that she BOUGHT HIM A LAPTOP AND MAILED IT TO INDIA! wtf woman
I got 99 designs but a bitc^h^h^h^h professional quality piece of work ain't one
Let a bunch of people make me suits and then decide whose cut I like the best...it will save me so much and I will look so good! Of course the tailors will never be lining up to do this because their work actually has material costs and takes a reasonable amount of time.
This only works because its not hard to crank out a mediocre website layout or a mediocre design or a mediocre how-to guide. If I am a non-working designer and I have a chance to spend a few minutes in photoshop designing some logo for your crappy company Cheapskate Inc., it doesn't cost me anything other than time to make a logo of a roller skate with pennies for wheels. The time can be viewed as practice/portfolio work if my design doesn't get picked. If you wanted me to animate a movie or design a full functioning web app to your specifications, this would not happen--it no longer feels like entering a photoshop contest but more like real work that I should be paid for. Even more so if I am now spending money to make clothing that only fits one specific person...its not useful as a portfolio piece, its not useful to anybody else, and I am sure I could find somebody who was at least willing to pay for materials in exchange for free labor.
People have mentioned sites like shirt.woot and threadless but I don't count these as crowds-for-hire style crowdsourcing. They are more like an art contest gone wild. There are no specific requirements other than people liking their work. They are trying to make art and sell it just like any other artist (although here your price turns into some small amount of money and a free t-shirt). If threadless instead operated on a system of "hey designers, please submit a cool Boeing tshirt", they would not have such inspired designs.
I would imagine a lot of people would follow this person on twitter or want to friend them on facebook...but you want to present an clean image of the MSI, not their drunken facebook past.
You can't cite the standard source if you can't read it (also, online access comes with a paid paper subscription).
While I use old WSJ info regularly at work...I don't think I have ever even seen an article from newsday (whose paywall failed as well). Not being from the UK, I can't say for sure...but I would guess that the Times/Sunday times have suitable alternates while the WSJ/FT do not.
When you upload a photo to facebook, it is heavily compressed into a few stock sizes. The focus on compression to speed things up and save bandwidth is probably at the point of removing the few bytes taken by even the most basic EXIF data...facebook photo can be flipped through incredibly quickly (due to optimization and preloading). I am sure they keep that data stored safely away somewhere (and may someday add the ability to view it), but it certainly isn't in the pictures they actually serve up.
Why doesn't nokia take a play from htc's book and start making their top phones run android? All of the investment into s60 and ovi aps is really just a sunk cost (actually it is better than a sunk cost since it will still keep producing on lower end phones).
Nokia has a knack for designing good phones--and they used to have great, simple, to the point software--but I find my s60 phone to be a somewhat clunky platform.
My point is that the SAT tests a very basic level of math (this is intentional, they are trying to test your mathematical reasoning ability--not whether you happened to be born into a school district that did or did not have teach pre-calc to 11th graders). Having graduated a year ago with a reasonably math-intensive degree, I do not believe I learned a single new thing that is both something I didn't know in 11th grade AND something that would be on the SAT.
Nothing you learn in college math is touched on in the SATs. As a matter of fact, I think I would do worse on the SATs since it had been years since I had actually taken a math class involving numbers.
SAT math is all within the grasp of 9th graders--it is just the race against the clock that makes it hard.
Have you tried recently? You may have to activate scaletempo in preferences (should be automatic post 1.0 though)
I have watched stuff accelerated with audio that seemed fine (there is something to correct for the chipmunk effect) and most of their features are platform independent.
They are not necessarily thinking "I had better communicate this over unofficial means" but rather saying "I prefer to message my buddy on gchat than kludge through my outlook (or god forbid, lotus notes) software and email them"
People are probably even doing stupid shit like forwarding their work email to gmail.