Technically, there's no reason that bureaucracy couldn't be eliminated when it's no longer needed, even if in practice our government is terrible at doing this.
Wait, we're talking about the United States government, right? The one that never, ever, ever repeals anything, short of an Amendment?
According to AEG's new complaint, "only the plaintiff has the right to sell merchandise bearing the Festival Trademarks at and near the Festival."
This situation is what you get when you submit some bloggers opinion of an article, rather than the actual article. The blog even uses the word 'trademark', but somehow this got transformed from 'bootlegging merchandise AT the event' to 'bootlegging recordings OF the event'.
Idiocracy.
And considering that the t-shirts and whatnot have already been printed the entire issue of 'thought crime' goes out the window as well. There's every reason to believe that people will be abusing the trademark and selling unauthorized merchandise at and around the event, and every reason for the court to grant injunctive relief against it.
Unless we're transitioning into a world where rights-holders cannot even object to physical trade of knock-off products, I think a lot of the commenters here need to apologize to somebody.
You have a minimum to two cell providers in every single area in every state of the Union. One GSM, one CDMA. And of that, you should have A-side/B-side within those bandwidths.
If you don't, it sounds like you have identified a market opportunity.
In our region of the US, there are roughly two choices of ISP. Cable based, and DSL based. Sure you can go wireless, and get lousy speed. Maybe you have more choices on the coastal cities, but for a large population, there are too few choices to make this model work.
...today.
Are you willing to sacrifice tomorrow's next-gen communications technology to a bureaucracy you build today?
Sorry, that's simply ridiculous. Your proposal would have them guess the absolute peak rate of all users in their network, and then overbuild their infrastructure, even though a tiny fraction would be in use at any one time. It's a *massive* waste of resources.
Well, this would depend on whether or not usage patterns were known well enough to accurately subscribe the lines. Also usage seems to be leveling out with the advance of broadband. "Always on" and "always available, because it is online" are the colors of the modern attitude, but the line sizes and shapes were conceptualized back when modems were king.
QoS makes a *hell* of a lot more sense. Yes, the ISPs should build out anticipating higher average load thanks to streaming audio and video, etc, but QoS can be used to smooth out the peaks so that large transfers still happen in a timely fashion without impacting real-time traffic.
QoS is a private solution, not a public one. Within a single corporate entity there exists an authority who can prescribe which 'S' deserves what level of 'Q'. On the public end of the spectrum, you may feel it is critical to prioritize torrent traffic, while my wife would want NetFlix to be top priority. My son prefers YouTube not stutter, and I just want to play WoW. Without an authority to settle the disputes, chances are excellent that NO ONE will be happy with the implementation.
For this commodity, there simply isn't a free market.
While I don't necessarily disagree with you, I'd simply like to point out that accepting the FCC as the authority on this topic essentially guarantees that there never will be such a market, even if/when technology allows it.
I'm unconvinced that the problems we face are so severe as to inflict such a bureaucracy upon our grandchildren.
I'm looking for the cited 'TEAL' website, and everything I click on leads me to their book. I don't give a crap about the book, I just want to see photos of their work.
Why shouldn't it swing both ways? Doesn't the policeman have to make sure that there's actually a dead person? Or say instead, I told a policeman that you just stabbed me in the face. Doesn't the policeman have to make sure that actually happened before he arrests you?
In a case like this, where you're pleading guilty (which the defendant here actually did wind up doing), it only matters if the judge believes you. They can accept the plea and sentence you or deny the plea and make it go to trial, wherein the evidence would be required. But if said cop (or DA, actually) thinks the judge will agree to the plea, off you go to the courthouse.
Didn't he just replace the general who said we'll never win in Afghanistan, simply for saying as much?
Yes, it seems clear he intends to at least perpetuate war, which is equivalent to making it in terms of disqualifying one from any 'Peace Prize'.
Particularly since, thanks to WikiLeaks, we now know that Obama knew what a hell hole it was on the day of his inauguration. Anything short of evacuation, knowing that the cause is lost, is 'making war' for some sake other than 'peace'.
I don't recall Obama saying he caused world peace.
By the Nobel standards he did. He in fact uttered the following words many times over:
I am not George Bush
Since he had scarcely been inaugurated before the decision was made, this was clearly enough to trump every other peace-loving human on the planet and to win the award.
Statements made online are neither the equivalent of testifying in court nor expected to be 100% TRUE. If the only "evidence" the cops had was his online statement, they had no evidence at all.
Do bear in mind the following, tiny fact:
A 19-year-old man from a Toronto suburb has pleaded guilty to careless driving
Doesn't matter if they had "evidence" or not, if the judge accepted the plea, the case is closed.
Or require a keyfob authenticator, like a certain wildly popular MMO and/or your more responsible employers do. This randomizes the necessary input, rather than the layout of the screen. You could also have it ask you a series of questions. Or randomize photos and ask you to pick the one tied to the word you input when you set it all up. The list is really endless, all while leaving the keyboard in place.
Every spy movie ever made called, and they want their 'we can tell where your fingers were' concept back. Seriously, 'touch screen' does NOT make this new. People have been worried about this with keypads and the like for AGES.
You can get a new job within hours of losing the old one. You can't get banks and the police to trust you again THAT quickly after your identity's been abused to commit frauds.
In this economy?? Maybe back in 2007, but I'd say your runout on the bank clock would be faster today.
So long as the assumption of approval matches the desired behavior. In cases where approval attaches to undesirable behaviors, such as racism, you'd not see the benefit you're hoping to get.
Slashdot Mirror
But if you can get 1 night stands you can get consistent sex.
If this were true, iPhone users would have had HUNDREDS of partners, but this isn't reflected in the numbers.
Technically, there's no reason that bureaucracy couldn't be eliminated when it's no longer needed, even if in practice our government is terrible at doing this.
Wait, we're talking about the United States government, right? The one that never, ever, ever repeals anything, short of an Amendment?
According to AEG's new complaint, "only the plaintiff has the right to sell merchandise bearing the Festival Trademarks at and near the Festival."
This situation is what you get when you submit some bloggers opinion of an article, rather than the actual article. The blog even uses the word 'trademark', but somehow this got transformed from 'bootlegging merchandise AT the event' to 'bootlegging recordings OF the event'.
Idiocracy.
And considering that the t-shirts and whatnot have already been printed the entire issue of 'thought crime' goes out the window as well. There's every reason to believe that people will be abusing the trademark and selling unauthorized merchandise at and around the event, and every reason for the court to grant injunctive relief against it.
Unless we're transitioning into a world where rights-holders cannot even object to physical trade of knock-off products, I think a lot of the commenters here need to apologize to somebody.
Is it a two-party state, though?
You have a minimum to two cell providers in every single area in every state of the Union. One GSM, one CDMA. And of that, you should have A-side/B-side within those bandwidths.
If you don't, it sounds like you have identified a market opportunity.
But when those barriers to entry are induced by the government, your suggestion would be MORE government interference?
In our region of the US, there are roughly two choices of ISP. Cable based, and DSL based. Sure you can go wireless, and get lousy speed. Maybe you have more choices on the coastal cities, but for a large population, there are too few choices to make this model work.
...today.
Are you willing to sacrifice tomorrow's next-gen communications technology to a bureaucracy you build today?
Sorry, that's simply ridiculous. Your proposal would have them guess the absolute peak rate of all users in their network, and then overbuild their infrastructure, even though a tiny fraction would be in use at any one time. It's a *massive* waste of resources.
Well, this would depend on whether or not usage patterns were known well enough to accurately subscribe the lines. Also usage seems to be leveling out with the advance of broadband. "Always on" and "always available, because it is online" are the colors of the modern attitude, but the line sizes and shapes were conceptualized back when modems were king.
QoS makes a *hell* of a lot more sense. Yes, the ISPs should build out anticipating higher average load thanks to streaming audio and video, etc, but QoS can be used to smooth out the peaks so that large transfers still happen in a timely fashion without impacting real-time traffic.
QoS is a private solution, not a public one. Within a single corporate entity there exists an authority who can prescribe which 'S' deserves what level of 'Q'. On the public end of the spectrum, you may feel it is critical to prioritize torrent traffic, while my wife would want NetFlix to be top priority. My son prefers YouTube not stutter, and I just want to play WoW. Without an authority to settle the disputes, chances are excellent that NO ONE will be happy with the implementation.
As Will Rogers once said, 'when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.' Firemen use water, rather than gasoline, to extinguish fires.
For this commodity, there simply isn't a free market.
While I don't necessarily disagree with you, I'd simply like to point out that accepting the FCC as the authority on this topic essentially guarantees that there never will be such a market, even if/when technology allows it.
I'm unconvinced that the problems we face are so severe as to inflict such a bureaucracy upon our grandchildren.
I'm looking for the cited 'TEAL' website, and everything I click on leads me to their book. I don't give a crap about the book, I just want to see photos of their work.
Nice try, but I told you last time that I'd never sniff your fingers again!
Again, in this case the defendant plead guilty. No need for a doubt standard at all, other than the judge's duty.
Why shouldn't it swing both ways? Doesn't the policeman have to make sure that there's actually a dead person? Or say instead, I told a policeman that you just stabbed me in the face. Doesn't the policeman have to make sure that actually happened before he arrests you?
In a case like this, where you're pleading guilty (which the defendant here actually did wind up doing), it only matters if the judge believes you. They can accept the plea and sentence you or deny the plea and make it go to trial, wherein the evidence would be required. But if said cop (or DA, actually) thinks the judge will agree to the plea, off you go to the courthouse.
Didn't he just replace the general who said we'll never win in Afghanistan, simply for saying as much?
Yes, it seems clear he intends to at least perpetuate war, which is equivalent to making it in terms of disqualifying one from any 'Peace Prize'.
Particularly since, thanks to WikiLeaks, we now know that Obama knew what a hell hole it was on the day of his inauguration. Anything short of evacuation, knowing that the cause is lost, is 'making war' for some sake other than 'peace'.
(Then again, that's what Obama did)
I don't recall Obama saying he caused world peace.
By the Nobel standards he did. He in fact uttered the following words many times over:
I am not George Bush
Since he had scarcely been inaugurated before the decision was made, this was clearly enough to trump every other peace-loving human on the planet and to win the award.
Do bear in mind the following, tiny fact:
A 19-year-old man from a Toronto suburb has pleaded guilty to careless driving
Doesn't matter if they had "evidence" or not, if the judge accepted the plea, the case is closed.
(Sorry for the repost, but what does one expect to an identical question, if not an identical answer...)
Statements made online are neither the equivalent of testifying in court nor expected to be 100% TRUE. If the only "evidence" the cops had was his online statement, they had no evidence at all.
Do bear in mind the following, tiny fact:
A 19-year-old man from a Toronto suburb has pleaded guilty to careless driving
Doesn't matter if they had "evidence" or not, if the judge accepted the plea, the case is closed.
Or require a keyfob authenticator, like a certain wildly popular MMO and/or your more responsible employers do. This randomizes the necessary input, rather than the layout of the screen. You could also have it ask you a series of questions. Or randomize photos and ask you to pick the one tied to the word you input when you set it all up. The list is really endless, all while leaving the keyboard in place.
Every spy movie ever made called, and they want their 'we can tell where your fingers were' concept back. Seriously, 'touch screen' does NOT make this new. People have been worried about this with keypads and the like for AGES.
You can get a new job within hours of losing the old one. You can't get banks and the police to trust you again THAT quickly after your identity's been abused to commit frauds.
In this economy?? Maybe back in 2007, but I'd say your runout on the bank clock would be faster today.
So long as the assumption of approval matches the desired behavior. In cases where approval attaches to undesirable behaviors, such as racism, you'd not see the benefit you're hoping to get.
But if they knew they were being tested, it would still certainly impact their behavior, which was the salient point within the thesis above.
...and there was no motivation to 'look good' to anyone.
So they used robots in India, rather than humans? Or do Indians simply not desire human approval? I'm confused by your statement.
If you didn't care, why not just ignore it, rather than go the 'STFU' route? Unless you care also, if only because others do.