If these providers were really treating me so incredibly unfairly, why wouldnâ(TM)t another option naturally emerge? Hasnt that always been the cycle of technology? Someone does something poorly and then someone else can do it better and make lots of money.
This article is really about pricing of broadband service to rural areas. Being from a rural area, I can difinitively state that we are happy to have something- please donâ(TM)t take that away by getting government involved and depriving providers of an incentive to deliver services to agricultural towns with low population densities. While I appreciate these authorsâ(TM) concern for fly over country, it is misguided.
What about prevention of recidivism? The Catholic priest abuse scandal happened because leaders turned a blind eye to recidivism and failed to warn or detect targets being groomed. Shouldn't treatment science or statistics be a basis for determining whether recidivism is an intolerable risk? Perhaps lists should be easier to exit based on psychological evidence but to advocate eliminating them entirely is to forget the hard lessons we have learned.
Socialism rests on the idea that the economic pie is static and can't grow and thus one group can acquire all the stuff . Ludites similarly believe there are a ridiculously small number of ideas for prodects or services and one group (machines) can take all the jobs. The agricultural revolution is a great example of the falicy of both ideas. Automation both grew the pie by making food cheaper and grew the number of types of jobs from nearly one to what we have today.
You have bought the "not marked" lie Clinton hoped would confuse uninformed people. General Petreus pled guilty to disclosing unmarked handwritten notes of meetings to his mistress. "Marking " is irrelevant. Knowing or being on notice is sufficient. Hillary's only real defense is "I didn't know". But that defense hurts her because it demonstrates utter incompetence so she hasn't been using it.
The cost of a credit protection service enrolled in as a precaution is damage enough. This is a forseeable injury regardless of actual fraud. The class representatives could have subscribed to some service and pled the class as existing of all persons that incurred this expense. The result is the negligent company is held accountable and other companies are on notice that they will be held accountable.
If there was actual fraud for some persons, it would destroy the commonality requirement for class certification; the persons suffering fraud would all have had different levels and types of damages.
As usual for Slashdot, the article description doesn't track TFA (any of them) and misses the truth. First off, the cited article doesn't talk about this guy convincing banks to create products he bet against. Rather, he noticed that the market was using insane valuations for subprime mortgages and bet against them. That is smart, not evil. To use a tech analogy, what if IT Joe recognized a Zero Day exploit, implemented a fix, warned everyone, then sat back as his network survived and everyone else's were trashed? No one here would call IT Joe a villain. No the real reason Paulson is hated is envy. Just be real, he has more than you and you want it.
"Buying bits of corporations" does not avoid tax on income. Income is taxed when it is recieved. Investing after tax income allows dividends to be taxed at capital gains rates. This rate is set to encourage investment in the economy and to recognize the corporation already paid taxes on money distributed to investors.
Placing income producing assets in a corporation will, however, cause income to be taxed at the corporate rate and avoid tax.
You should be "buying bits of corporations" every chance you get. Not because it avoids taxation but because your money is rotting with the high inflation created to artificially lower interest rates.
The normal thing here is someone on Slashdot didnt read the TFA. The debate is about corporate taxation not "the rich". The individuals still pay the tax on wages. It is fair (intellectually, not necissarily a correct posititon) to argue that income should be taxed twice, once at the corporation an once with the investor / employee. It is also fair (intellectually, not necissarily a correct posititon) to debate deductions. But it is knee jerk illogic to confuse a debate about corporate taxation with the debate whether "the rich" pay their fair share.
FYI the cleaning and planting in season 2 is an intentional act. The farmer that buys the Round Up Ready seed is well informed and actually signs an agreement not to clean and re-plant. The agreement actually requires practices to reduce cross-pollination. For example, in corn crops, detassling
The usual poorly informed Slashdot debate has focused on accidental cross-polination. That is not the issue.
We can debate the efficacy of patents and other intellectual property protections in spurring innovation and I am not completely convinced either way. I know Round Up Ready is very effective but over used to the point of creating resistant weeds. But that doesn't change the issue at work here that Monsanto is targeting intentional conduct not accidental. Granted, accidental cross-pollination may occur.
Technically wrong.
A soybean, what you eat, is the seed. Pollination has nothing to do with it. A farmer buys seed from Monsanto in year/ season 1, harvests, cleans the soybeans to prepare it for use as seed, and plants in year/ season 2.
If people want to solve a problem, at least decide what the problem is. What is the greater evil, too much or too little corn?
As a side note, seaweed biofuels may be a better solution to bio-fuels - or it may not. Treating the environment and problems of world hunger as questions with such a simple answer is dangerous.
The fundamental error here is a confusion about what a virtual world is and how virtual worlds relate to the real world. A virtual game world must, to be worth the name, and to be worth entering, be like our world: a world with physics and freedom of individual action. Any restraints on action of the players must arise via social organization within that world. If the characters want to create laws and build prisons, or apply peer pressure to others, fine. But for the human beings running the game to reach in and impose what amount to magical constraints from the in-world point of view, such as striking characters dead every time they commit certain actions, is deeply wrong and undermines the whole business. It's worse than playing God.
The appropriate response then, is a virtual Hague.
"We have to have the same civil rights online as we have offline. Imagine if the U.S. authorities wanted to do a house search at my home, go through my private papers."
The right to free speech is not infinite. Especially when your speech infringes on the rights of others (try right to life of soldiers and CIA),
This woman would be subject to having her home searched and private papers viewed if she were physically in the US. Physical papers could be searched if they were in a US bank vault. The same rule applies when she stores her private papers here electronically. If you don't like a jurisdiction's policy calls on the lines drawn regarding speech and privacy - don't speak in that jurisdiction (servers located there).
Due process has been afforded and civil rights upheld. From TFA - the justice department followed the law and the use of the law was allowed to be challenged.
That's the case I just settled. My client's didn't trust banks (go figure) and kept their cash in a safe. They got most of their cash from a legal action but they couldn't account for all of it because their job was tip based and they couldn't prove their expenses. Long story short, they went to make a large purchase, people got suspicious, and 90% of American currency has cocaine residue (either from being used to snort or simply going through money counters at a bank). Under a few states' laws and the former federal law, known as civil forfeiture, you are guilty until proven innocent. See e.g. USA v. $124,700. Only property connected with drugs is forfeited, but the raw deal is that innocent people must prove their innocence and guilty people must prove the proportion of their guilt to get the property back. Double Jeopardy does not apply and so the guilty person that proved his guilt to get his property back has proved the states' later criminal case.
My clients settled for less than their entire amount (like everyone does) because of the uncertainties of trial - they couldn't prove how much money they spent from their legal award and they couldn't completely prove how much they made in their jobs. Further, my clients were minorities and the case was venued in a minority unfriendly county.
>>>realize that the right of free speech comes with the duty to exercise it responsibly.
...
If you want balance, you do it through freedom and liberty, not control. If the Washington Post prints Obama-loving articles, than you counterbalance that with your own paper which prints McCain-loving articles. You then leave it to the People to decide, for themselves, where the truth lies. Not some authoritarian censor.
Excellent point.
I do have a 1st Amendment nuance to add. The Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire list (which has been shrunk). Things like yelling fire in a crowded theater and comments that create a "clear and present danger" (a test that has been narrowed significantly) can be regulated by the government. Further, damaging the reputation of a private citizen (and sometimes public figures) can also be the subject of government control.
However, the original poster does have a point if the comment was not intended to refer to the government, the 1st Amendment only protects speech from government regulation. We do have a social responsibility (ethical duty) to speak responsibly but it isn't any more of a duty to spend our money wisely or care for the environment. The media's duty is especially important. When no one trusts the media, they have failed society. The Framer's of the Constitution envisioned a special responsibility of the media in preserving democracy - hence the 1st Amendment Freedom of The Press. They believed exactly what the parent has stated, that truth will be discovered by the people in the market place of ideas.
The press does have responsibility in a democracy. When news sources stop auditing for truth, when there is no alternative that provides near 100% truth, then the system has failed. In doing a review of a newspaper's bias, they are acting responsibly. Now if only they had acted responsibly to begin with.
However, if Federal law were to follow California law (which it may or may not do), then that would supposedly render moot (mootify?) any non-compete clauses anywhere else in the US.
Its not quite so clear and depends on conflict of laws principles. Under the Erie doctrine a federal court (with diversity jurisdiction) applies the substantive law (not procedural) of the state in which it sits. Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co. extended the Erie doctrine to a state's conflict of laws rules (the case found that conflict of laws rules were substantive and not procedural). Thus, the California decision only has extraterritorial effect if the state where the federal court sits would apply California law in the situation. Generally, application of another state's law in a contract case will require the connecting factors of either the place of execution of the contract or the place where the contract was to be performed. Federal courts would only invalidate a non-compete if (the federal court found that) the state where it was located would itself invalidate the provision under its law or the law of another state under conflict of laws principles.
Still impossible to tie it to a MAC address with any certainty that that MAC address corresponds to the same person now as it did then. For instance, say CompOnwer 1 owns Comp A with MAC 1 uploads a bunch of crap on kazaa. RIAA gets to requesting the info but lags. In the mean time, Comp A is sold to another person on the same campus, becoming CompOwner 2 owning Comp A with MAC 1. The way DHCP works, they are likely to end up with the same IP and same MAC address but its a totally different person.
I don't see why this is a problem. Its like a hit and run case where they know the car. Claiming the car was driven by someone else by sale or permission is a defense - it does not invalidate the entire case.
The important difference that the court in this case needs to realize is that in a campus piracy scenario - every case could be a "borrowed car" situation because it is much more likely that a computer will have multiple owners/users. Then add the further complexity that MAC is not as permanent as the RIAA would have people believe.
My statements mean (as much as statements can have any meaning) [...]
Your argument rests on the fact that it is possible (at least in theory) for a statement to have a meaning? I like your foundation.
I'm guessing that you are claiming a self-contradiction in my theory? Not quite, its more of a lost in translation theory - there is a disconnect between what we mean to convey and what is received by others. Its simply a result of everyone having different perspectives.
The best example I have of this is communication between nerds and females. For example, my relationship with my ex. I view the world through the lens of a computer scientist/law student which is rigidly logic based while she was VERY emotion based. It took a lot of work to even attempt to fit myself into her perspective. The classic "eureka" moment was when I discovered that "are you hungry" meant that she wanted to get something to eat and me answering "no" was an insult.
Slashdot Mirror
If these providers were really treating me so incredibly unfairly, why wouldnâ(TM)t another option naturally emerge? Hasnt that always been the cycle of technology? Someone does something poorly and then someone else can do it better and make lots of money. This article is really about pricing of broadband service to rural areas. Being from a rural area, I can difinitively state that we are happy to have something- please donâ(TM)t take that away by getting government involved and depriving providers of an incentive to deliver services to agricultural towns with low population densities. While I appreciate these authorsâ(TM) concern for fly over country, it is misguided.
Jackie Spear says requiring ids in other contexts are racist. https://capac-chu.house.gov/pr.... Why not here?
Are you sure? Is that true for all offenders? Check out the John jay study for the Catholic Bishops.
What about prevention of recidivism? The Catholic priest abuse scandal happened because leaders turned a blind eye to recidivism and failed to warn or detect targets being groomed. Shouldn't treatment science or statistics be a basis for determining whether recidivism is an intolerable risk? Perhaps lists should be easier to exit based on psychological evidence but to advocate eliminating them entirely is to forget the hard lessons we have learned.
Go look up what a straw argument is. You are confused.
Mod up, I clicked on this thread explicitly to see if anyone caught this fact. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Socialism rests on the idea that the economic pie is static and can't grow and thus one group can acquire all the stuff . Ludites similarly believe there are a ridiculously small number of ideas for prodects or services and one group (machines) can take all the jobs. The agricultural revolution is a great example of the falicy of both ideas. Automation both grew the pie by making food cheaper and grew the number of types of jobs from nearly one to what we have today.
You have bought the "not marked" lie Clinton hoped would confuse uninformed people. General Petreus pled guilty to disclosing unmarked handwritten notes of meetings to his mistress. "Marking " is irrelevant. Knowing or being on notice is sufficient. Hillary's only real defense is "I didn't know". But that defense hurts her because it demonstrates utter incompetence so she hasn't been using it.
The cost of a credit protection service enrolled in as a precaution is damage enough. This is a forseeable injury regardless of actual fraud. The class representatives could have subscribed to some service and pled the class as existing of all persons that incurred this expense. The result is the negligent company is held accountable and other companies are on notice that they will be held accountable. If there was actual fraud for some persons, it would destroy the commonality requirement for class certification; the persons suffering fraud would all have had different levels and types of damages.
As usual for Slashdot, the article description doesn't track TFA (any of them) and misses the truth. First off, the cited article doesn't talk about this guy convincing banks to create products he bet against. Rather, he noticed that the market was using insane valuations for subprime mortgages and bet against them. That is smart, not evil. To use a tech analogy, what if IT Joe recognized a Zero Day exploit, implemented a fix, warned everyone, then sat back as his network survived and everyone else's were trashed? No one here would call IT Joe a villain. No the real reason Paulson is hated is envy. Just be real, he has more than you and you want it.
A government telco isn't a monopoly?
"Buying bits of corporations" does not avoid tax on income. Income is taxed when it is recieved. Investing after tax income allows dividends to be taxed at capital gains rates. This rate is set to encourage investment in the economy and to recognize the corporation already paid taxes on money distributed to investors.
Placing income producing assets in a corporation will, however, cause income to be taxed at the corporate rate and avoid tax.
You should be "buying bits of corporations" every chance you get. Not because it avoids taxation but because your money is rotting with the high inflation created to artificially lower interest rates.
This is normal - the rich don't pay tax.
The normal thing here is someone on Slashdot didnt read the TFA. The debate is about corporate taxation not "the rich". The individuals still pay the tax on wages.
It is fair (intellectually, not necissarily a correct posititon) to argue that income should be taxed twice, once at the corporation an once with the investor / employee. It is also fair (intellectually, not necissarily a correct posititon) to debate deductions. But it is knee jerk illogic to confuse a debate about corporate taxation with the debate whether "the rich" pay their fair share.
There are some Slashdot articles I click through just to ensure an obligatory remark is made. Good job.
FYI the cleaning and planting in season 2 is an intentional act. The farmer that buys the Round Up Ready seed is well informed and actually signs an agreement not to clean and re-plant. The agreement actually requires practices to reduce cross-pollination. For example, in corn crops, detassling
The usual poorly informed Slashdot debate has focused on accidental cross-polination. That is not the issue. We can debate the efficacy of patents and other intellectual property protections in spurring innovation and I am not completely convinced either way. I know Round Up Ready is very effective but over used to the point of creating resistant weeds. But that doesn't change the issue at work here that Monsanto is targeting intentional conduct not accidental. Granted, accidental cross-pollination may occur.
Signed: A farmer's son.
Technically wrong. A soybean, what you eat, is the seed. Pollination has nothing to do with it. A farmer buys seed from Monsanto in year/ season 1, harvests, cleans the soybeans to prepare it for use as seed, and plants in year/ season 2.
"It grows in much of the two thirds of the planet that is underwater, so it wouldn't crowd out food crops the way corn for ethanol does. "
There is so much uneducated FUD about biofuel which only goes to show that the best of intentions among environmentalists and world hunger activists can have adverse environmental and social impacts. If use of corn for ethanol was an issue I would expect the vulnerable third world countries to be crying out for the US to sell them corn, but that isn't the case. The third world is attempting to curb the expansion of US production of corn. See e.g. http://prospectjournal.ucsd.edu/index.php/2010/04/nafta-and-u-s-corn-subsidies-explaining-the-displacement-of-mexicos-corn-farmers/ http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/truth.pdf
If people want to solve a problem, at least decide what the problem is. What is the greater evil, too much or too little corn?
As a side note, seaweed biofuels may be a better solution to bio-fuels - or it may not. Treating the environment and problems of world hunger as questions with such a simple answer is dangerous.
The fundamental error here is a confusion about what a virtual world is and how virtual worlds relate to the real world. A virtual game world must, to be worth the name, and to be worth entering, be like our world: a world with physics and freedom of individual action. Any restraints on action of the players must arise via social organization within that world. If the characters want to create laws and build prisons, or apply peer pressure to others, fine. But for the human beings running the game to reach in and impose what amount to magical constraints from the in-world point of view, such as striking characters dead every time they commit certain actions, is deeply wrong and undermines the whole business. It's worse than playing God.
The appropriate response then, is a virtual Hague.
"We have to have the same civil rights online as we have offline. Imagine if the U.S. authorities wanted to do a house search at my home, go through my private papers."
The right to free speech is not infinite. Especially when your speech infringes on the rights of others (try right to life of soldiers and CIA),
This woman would be subject to having her home searched and private papers viewed if she were physically in the US. Physical papers could be searched if they were in a US bank vault. The same rule applies when she stores her private papers here electronically. If you don't like a jurisdiction's policy calls on the lines drawn regarding speech and privacy - don't speak in that jurisdiction (servers located there).
Due process has been afforded and civil rights upheld. From TFA - the justice department followed the law and the use of the law was allowed to be challenged.
That's the case I just settled. My client's didn't trust banks (go figure) and kept their cash in a safe. They got most of their cash from a legal action but they couldn't account for all of it because their job was tip based and they couldn't prove their expenses. Long story short, they went to make a large purchase, people got suspicious, and 90% of American currency has cocaine residue (either from being used to snort or simply going through money counters at a bank). Under a few states' laws and the former federal law, known as civil forfeiture, you are guilty until proven innocent. See e.g. USA v. $124,700. Only property connected with drugs is forfeited, but the raw deal is that innocent people must prove their innocence and guilty people must prove the proportion of their guilt to get the property back. Double Jeopardy does not apply and so the guilty person that proved his guilt to get his property back has proved the states' later criminal case.
My clients settled for less than their entire amount (like everyone does) because of the uncertainties of trial - they couldn't prove how much money they spent from their legal award and they couldn't completely prove how much they made in their jobs. Further, my clients were minorities and the case was venued in a minority unfriendly county.
You know, much as it would happen here.
You really have to love government humility and responsibility.
Well ... Blowout Taking down a dam used to require an act of Congress-or terror. Now it's just good business. No comment - just relevant.
>>>realize that the right of free speech comes with the duty to exercise it responsibly.
If you want balance, you do it through freedom and liberty, not control. If the Washington Post prints Obama-loving articles, than you counterbalance that with your own paper which prints McCain-loving articles. You then leave it to the People to decide, for themselves, where the truth lies. Not some authoritarian censor.
Excellent point.
I do have a 1st Amendment nuance to add. The Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire list (which has been shrunk). Things like yelling fire in a crowded theater and comments that create a "clear and present danger" (a test that has been narrowed significantly) can be regulated by the government. Further, damaging the reputation of a private citizen (and sometimes public figures) can also be the subject of government control.
However, the original poster does have a point if the comment was not intended to refer to the government, the 1st Amendment only protects speech from government regulation. We do have a social responsibility (ethical duty) to speak responsibly but it isn't any more of a duty to spend our money wisely or care for the environment. The media's duty is especially important. When no one trusts the media, they have failed society. The Framer's of the Constitution envisioned a special responsibility of the media in preserving democracy - hence the 1st Amendment Freedom of The Press. They believed exactly what the parent has stated, that truth will be discovered by the people in the market place of ideas.
The press does have responsibility in a democracy. When news sources stop auditing for truth, when there is no alternative that provides near 100% truth, then the system has failed. In doing a review of a newspaper's bias, they are acting responsibly. Now if only they had acted responsibly to begin with.
However, if Federal law were to follow California law (which it may or may not do), then that would supposedly render moot (mootify?) any non-compete clauses anywhere else in the US.
Its not quite so clear and depends on conflict of laws principles. Under the Erie doctrine a federal court (with diversity jurisdiction) applies the substantive law (not procedural) of the state in which it sits. Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co. extended the Erie doctrine to a state's conflict of laws rules (the case found that conflict of laws rules were substantive and not procedural). Thus, the California decision only has extraterritorial effect if the state where the federal court sits would apply California law in the situation. Generally, application of another state's law in a contract case will require the connecting factors of either the place of execution of the contract or the place where the contract was to be performed. Federal courts would only invalidate a non-compete if (the federal court found that) the state where it was located would itself invalidate the provision under its law or the law of another state under conflict of laws principles.
Still impossible to tie it to a MAC address with any certainty that that MAC address corresponds to the same person now as it did then. For instance, say CompOnwer 1 owns Comp A with MAC 1 uploads a bunch of crap on kazaa. RIAA gets to requesting the info but lags. In the mean time, Comp A is sold to another person on the same campus, becoming CompOwner 2 owning Comp A with MAC 1. The way DHCP works, they are likely to end up with the same IP and same MAC address but its a totally different person.
I don't see why this is a problem. Its like a hit and run case where they know the car. Claiming the car was driven by someone else by sale or permission is a defense - it does not invalidate the entire case.
The important difference that the court in this case needs to realize is that in a campus piracy scenario - every case could be a "borrowed car" situation because it is much more likely that a computer will have multiple owners/users. Then add the further complexity that MAC is not as permanent as the RIAA would have people believe.
My statements mean (as much as statements can have any meaning) [...]
Your argument rests on the fact that it is possible (at least in theory) for a statement to have a meaning? I like your foundation.
I'm guessing that you are claiming a self-contradiction in my theory? Not quite, its more of a lost in translation theory - there is a disconnect between what we mean to convey and what is received by others. Its simply a result of everyone having different perspectives.
The best example I have of this is communication between nerds and females. For example, my relationship with my ex. I view the world through the lens of a computer scientist/law student which is rigidly logic based while she was VERY emotion based. It took a lot of work to even attempt to fit myself into her perspective. The classic "eureka" moment was when I discovered that "are you hungry" meant that she wanted to get something to eat and me answering "no" was an insult.