Governments don't grant rights, we institute governments to secure our rights. If the Canadian government fails to do so, then the Canadian people should overthrow it.
-jcr Assuming you're American (I shouldn't, but for sake of argument...) the current US administration has been destroying your rights under your God-almighty constitution and Bill of Rights for the last six or seven years.
We'll think about removing our government outside of democratic elections only after the US population shows the guts to use that second amendment of yours as it was intended, and do the same to your government first.
Funny how they should complain about this buy out when there letting all Canadian companies get sold. It's really pathetic when you distrust your closest trading partner. It's really pathetic when your closest trading partner keeps screwing you over (softwood lumber), ignores international court rulings in your favour (lumber again) claims your sovereignty doesn't exist (Northwest passage), tries to steal your resources under NAFTA (fresh water), etc.
Other countries typically haven't screwed us over like our alleged closest friend. What's truly pathetic is that the US brought this distrust upon themselves.
Personally I have been toying around with the idea of government enforced requirement of 3rd party audits for comercial software. Not only would this create a new software auditing business, but also improve software quality and not only in security.
The government should have no part in regulating software. The government is utterly incompetent when it comes to tech issues, and they can't even fund their patent system with sufficiently technical people to reject frivolous patents. A specific software audit agency would do no better.
Nor should the government task a third party with such a task--who is going to vet *them*, make sure they're not taking bribes?
Then we get into the "who's fault is it, really?" with hundreds of interacting components--is it the hardware's fault, the OS's fault, or the third party software's fault? I've read about the fun people had trying to get tech support for Windows PCs, where they keep passing the buck on for more obscure problems.
No, I think government regulation for software should remain restricted to critical, life-or-death systems like airplanes, nuclear power plant systems, hospital systems, etc; anything directly affecting the principles of government (e.g. voting systems); and of course any project directly initiated by government (but any organization should do this with outsourced work anyway).
Governments should be able to impose fines on, or make it easier for injured parties to sue, large commercial entities with shoddy quality. This would take care of those who developed the banking system you mentioned. Smaller outfits and non-commercial software should be immune, or have liability limited on some sliding scale, based on how many declared projects use it, how many actual users of the derived project use it, etc.
(Incidentally, if I'm not mistaken this would work out great for GPL projects--if a commercial project is not a registered, declared "user" of a GPL project, it reduces the GPL project's liability. If they then try suing for damages, they admit to using code without providing source as mandated by GPL.)
Even then there are practical and jurisdiction issues--e.g. if it's coded and hosted in a European country, how's the US government going to prevent its use in software other than their own? And at what point in a project is it considered "auditable?" Make it version 1, and it'll remain in beta forever.
Subjecting small organizations to the same rigour as large ones only prevents innovative startups from happening, and ensures that only the lumbering megacorps will survive. They're the ones who could afford all the lawyers, "quality" coders, and necessary kickbacks. The last thing we need is for the software world to be turned into the fiasco that is the telecom industry; software patents are already making the software field a landmine.
The most audited, vetted software in the world is probably that which runs the space shuttle. Overall it's probably cost tens or hundreds of millions to program/audit, uses hardware components over ten years old (all of which underwent their own audits), and all told is probably small enough to fit on a 16 MB thumb drive.
There is no need to hold most software to the same degree of reliability. Does losing an hour's work because PowerPoint crash suck? Yes. Is it life-and-death? No (under normal circumstances). Is it worth having more government pork to audit Microsoft for security issues? No. And I despise Microsoft with a raging passion.
All bugs should be reported immediately to the developer. Period.
(Giving up my spent mod points to reply to this)
I agree, in principle.
From a practical POV though, who's to say this guy would even bother finding obscure (one hopes) security holes anyway, without the financial and other incentives offered by this contest?
Black hats are often funded by criminals. May as well offer a carrot to the White/gray hats so they don't get tempted by the dark side.
Driver punches in his destination and flying car refuses to take off due to not having enough fuel. The cars are going to be 99.9% automated, except maybe for special sports models that will probably require a full pilot license to fly.
Microsoft didn't bother to program Windows to check the destination disk for sufficient space before it starts copying files over (Macs do, don't know about Linux). I wouldn't trust that programmers of flying cars to do preflight checks correctly and automatically.
Hell, just look at the millions spent on programming avionics software in airplanes, which are limited in variety, have the benefit of maintenance guys checking over things all the time, and on set schedules. Yet they still require manual pre-flight for many critical functions like "do we have enough fuel to get from A to B," still require a human pilot to handle unexpected situations, and despite it all, there are still bugs that have caused crashes.
Now try that with mass-market, affordable flying cars, where many drivers today can't be bothered to even service the engine or change their brakes. Then we'll get the jerks who, in absence of licenses to fly cars, will hack their cars to give them manual control anyway.
Given all that, I think I'd prefer cars remain grounded.
You don't need one. I use an old bathroom scale to weigh my luggage, works like a charm.
And before anyone makes a smartass remark about luggage not fitting on a bathroom scale, step on it yourself without a piece of luggage in hand, then with.
Of course, this requires basic math skills which many people can't be bothered with...
Agree 100%. I was on a flight home and our plane was not only an hour late getting to the gate for us to board (remembering they had to deplane and clean up after the previous passengers too), after we finally got out they stuck us at the end of the takeoff runway for a half hour because they had to double-check the cargo/luggage weight. This caused me to miss my connecting 12:15 a.m. connecting flight because the baggage handlers at the hub shut down right before midnight.
The bastard at the connecting baggage carousel directed us to head out and check back in, fully knowing that if *his* carousel was closed, the ones *outside* the secure area would be too. This neatly prevented us from going back in and reaming his sorry ass and forcing us to spend the night at the airport.
And no, the airline didn't give us hotel or food vouchers because it was "non-controllable"--i.e. it wasn't a maintenance problem. Well it sure as fuck wasn't weather! Some clown messed up to make them double-check the weight, that's human error. I don't care where in the chain it was, I paid the airline, I'm their customer. They compensate me first, and then they can lean on those responsible for wasting their money.
In retrospect I should've just left the luggage at the connecting baggage carousel, boarded my flight, and filed a missing baggage claim at my destination. THAT definitely costs them time and money, and I didn't have anything especially valuable in their anyway.
FYI, Canada signed WIPO, but has not yet ratified it. And considering how the US routinely ignores rulings against it by WTO and NAFTA (both of which I believe have been ratified by the US), I'm more than happy that Canada is dragging their heels on the issue.
Any normal person with half a brain can look at the US' DMCA and see it's a very bad idea.
This issue is that lobby groups in the US are trying to influence trade policy, to force Canada to fall in line. Canada has had to keep up with alot of WIPO / WTO copyright changes over the years just to stay a member. The US could easily say "well if you don't honour our IP, we won't let you trade lumber...".
The softwood lumber dispute showed just how fucking hypocritical the US government is in world trade matters. Almost all WTO and NAFTA rulings went against the US position and told them to pay back the billions they've stolen from Canadian lumber companies in the form of tariffs. The US refused, refused, refused, and eventually the incoming Conservative government fell into line and kissed the Bush administration's ass.
If the US gets to flip the bird at treaty obligations that it ratified (which are usually weighted in the US' favour already), Canada has no obligation to follow the letter of the WIPO treaty which it signed but not yet ratified, especially when the WIPO is so out of whack with reality.
Canada is in fact one of the last western countries to stand up (even if by inaction) against the special interest groups that want to destroy human culture by locking it up for insane copyright times.
When the US starts respecting international trade laws and treaties, then I might start thinking we should do the same for matters concerning US interests.
You're strongly advised against that because you're also not allowed to lock your luggage any more, and the strong possibility of it getting stolen
Not true. They advise not using locks, and warn that they will break them if necessary to search baggage.
However, TSA's own website talks about TSA-approved locks which they have master keys to. Some even come with indicators that (supposedly) show if a master key was used instead of your own key/combination, since they can't be trusted to leave a Notice of Inspection like they're supposed to, that tells you your bag was opened and searched.
I have these locks and had no problem flying to and from Orlando a few months ago.
You'd think any sensible autocomplete feature would remember your last selection for the same string, or at least make the default choice the most recently emailed match.
Mac OSX's Mail does this and better. It seems to be ordered by some combination of "most used" and "most recently used" and doesn't necessarily even group entries for the same person (but different emails) together.
This is so true! I am in japan now and they go bananas every time I want to put soy sauce on my rice. In Sweden, and other parts of europe I guess, we can put soy sauce on the rice. But here in Japan it is not acceptible - sauce on rice is "dog food", very strange..:) The most funny thing is that when I try to tell them "I like it better this way", they truly do not understand what I mean. It seems food here is not about eating in a way you like but rather eating in a way that the ancients developed thousands of years ago. Weird people.
Westerners often eat cooked rice which is drier and doesn't stick by itself, so some type of sauce is usually added to make it stick together better on a fork.
Traditional Japanese (also Chinese and probably other *ese) traditionally eat rice which is moist and sticky by default, obviating any need to douse it with soy or other sauce. Sauce from the various dishes is acceptable.
Rice was not meant to be eaten in isolation, but that's exactly what happens when you put it onto a plate...
Taxes are on a sliding scale, no? Candidates would pay nothing if their campaign spending is below a certain limit, while those that spend millions get hit. The thinking being that if they're already spending that much money trying to convince us to elect them, they must have a vested interest in making sure their vote counts are accurate.
Of course, this'll never happen because those who actually hold power (or have a shot at getting it) would never do anything to take money away from themselves.
Further, given the metric crapload of money candidates already spend/waste on campaigning, you'd think there would be a system in place to skim off a percentage towards recounts. Election insurance, as it were.
Why the hell not? You're voting to give these clowns the right to skim money off *your* income for their pork barrel projects...
What's wrong with hibernating your workstation instead of shutting it down? Same effect--everything is powered down, unlike standby where contents remain in RAM.
I don't much myself, but on my last trip I flew 4 different planes, all Air Canada, all economy seats. Two were regional (connect to Canadian hub) and the others to/from Florida.
All four not only had personal entertainment systems, but also seat-back AC outlets that would take any North American- or Australian-type plugs. Hell, it even had a USB port for iPod and other connection cables, and these were all flights lasting less than 3 hours!
If all airlines followed this trend there wouldn't be any need to buy plane adapters, and the argument for spare batteries for lengthy flights would be rendered entirely null and void.
You can't lock your luggage anymore when traveling (right?)
You can, actually. They just recommend you don't, since regular locks they'll cut away if they want to inspect your bag.
However, TSA's own site describes TSA-approved locks that you can buy, which open with a "master" key or combination.
The set of TSA-approved locks I got even has a green/red status port. If the TSA has opened it using a master key, it goes red. The TSA is *supposed* to leave a Notice of Inspection if they've opened your bags for inspection, but my brother didn't get one last year and they *definitely* went through his checked bag.
There's a critical difference with your capital punishment comparison.
China has executed some people fairly high up the food chain, like their FDA chief, or a bank official. These are not your regular, fairly anonymous people like those executed in US states, but are among the small, wealthy minority of people who wielded significant influence and power.
Slashdotters are always complaining about how laws never get passed that touch the wealthy in western countries, or they skip out of the country and retire in the Carribean, or how they always get cushy sentences. While there's still a lot wrong with the Chinese government, backing up your anti-corruption campaign by executing high-profile officials says to everyone that money and power are not enough to shield you from your crimes, and goes a long way to curbing such behaviour.
Since traffic lights are overseen by either municipal or provincial governments, the traffic laws must allow for it somewhere. IIRC flashing greens are specifically described in Ontario's official driver's handbook, which is pretty much required reading prior to taking the driver's licence written test.
Adding a light box in a busy intersection is probably a lot pricier than a reprogramming; you have to do it during an off-peak time, possibly requiring overtime pay for the contractors, etc.
I don't know that my scenario is actually why an intersection has flashing greens; it's just an explanation I find plausible.
there's this little thing called the "Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices" or MUTCD. Your flashing green ball to indicate a protected movement isn't in there. In MUTCD countries we use a much more civilized solution: the green arrow.
I live in Ontario. Most dedicated turn lanes usually have the green arrow, but I imagine flashing greens are used when the intersection wasn't expected to have a large number of left-turn traffic versus oncoming traffic.
So, after many complaints (e.g. having to wait several cycles before you're able to turn on a yellow), officials simply reprogram the lights to flash an advance green, rather than go through the time and expense of adding a green arrow block to the traffic lights (which requires reprogramming too).
a) Thank you so much, Conservative Prime Minister Harper, for being in Mr. Bush's pocket
b) good for the Canadian border agents, for at least letting the women know why they were being detained and questioned. This way they were able to take this nonsense to the press and at least try effecting change in this policy.
As a Canadian citizen, I hope we don't give that citizenship back, and further, that he's never let back into Canada. He made such a fuss over it, in order to accept a British lordship, that to give it back would give the message (well, reinforce, really) that if you have enough money and influence, it doesn't matter what you did you can still get your way. Even if you're a convicted criminal.
I have no desire to see him sit in a Canadian jail, taking up my tax money. He made his bed, he can lie in it.
There's a big downside to FSEvents' "folder changes only" model.
If you move a file or folder to another folder, or even just rename it, it will copy to backup rather than hardlinking to the previous location/name (I verified this using "ls -la" in Terminal and checking the hardlink counts). Best to avoid constantly renaming your video files;-)
Now, I can see why this happens: although every file has a unique ID that doesn't change when you move it (this is why aliases will find their targets as long as it's on the same drive), FSEvents isn't logging these for TM to pick up. So, TM knows the folder contents changed somehow, does a folder diff, and copies to backup anything "new," and stops hard-linking any file that's been "removed" from that folder.
Hopefully FSEvents and TM will be updated somehow to handle moves and renames, but I suppose they've evaluated the performance tradeoffs already.
Slashdot Mirror
-jcr Assuming you're American (I shouldn't, but for sake of argument...) the current US administration has been destroying your rights under your God-almighty constitution and Bill of Rights for the last six or seven years.
We'll think about removing our government outside of democratic elections only after the US population shows the guts to use that second amendment of yours as it was intended, and do the same to your government first.
Other countries typically haven't screwed us over like our alleged closest friend. What's truly pathetic is that the US brought this distrust upon themselves.
The government should have no part in regulating software. The government is utterly incompetent when it comes to tech issues, and they can't even fund their patent system with sufficiently technical people to reject frivolous patents. A specific software audit agency would do no better.
Nor should the government task a third party with such a task--who is going to vet *them*, make sure they're not taking bribes?
Then we get into the "who's fault is it, really?" with hundreds of interacting components--is it the hardware's fault, the OS's fault, or the third party software's fault? I've read about the fun people had trying to get tech support for Windows PCs, where they keep passing the buck on for more obscure problems.
No, I think government regulation for software should remain restricted to critical, life-or-death systems like airplanes, nuclear power plant systems, hospital systems, etc; anything directly affecting the principles of government (e.g. voting systems); and of course any project directly initiated by government (but any organization should do this with outsourced work anyway).
Governments should be able to impose fines on, or make it easier for injured parties to sue, large commercial entities with shoddy quality. This would take care of those who developed the banking system you mentioned. Smaller outfits and non-commercial software should be immune, or have liability limited on some sliding scale, based on how many declared projects use it, how many actual users of the derived project use it, etc.
(Incidentally, if I'm not mistaken this would work out great for GPL projects--if a commercial project is not a registered, declared "user" of a GPL project, it reduces the GPL project's liability. If they then try suing for damages, they admit to using code without providing source as mandated by GPL.)
Even then there are practical and jurisdiction issues--e.g. if it's coded and hosted in a European country, how's the US government going to prevent its use in software other than their own? And at what point in a project is it considered "auditable?" Make it version 1, and it'll remain in beta forever.
Subjecting small organizations to the same rigour as large ones only prevents innovative startups from happening, and ensures that only the lumbering megacorps will survive. They're the ones who could afford all the lawyers, "quality" coders, and necessary kickbacks. The last thing we need is for the software world to be turned into the fiasco that is the telecom industry; software patents are already making the software field a landmine.
The most audited, vetted software in the world is probably that which runs the space shuttle. Overall it's probably cost tens or hundreds of millions to program/audit, uses hardware components over ten years old (all of which underwent their own audits), and all told is probably small enough to fit on a 16 MB thumb drive.
There is no need to hold most software to the same degree of reliability. Does losing an hour's work because PowerPoint crash suck? Yes. Is it life-and-death? No (under normal circumstances). Is it worth having more government pork to audit Microsoft for security issues? No. And I despise Microsoft with a raging passion.
(Giving up my spent mod points to reply to this)
I agree, in principle.
From a practical POV though, who's to say this guy would even bother finding obscure (one hopes) security holes anyway, without the financial and other incentives offered by this contest?
Black hats are often funded by criminals. May as well offer a carrot to the White/gray hats so they don't get tempted by the dark side.
Microsoft didn't bother to program Windows to check the destination disk for sufficient space before it starts copying files over (Macs do, don't know about Linux). I wouldn't trust that programmers of flying cars to do preflight checks correctly and automatically.
Hell, just look at the millions spent on programming avionics software in airplanes, which are limited in variety, have the benefit of maintenance guys checking over things all the time, and on set schedules. Yet they still require manual pre-flight for many critical functions like "do we have enough fuel to get from A to B," still require a human pilot to handle unexpected situations, and despite it all, there are still bugs that have caused crashes.
Now try that with mass-market, affordable flying cars, where many drivers today can't be bothered to even service the engine or change their brakes. Then we'll get the jerks who, in absence of licenses to fly cars, will hack their cars to give them manual control anyway.
Given all that, I think I'd prefer cars remain grounded.
Indeed; barring a medical condition, if they can afford all that extra food, they can certainly afford the extra seat it takes to accommodate them.
And before anyone makes a smartass remark about luggage not fitting on a bathroom scale, step on it yourself without a piece of luggage in hand, then with.
Of course, this requires basic math skills which many people can't be bothered with...
Agree 100%. I was on a flight home and our plane was not only an hour late getting to the gate for us to board (remembering they had to deplane and clean up after the previous passengers too), after we finally got out they stuck us at the end of the takeoff runway for a half hour because they had to double-check the cargo/luggage weight. This caused me to miss my connecting 12:15 a.m. connecting flight because the baggage handlers at the hub shut down right before midnight.
The bastard at the connecting baggage carousel directed us to head out and check back in, fully knowing that if *his* carousel was closed, the ones *outside* the secure area would be too. This neatly prevented us from going back in and reaming his sorry ass and forcing us to spend the night at the airport.
And no, the airline didn't give us hotel or food vouchers because it was "non-controllable"--i.e. it wasn't a maintenance problem. Well it sure as fuck wasn't weather! Some clown messed up to make them double-check the weight, that's human error. I don't care where in the chain it was, I paid the airline, I'm their customer. They compensate me first, and then they can lean on those responsible for wasting their money.
In retrospect I should've just left the luggage at the connecting baggage carousel, boarded my flight, and filed a missing baggage claim at my destination. THAT definitely costs them time and money, and I didn't have anything especially valuable in their anyway.
FYI, Canada signed WIPO, but has not yet ratified it. And considering how the US routinely ignores rulings against it by WTO and NAFTA (both of which I believe have been ratified by the US), I'm more than happy that Canada is dragging their heels on the issue.
Any normal person with half a brain can look at the US' DMCA and see it's a very bad idea.
The softwood lumber dispute showed just how fucking hypocritical the US government is in world trade matters. Almost all WTO and NAFTA rulings went against the US position and told them to pay back the billions they've stolen from Canadian lumber companies in the form of tariffs. The US refused, refused, refused, and eventually the incoming Conservative government fell into line and kissed the Bush administration's ass.
If the US gets to flip the bird at treaty obligations that it ratified (which are usually weighted in the US' favour already), Canada has no obligation to follow the letter of the WIPO treaty which it signed but not yet ratified, especially when the WIPO is so out of whack with reality.
Canada is in fact one of the last western countries to stand up (even if by inaction) against the special interest groups that want to destroy human culture by locking it up for insane copyright times.
When the US starts respecting international trade laws and treaties, then I might start thinking we should do the same for matters concerning US interests.
Not true. They advise not using locks, and warn that they will break them if necessary to search baggage.
However, TSA's own website talks about TSA-approved locks which they have master keys to. Some even come with indicators that (supposedly) show if a master key was used instead of your own key/combination, since they can't be trusted to leave a Notice of Inspection like they're supposed to, that tells you your bag was opened and searched.
I have these locks and had no problem flying to and from Orlando a few months ago.
Mac OSX's Mail does this and better. It seems to be ordered by some combination of "most used" and "most recently used" and doesn't necessarily even group entries for the same person (but different emails) together.
Westerners often eat cooked rice which is drier and doesn't stick by itself, so some type of sauce is usually added to make it stick together better on a fork.
Traditional Japanese (also Chinese and probably other *ese) traditionally eat rice which is moist and sticky by default, obviating any need to douse it with soy or other sauce. Sauce from the various dishes is acceptable.
Rice was not meant to be eaten in isolation, but that's exactly what happens when you put it onto a plate...
Taxes are on a sliding scale, no? Candidates would pay nothing if their campaign spending is below a certain limit, while those that spend millions get hit. The thinking being that if they're already spending that much money trying to convince us to elect them, they must have a vested interest in making sure their vote counts are accurate.
Of course, this'll never happen because those who actually hold power (or have a shot at getting it) would never do anything to take money away from themselves.
Further, given the metric crapload of money candidates already spend/waste on campaigning, you'd think there would be a system in place to skim off a percentage towards recounts. Election insurance, as it were.
Why the hell not? You're voting to give these clowns the right to skim money off *your* income for their pork barrel projects...
What's wrong with hibernating your workstation instead of shutting it down? Same effect--everything is powered down, unlike standby where contents remain in RAM.
I don't much myself, but on my last trip I flew 4 different planes, all Air Canada, all economy seats. Two were regional (connect to Canadian hub) and the others to/from Florida.
All four not only had personal entertainment systems, but also seat-back AC outlets that would take any North American- or Australian-type plugs. Hell, it even had a USB port for iPod and other connection cables, and these were all flights lasting less than 3 hours!
If all airlines followed this trend there wouldn't be any need to buy plane adapters, and the argument for spare batteries for lengthy flights would be rendered entirely null and void.
You can, actually. They just recommend you don't, since regular locks they'll cut away if they want to inspect your bag.
However, TSA's own site describes TSA-approved locks that you can buy, which open with a "master" key or combination.
The set of TSA-approved locks I got even has a green/red status port. If the TSA has opened it using a master key, it goes red. The TSA is *supposed* to leave a Notice of Inspection if they've opened your bags for inspection, but my brother didn't get one last year and they *definitely* went through his checked bag.
There's a critical difference with your capital punishment comparison.
China has executed some people fairly high up the food chain, like their FDA chief, or a bank official. These are not your regular, fairly anonymous people like those executed in US states, but are among the small, wealthy minority of people who wielded significant influence and power.
Slashdotters are always complaining about how laws never get passed that touch the wealthy in western countries, or they skip out of the country and retire in the Carribean, or how they always get cushy sentences. While there's still a lot wrong with the Chinese government, backing up your anti-corruption campaign by executing high-profile officials says to everyone that money and power are not enough to shield you from your crimes, and goes a long way to curbing such behaviour.
Since traffic lights are overseen by either municipal or provincial governments, the traffic laws must allow for it somewhere. IIRC flashing greens are specifically described in Ontario's official driver's handbook, which is pretty much required reading prior to taking the driver's licence written test.
Adding a light box in a busy intersection is probably a lot pricier than a reprogramming; you have to do it during an off-peak time, possibly requiring overtime pay for the contractors, etc.
I don't know that my scenario is actually why an intersection has flashing greens; it's just an explanation I find plausible.
I live in Ontario. Most dedicated turn lanes usually have the green arrow, but I imagine flashing greens are used when the intersection wasn't expected to have a large number of left-turn traffic versus oncoming traffic.
So, after many complaints (e.g. having to wait several cycles before you're able to turn on a yellow), officials simply reprogram the lights to flash an advance green, rather than go through the time and expense of adding a green arrow block to the traffic lights (which requires reprogramming too).
a) Thank you so much, Conservative Prime Minister Harper, for being in Mr. Bush's pocket
b) good for the Canadian border agents, for at least letting the women know why they were being detained and questioned. This way they were able to take this nonsense to the press and at least try effecting change in this policy.
Sulking would be an improvement over the jackass-edness seen in recent Christmas ads by West 49.
As a Canadian citizen, I hope we don't give that citizenship back, and further, that he's never let back into Canada. He made such a fuss over it, in order to accept a British lordship, that to give it back would give the message (well, reinforce, really) that if you have enough money and influence, it doesn't matter what you did you can still get your way. Even if you're a convicted criminal.
I have no desire to see him sit in a Canadian jail, taking up my tax money. He made his bed, he can lie in it.
There's a big downside to FSEvents' "folder changes only" model.
;-)
If you move a file or folder to another folder, or even just rename it, it will copy to backup rather than hardlinking to the previous location/name (I verified this using "ls -la" in Terminal and checking the hardlink counts). Best to avoid constantly renaming your video files
Now, I can see why this happens: although every file has a unique ID that doesn't change when you move it (this is why aliases will find their targets as long as it's on the same drive), FSEvents isn't logging these for TM to pick up. So, TM knows the folder contents changed somehow, does a folder diff, and copies to backup anything "new," and stops hard-linking any file that's been "removed" from that folder.
Hopefully FSEvents and TM will be updated somehow to handle moves and renames, but I suppose they've evaluated the performance tradeoffs already.